With all mainstream media eyes firmly focused on Trump's 'destruction of democracy' by declining to accept the election results no questions asked during last night's debate, we thought a quick history lesson might help jog the liberal media bias' memory.
[Source: Grabien] Al Gore in 2000, speaking from the White House the week after having lost the general election, explains why he refused to concede the race:
“The effort that I have underway is simply to make sure that all of the votes are counted, and when the issues that are now being considered in the Florida Supreme Court are decided, that will be an important point. But I don't want to speculate what the court will do.”
Even after facing a number of lower court losses, Gore said he remained optimistic.
“I don't really feel” the odds are stacked against me, he said, despite admitting feeling like an “underdog.”
Gore said that his voters were not given sufficient access to voting sites. Speaking of black voters specifically, Gore said he was in regular contact with Jessie Jackson and Julian Bond to discuss voter suppression.
“I am very troubled by a lot of the stories that have been reported,” about blacks being discouraged from voting, Gore said. “Whenever you have allegations of those kind, that is a matter the entire country ought to take seriously.”
Wow! Shocker?!! Al Gore questions US democracy?
But that was not all…As DailyCaller's Blake Neff reports, a profile of Secretary of State John Kerry published Sunday in The New Yorker reveals that, 11 years after his election loss to George W. Bush in 2004, Kerry still believes he was robbed via systematic fraud.
The article itself, written by David Remnick, focuses mostly on Kerry’s efforts to achieve peace and democracy in the Middle East, but it also dwells extensively on his presidential defeat more than a decade ago.
“In 2004, when Kerry lost the Presidential race to George W. Bush, who is widely considered the worst President of the modern era, he refused to challenge the results, despite his suspicion that in certain states, particularly Ohio, where the Electoral College count hinged, proxies for Bush had rigged many voting machines,” Remnick writes.
Mike Barnicle, a former Boston Globe columnist and Kerry friend, adds fuel to the narrative.
For a long period, after 2004, every time he even half fell asleep all he saw was voting machines in the state of Ohio,” Barnicle says in the article.
Kerry apparently doesn’t just believe the 2004 election was a sham; Remnick also describes him using the supposedly stolen election as a tool for diplomacy. He describes the Afghan election of 2014, where Ashraf Ghani defeated Abdullah Abdullah in a contest marked by significant fraud allegations. Remnick says Kerry called up Abdullah and had to urge him to swallow his anger, concede the race and agree to collaborate with Ghani’s government.
After flattering Abdullah for his strength and importance in the country, Kerry said, “I will share with you a very personal experience: When I ran for President of the United States, in 2004, against George Bush, in the end, on Election Day, we had problems in the state of Ohio on how the votes were taking place. I even went to court in America to keep polling places open to make sure my people could vote. I knew that even in my country, the United States, where we had hundreds of years of practicing democracy, we still had problems carrying out that election. The next afternoon, I had a meeting with my people, and I told them that I did not think it appropriate of me to take the country through three or four months of not knowing who the President was. So that afternoon in Boston I conceded to the President and talked about the need to bring the country together. . . . One of the main lessons from this is there is a future. There is a tomorrow.”
Several days later, Abdullah Abdullah conceded and joined the Afghan government.
Theories that the Bush administration rigged the 2004 election are widespread on the Internet, with Robert Kennedy Jr. among the most notable figures to promote this view. Elements of the conspiracy include purging Democratic voters from the rolls, engineering long lines at Democratic precincts, and even deliberately rigging computerized vote machines to take votes from Kerry and give them to Bush. Theories mostly focus on the state of Ohio, which would have won Kerry the presidency had he cobbled together 120,000 additional votes.
But the supposed evidence of Bush’s theft is full of holes, and rigorous investigations of the evidence have found no evidence of systematic fraud, relegating these theories firmly in the realm of the conspiratorial. Evidently, though, it’s a conspiracy the Secretary of State at least partially buys into.
* * *
It appears one man's “voter suppression” or “systematic fraud” is another man's “rigged” election. Of course if the latter is a Republican named Trump then it is a challenge to the very heart of the constitution. If it is a Democrat, it appears to be free speech protected?
* * *
It is completely irresponsible to argue that a president who reaches 270 electoral votes is not “elected” and legitimate, right, Hillary Clinton? Only a shameless partisan with no concern for democracy or our system of government would insist that president is not elected, long after he’s taken the oath of office. Trump is insanely irresponsible to suggest that this election may be rigged and the outcome fraudulent. Why, who on earth would ever make such a charge?
At a private fund-raiser in Los Angeles for Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan of Missouri, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told the crowd that President Bush merely had been “selected” president, not elected, Newsweek reports in the current issue.
Oh. That’s from October 2002… so it doesn't count?