Think Kerry is not involved in this fight? Think again.
The Moderate Independent: Betsy R. Vasquez: ‘What if John Kerry were to do both, concede publicly but, at the same time, look into every instance of mischief, and see if in fact the election was fair or fixed.’ [→ READ ]
I find this absolutely fascinating, an astonishing example of thinking outside the box. Might be true, might be wishful thinking, but whatever it is, it’s classy.
When Senator John Kerry (D-MA) talked about how his policy would be different in Iraq, he kept saying, in effect, ‘It’s the how, stupid.’ He said repeatedly he would fight a “smarter” war.
Flash forward to today. Following the election, there was a problem apparent. The exit polling didn’t match the ballot count, and many reasons for that began to become apparent.
John Kerry was faced with three options. One, fight on publicly rather than conceding and put the nation into a media frenzied limbo. Two, concede and go on with his life, turning his back on his promise to his supporters to ensure that “every vote will be counted.”
Most people are assuming that John Kerry opted for the second of these while John Edwards, his running mate, opted for the first, and since Kerry was the big dog, he won out. But people who think this are thinking in Bush terms, all or nothing, either you are for the war or against it, that either Senator Kerry was for recounting the votes or he was against it.
The reality is, John Kerry has chosen a third, much smarter course — just as he said he would all along. …
True or not, I find this believable because it’s what I expect of John and John, the bright and fundamentally decent choices in this election.
[via Baldwiny]
![[Creative Commons logo]](/images/ccLogo.gif){kind=small}