January 18, 2005
I JUST KNOW THERE MUST HAVE BEEN MORE VOTES FOR ME:
Kerry alleges voters were 'suppressed' (Scott S. Greenberger, January 18, 2005, Boston Globe)
In his first high-profile address since conceding the presidential election, Senator John F. Kerry used Boston's annual Martin Luther King Jr. memorial breakfast yesterday to decry what he called the suppression of thousands of would-be voters last November."Thousands of people were suppressed in their efforts to vote."
They weren't suppressed; they were depressed by the nominee they were offered. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 18, 2005 11:49 AM
This is yet another good reason why he should not be President:
If he really thinks "thousands" were "supressed," why didn't he show up in the Senate and say something?
Posted by: Kevin Colwell at January 18, 2005 12:59 PM
As goofy and wooden as Al Gore can be, it's impossible to even imagine John Kerry coming up with a manic sidewinder of a speech like the ones Gore has given the past few years on Bush's illegitamacy to fire up the base. In Kerry's case, he just wants to throw stuff like this out there and hope that others will be the firebrands on the disenfranchisment allegations (and of course, keep Kerry's name in the spotlight for 2008) while he returns to his normal Senate inactivity.
Posted by: John at January 18, 2005 1:06 PMI would not want my epitaph to be, "Not as gracious as Al Gore."
Posted by: David Cohen at January 18, 2005 1:07 PMKevin,
As the article states: "But he also said his legal team had found no evidence that would alter the outcome." In other words, thousands were "surpressed" in his opinion, but he lost by tens of thousands, so it didn't matter in this case.
Posted by: Bret at January 18, 2005 2:34 PMThe Billionaress will dump him during the next year. He will show up at less than 50% of the Senate meetings. He is on his way to being a trivia question.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 18, 2005 6:30 PMSo why did they have to suppress the votes if they were already depressed by me being me? why did President Nixon go along with covering up a burglery at the campaign headquarters of a campaign already doomed to defeat? It's lunacy, that's why. That's why we must investigate these incidents and why we will continue to press on until every vote is counted and every allegation of irregularity is examined.
Posted by: AlmostPresident Kerry at January 18, 2005 11:42 PMOTOH, Kerry seems to have inspired lots of 'new' voters in WI (Milwaukee, specifically) - such that he took full advantage (and more) of the register on Election Day rules. Apparently about 25% of his vote in Milwaukee registered on Nov. 2. So he won WI by about 11,500 votes.
Will Barbara Boxer call for investigations?
Perhaps Dan Rather could redeem himself with a full-scale report.
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 18, 2005 11:57 PMMeet me, noon tomorrow at the U.S. Capitol Building. Where's my Botox?
Posted by: AlmostPresident Kerry at January 19, 2005 5:05 AMI think that the thousands, err hundreds, err scores, err dozens, yah, many concerned citizens presnet at today's inaguration festivities demonstrates that some Americans are concerned about the way this election was carried off.
Posted by: AlmostPresident Kerry at January 20, 2005 3:54 PMThey wanted to go but officials in Democratic counties suppressed the turnout.
Posted by: oj at January 20, 2005 5:26 PM