Kerry Recount Strategy Different From Gore's
- 10-20-2004, 07:06 PM
Kerry Recount Strategy Different From Gore's
Doesn't this make you smile? In all honesty, ignoring one's political leanings, do you believe this is proper?
Kerry Recount Strategy Different From Gore's
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Kerry to Fla. Dems: Every Vote Will Be Counted
WASHINGTON — Sen. John Kerry (search) has a simple strategy if the presidential race is in doubt on Nov. 3, the day after the election: Do not repeat Al Gore's (search) mistakes.
Unlike the former vice president, who lost a recount fight and the 2000 election, Kerry will be quick to declare victory on election night and begin defending it. He also will be prepared to name a national security team before knowing whether he's secured the presidency.
"The first thing we will do is make sure everybody has an opportunity to vote and every vote is counted," said Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter (search). "We will be ready to hit the ground running and begin a fresh start in this country, given that so many critical issues are before us."
The prospects for another contested election grow with every poll showing the race neck and neck.
Gore prematurely conceded the 2000 race to George W. Bush (search), then had to retract his concession after aides said Florida wasn't lost. He never declared victory, an omission Kerry's advisers — many of whom worked for Gore — now believe created a sense of inevitability in voters' minds about Bush's presidency.
Gore didn't plan for the legal showdown, though few could have predicted it before Election Day. And he watched as Bush seized political advantage during the 36-day recount by publicly discussing a transition to the White House.
Not this time, promise Kerry's advisers. If there is doubt about the results, they will fight without delay.
Six so-called "SWAT teams" of lawyers and political operatives will be situated around the country with fueled-up jets awaiting Kerry's orders to speed to a battleground state. The teams have been told to be ready to fly on the evening of the election to begin mounting legal and political fights. No team will be more than an hour from a battleground.
The Kerry campaign has office space in every battleground state, with plans so detailed they include the number of staplers and coffee machines needed to mount legal challenges.
"Right now, we have 10,000 lawyers out in the battleground states on Election Day, and that number is growing by the day," said Michael Whouley, a Kerry confidant who is running election operations at the Democratic National Committee.
While the lawyers litigate, political operatives will try to shape public perception. Their goal would be to persuade voters that Kerry has the best claim to the presidency and that Republicans are trying to steal it.
Democrats are already laying the public relations groundwork by pointing to every possible voting irregularity before the Nov. 2 election and accusing Republicans of wrongdoing.
On Election Day, Whouley will head the so-called "boiler room," probably in Washington, that tracks vote counts and ensures Kerry doesn't concede too soon. Whouley was the aide who, after noticing Florida was too close to call in 2000, called Gore's team in Tennessee and told them to put the brakes on the concession speech.
Campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill will be with Kerry in Boston, where they will field Whouley's calls.
Jim Johnson, who headed Kerry's vice presidential search team, former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman and longtime Kerry aide David McKean lead the team planning Kerry's transition to the White House.
Aides say the transition process is behind schedule, but Kerry will be ready to name a national security team shortly after the election. They say he has candidates in mind, but is reluctant to discuss the transition while campaigning.
The advisers spoke on condition of anonymity because Kerry wants the focus to be on his campaign for now.
The plan to quickly name a national security team is partly practical (at a time of war, continuity is necessary) and political, aides said, because if there is another recount Kerry will want to show he's ready to take power.
Amid the tumult of the 2000 recount, Bush sought to make his presidency appear as a matter of time by leaking word of his national security team and bringing news cameras into his transition meetings. Gore and his staff were more reluctant to talk about the appointment process.
Kerry's advisers say Bush would have a natural political advantage in a recount in this election because he is the president, with a national security team in place and a public relations spotlight that comes with the White House.
- 10-20-2004, 08:39 PM
Originally Posted by size
what's your beef with this exactly? do you think bush should concede defeat right away if the first vote count in florida favors kerry by some 100 votes say - and there's some suspicions about voting irregularities to boot?
10-21-2004, 12:30 AM
No, nor would I expect Bush to declare victory when the winner is unclear. I'd expect them both to do the right thing and shut their mouths until a winner is declared.Originally Posted by Number 5
10-21-2004, 12:39 AM
I think it's funny their putting so much time into making sure they can cheat the election if it's close enough. All this voter fraud crap, etc is starting to make me sick
Honestly, any educated person knows that there is no basis behind the Florida accusations. LOL, conclusions actually stated that the voter mishaps favored gore in that whites were disenfranchised at 2x the rate of blacks! Everytime they bring up this issue I hate them more and more. 10,000 lawyers waiting to steal an election if it doesn't go their way doesn't make me happy either.
10-21-2004, 01:19 AM
One thing I never understood in relation to all this is what ****ing moron can't fill out a ballot properly and/or punch all the way through a ****ing piece of paper? People in foreign countries must have thought there was some kind of ethnic cleansing going on here with all the talk of "hanging chads" last election. Bottom line, if you can't vote properly, don't vote and save everyone the trouble. If you can't speak the language and so don't know who you're voting for, learn ****ing English. If you're some befuddled geezer who can't figure out a butterfly ballot, stay the **** home. Or if you're in Florida do what geezers there do and run down pedestrians with your car. There's a procedure to voting, has been for a long time, and just because in a close election this make every vote that's lost because some ****ing idiot couldn't figure that procedure out count even more, that doesn't make it disenfranchisement.
I remember someone here made a comment about some kind of testing for the right to vote. It technically already exists, in that you have to have at least enough intelligence to figure out where to go and fill out a scantron sheet or punch a hole through a piece of paper or, God forbid, pull a lever on a machine! And you have to know who you're going to vote for and how to spell their name. Every God damn attempt is made to accomodate everyone, like people with disabilities, etc. I don't think that's asking much at all, and if someone can't do that then **** them. They're so disgustingly stupid and/or disconnected from what's going on in this country that their vote should not count anyway.
10-21-2004, 01:49 AM
Number5......obviously you and I read this article but see different aspects. I see the article as a representation that action will be taken basically in any scenario that is not to ones liking. I imagine that the Bush team has a similiar plan set up also, but they have not openly discussed it to my knowledge.
My intent was not to attack the particular candidate, but rather inquire about these actions/procedures. It appears(to me) that such actions will actually encourage more problems rather than solve problems.
Voting seems rather simple to me almost binary. Yes or No or Unknown can be the only results where unknown should not be interpretted but rather removed from the process. However, if you give individuals more oppurtunites to examine or recount votes, the chance for additonal corruption increases.
10-21-2004, 08:51 AM
i think a lot of people felt betrayed by al gore because he declared defeat right away and did not fight harder for the recount. i think kerry and the democrats want to signal to these people that they will fight for every vote. it probably appeals to their base and is likely to increase turnout.Originally Posted by size
10-21-2004, 10:12 AM
It depends on how you look the problem IMO. If one is to believe in the utopian fantasy that neither candidate would declare victory if the winner seemed unclear.... well we know that is simply not going to happen, so being prepared is a fact of the game. After the last election I'm doubting Bush will not claim victory, and it makes sense for both of them to do so (claim victory). Until we can get the election system in a better palce with more stringent standards and less variables, then I see this as an inevitability.
I'm hardly an expert in voting systems, but it would seem to me that in a federal election there should be federally enforced guidelines on the mechanisms of voting, so the votes in Utah are executed and couted the same way as in Alabama or any other state. Of course there are other elections taking place at various levels (state, local, etc) but it would seem that for a federal vote things need to be more standardized. Maybe I'm crazy.
Similar Forum Threads
- By FrankJ in forum AnabolicsReplies: 2Last Post: 04-02-2009, 10:12 PM
- By pdigs in forum AnabolicsReplies: 0Last Post: 05-02-2008, 07:03 PM
- By hardlyworkin in forum Training ForumReplies: 63Last Post: 02-19-2006, 05:25 PM