General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How Karl Rove fixed the FBI investigation of his theft of the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio [View all]YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2013, 06:11 PM - Edit history (1)
...and IS fighting. Just not the way some people wanted him to.
Many people don't realize that most concessions...following an election...happen the same night. Gore, in 2000, conceded and then unconceded. That was right to do, but HIGHLY unusual. So was the recount, which IMHO should have been finished. I think the Supreme Court was wrong.
However, one of the strengths of our democracy is the way we transfer power peacefully...and I believe Al Gore considered that when he finally did concede. Elected, but not inaugurated.
As to John Kerry, I believe he is a man of integrity. Only he can say why he conceded the next day. BUT...my guess would be that he ALSO considered whether a fight against GWB would de-stabilize our democracy. I think it could have, even though I would have liked to see one. AND, he may not have had all the information needed to win such a fight. To the best of my memory, evidence was erased from hard drives that could have been critical to winning. And the courts were led by mostly GOP judges.