Slashdot Mirror
Kerry Concedes Election To Bush
WilliamGeorge points to this MSNBC story "that presidential candidate John Kerry has called George W Bush to concede the election. So it is over, and without a lot of extra fuss and recounts."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Technically, an election isn't over until the electoral college meets on December 13, 2004 (the Monday after the second Wednesday in December). At which point the electors are not bound to the results of their state as to who to cast their vote towards. Even if Bush won 100% of the popular vote, and Kerry conceeded 1 minute after the first precinct closed, Kerry could still be elected president. Or Nader for that matter.
"Bush got more votes than any American in history."
So I guess that means that Kerry got the second most votes than any American in history.
-m
I know that in my case, I'm no "whiny left winger". In fact, this is the first time I've ever voted democrat in my life. There are a few things that bother me about this election. First of all, when we had 9/11, for just a moment, not only was our entire country unified, but we also had the support of our allies as well. As it turns out, in his campaign the first time, Bush had promised to be "a uniter, not a divider", which was what convinced me that he'd be okay to vote for. I confess though that I should have known better than the whole "compassionate conservitive" nonsense. So, he's completely failed in every campaign promise he's made. I don't even blame him for the collapse of the economy, although I don't support the way he's handled it either. The other thing that bothers me is that we've now completely lost anything resembling a balance of power in this country. Finally, as far as the allies go, it doesn't bother me that we've done what we've done, rather I'm bothered by the way we've been ass-holes to the rest of the world and I'm bothered by the inablility of both Bush and apparently the "Americans" who voted for him to admit their mistakes. So, as someone who voted for Bush the first time, I will tell you that I never even considered voting for him in '04, no matter who the Democrats put up and I'm extreamily depressed by the lack of any balance of power in this country and I'm certainly not in favor of the idea of what apparently is an even smaller percentage (land-wise) of the country running the rest of the world. I think the northeast should just secede from the rest of the union.
--- Don't ever trust a woman until she's dead- B.B. King
you might want to consider a slightly broader historical context.
the Mexicans, and the American indians would disagree that "never in our history" has the US been in the mood for domination....
Alot of comments here seem to suggest that since Bush cannot be re-elected, he is now free to do anything he wants without regard for the public opinion. These comments miss a few very important points.
The Bush administration has a large interest in keeping public approval. Not so much Bush himself, but the neocons arounds him - ie Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Paul Bremer and Lewis Libby to name a few.
The neocons have had key positions in every republican administration since the mid-70s, including under Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bush senior and now Bush junior. They are an ideological group based in part on the philosophy of Leo Strauss, whose stated goals are to spread democracy around the world, by force, preserving Pax Americana and expanding the american economic and cultural empire.
To acheieve this goal, an organization named The Project for a New American Century was founded by William Kristol in 1997. Its members include all of the neocons listed above, and its basic principles are, according to its website:
The neoconservatives have had complete control of the US foreign policy in the Bush administration. The Bush doctrine is based on a document written by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992, called the Defense Planning Guidance. At the time, under Bush senior, the document was regarded as too radical and key propositions in it was rejected (including unilateralism and the use of preemtive strikes). These radical propositions now form the core of US foreign policy.
In addition, the PNAC released a report in 2000 called Rebuilding Americas Defenses (PDF download here), which outlines the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and installation of a US base in Iraq to secure the oil for geostrategic purposes after peak-oil (just consider the control it would give them over China, when they can control a large portion of their energy supplies), and to attempt to spread democracy in the region. According to the document, this would only be possible after, and I quote, a "catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor".
Now, this little project of theirs is quite ambitious, and will take a long time, so the neocons have great interest in keeping a republican presidency (puppet or not), so they stay in control of foreign policy. They attempted to persuade Clinton to attack Iraq, but without any success, so now that they are in power they won't give it up easily. Luckily for them, the american public seems more than happy to go along.
The American people voted for a president that presided over an economy that produced a record current account deficit, a record trade deficit, a record budget deficit and a national debt of such proportions that the IMF says they threaten the world economy.
Who ever said all that Americans ever care about is money?
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack