Posted on 11/08/2004 9:27:36 AM PST by bduet
NEW YORK— Here’s an interesting little sidebar of our system of government confirmed recently by the crack Countdown research staff: no Presidential candidate’s concession speech is legally binding. The only determinants of the outcome of election are the reports of the state returns boards and the vote of the Electoral College.
That’s right. Richard Nixon may have phoned John Kennedy in November, 1960, and congratulated him through clenched teeth. But if the FBI had burst into Kennedy headquarters in Chicago a week later and walked out with all the file cabinets and a bunch of employees with their raincoats drawn up over their heads, nothing Nixon had said would’ve prevented him, and not JFK, from taking the oath of office the following January.
This is mentioned because there is a small but blood-curdling set of news stories that right now exists somewhere between the world of investigative journalism, and the world of the Reynolds Wrap Hat. And while the group’s ultimate home remains unclear - so might our election of just a week ago.
Stories like these have filled the web since the tide turned against John Kerry late Tuesday night. But not until Friday did they begin to spill into the more conventional news media. That’s when the Cincinnati Enquirer reported that officials in Warren County, Ohio, had “locked down” its administration building to prevent anybody from observing the vote count there. (snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Thanks!
Is anyone watching this now on MSNBC?????
Keith is wild...he's talking about it now.
Now, tell me once again why I should give a hoot about what Keith Olbermann says or thinks?
He's hyperventilating and going nowhere fast.
Nice wig.
Thanks for my new tagline.
I don't watch this guy, because I just don't like him. But the channel was still on after ChrisM and whatever his panel was. I became fascinated at the way Olberman was almost pleading -- for ANYONE-- to say "yes! -- the election was rigged!" No one would, but he kept at it!! LOL! ---He got nowhere!
He is just a loud-mouthed smart aleck. Useful only as a tool for DU.
Olberman is a moron. He is basing his Florida fraud argument on the fact that there are counties with high Democrat voter registration percentages which voted overwhelmingly for President Bush. Of course, he fails to note that these counties are in rural North Florida and have voted GOP for years in presidential races including 1988 and 2000.
I sent the show an email suggesting that they look at past cross-over voting. I doubt that fits Olberman's agenda.
Alas, he used to be my favorite leftist mediateer. Now, I can't think of any I like.
No, I don't think so. If you'll plunk around some other threads here on FR that contain actual returns from places like Cuyahoga county (+217,000 Kerry), you'll see that a number of the precincts showed thousands more votes cast than there were voters on the rolls. The general feeling among many, and I think they may be right, is that Kerry conceded because he knows what an investigation would show, and that it could mean serious trouble for the Dems on fraud.
Just think back to his concession speech. It was firm and unequivocal. "We cannot win," he said. Now, prior to that, did he strike you as a gracious loser? Of course not. Here's a man who blames the Secret Service when he falls down. Makes excuses for why Bush's IQ is higher than his. He's the very antithesis of a gracious loser. So why the unambiguous concession? Because HE knows this needs to be over. I think that's the best explanation of what we saw, and I don't think this idiocy about GOP voter fraud will have traction. If there was anything to that, the MSM would have been all OVER it already.
MM
I think you supported me??? but did you think i questioned the Ohio vote?
I was not contesting the vote at all,
i meant to stress that at some time, set by law, counting (by then it is recounting and rabbit hunting) has no further legal meaning. The cutoff is on the legal certification day.
Then certification of electors is made, the electoral votes cast and counted, and a president sworn in.
Our law, in this case our constitution, makes no allowances for what vote count may reveal after certifying electors. This is good, we can't wait months for vote investigations, or remove sworn-in presidents on quarrels about chads.
The Supreme Court decision that ended the Florida mess in 2000 was really recognizing that there was no longer enough time to make another count and examination of all the Florida votes; especially with new guidlines about counting.
The majority opinions were couched in legal-speak about rights, etc. And many think it was rather poor legal-speak.
I suspect the court didn't really care about the merits of the legal-speak. That was just a tool.
They wanted to end it before Gore supporters rioted, demanded more time-extensions, and broke into counting stations to "prove" they won. Madness was in the air. Florida was that hot. People stood on street corners yelling "i saw them burn your ballots".
By the way, I don't blame Gore himself for anything. His supporters had been bested in every way for a month while constantly hearing that they were cheated. They were primed.
I don't think people are aware of the true dangers of this talk about voter fraud: Another Michael Moore Phone. ARRRRGHHHH!!!
This morning Imus said Olberman made Conyers sound reasonable (very difficult to do,IMHO) and they are all ridiculing Olberman.
I JUST missed that part...but I did hear the report with Kevin Sites(sp) in Fallujah he is such a good war reporter.
It was amazing listening to Keith trying to bait Conyers last night...Imus is right- for once- Conyers actually sounded fair compared to Olbermann.
I heard..I am anxious for more war news..
I could have watched Keith O on replay but he is one I just can't watch...I watched Chris M right after the election..yuk yuk.GLOAT
Olbermann is wrong (not surprisingly). All that matters is the vote of the Electoral College. When a president runs, he isn't actually running - a slate of electors expected to vote for the candidate (if he wins the popular vote) is whom is chosen to go to Washington to vote in the Electoral College.
Concession speeches do not matter but neither do wacky conspiracy theories. All that matters is who votes in the EC in December. As long as Bush demonstrates through the secretary of each state that he has more votes than any other candidate, his slate goes to Washington and represents that state's voters.
Remember Bob Beckel's gambit in 2000 of trying to "flip" Bush electors. Kerry could try to do the same thing. The concession is only a courtesy call to say that one's active campaign for the office has ended.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.