Does Kerry Want A Recount?

Betsy R. Vasquez at The Moderate Independent thinks John Kerry is quietly working the vote fraud issue:

"John Kerry realized that to launch a public campaign calling the vote into question would be disastrous...

As Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, who has been about the only mainstream journalist to actually follow up on the many serious problems with regard to the integrity of the election, has pointed out, a concession speech, in effect, means nothing. It is not legally binding.

So, if you were thinking like a Bush goon, you would expect that either Kerry would stand up to the mischief that went on, not conceding in the meantime, and so your booby trap would work perfectly, or that he would just give up and let it go, as wimpy Democrats are prone to do.

But John Kerry chose a smarter course. Ask yourself the question, 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.

This would be a no lose situation for him. The booby trap set up for him would become irrelevant, as he would have done the right thing for the nation, not putting it into turmoil while its troops are in battle.

But at the same time, he is still just as free to look into any voting irregularities as he would have been had he not conceded. Even better, he could do it without the press going insane and the nation being kept on tension-creating edge. All of the lawyers he could have sent to look into things still could be sent to look into things, and if the election is truly called into question, he could then, with ample justification so as to make it legitimate, come out publicly and retract his concession..."

Vasquez quotes a letter from Kerry's brother soliciting information on voting irregulaties. She also thinks Nader's call for a recount is part of a co-ordinated strategy:

It is tactically brilliant. In New Hampshire, any candidate can call for a recount as long as he offers to pay for it. And that cost in this small state is only $2,000 dollars. So Nader is choosing to challenge the results there, but only to make the case that, if there turns out to be a problem with the machines there, the votes must be challenged everywhere.

Vasquez also reprints this disturbing letter:

Subject: Basic report from Columbus

I worked for 3 days, including Election Day, on the statewide voter
protection hotline run by the Ohio Democratic Party in Columbus,
Ohio. I am writing this because the media is inexplicably
whitewashing what happened in Ohio, and Kerry's concession was
likewise inexplicable.

Hundreds of thousands of people were disenfranchised in Ohio. People
waited on line for as long as 10 hours. It appears to have only
happened in Democratic-leaning precincts, principally (a) precincts
where many African Americans lived, and (b) precincts near colleges.

I spoke to a young man who got on line at 11:30 am and voted at 7
pm. When he left at 7 pm, the line was about 150 voters longer than when
he'd arrived, which meant those people were going to wait even
longer. In fact they waited for as much as 10 hours, and their
voting was concluded at about 3 am. The reason this occurred was
that they had 1 voting station per 1000 voters, while the adjacent
precinct had 1 voting station per 184. Both precincts were within
the same county, and managed by the same county board of elections.
The difference between them is that the privileged polling place was
in a rural, solidly republican, area, while the one with long lines
was in the college town of Gambier, OH. Lines of 4 and 5 hours were
the order of the day in many African- American neighborhoods.

Touch screen voting machines in Youngstown OH were
registering "George W. Bush" when people pressed "John F. Kerry" ALL
DAY LONG. This was reported immediately after the polls opened, and
reported over and over again throughout the day, and yet the bogus
machines were inexplicably kept in use THROUGHOUT THE DAY.

Countless other frauds occurred, such as postcards advising people
of incorrect polling places, registered Democrats not receiving
absentee ballots, duly registered young voters being forced to file
provisional ballots even though their names and signatures appeared
in the voting rolls, longtime active voting registered voters being
told they weren't registered, bad faith challenges by
Republican "challengers" in Democratic precincts, and on and on and
on.

I was very proud of the way so many Ohioans fought so valiantly for
their right to vote, and would not be turned away. Many, however,
could not spend the entire day and were afraid of losing their jobs,
due to the severe economic depression hitting Ohio.

I do not understand why Kerry conceded and did not fight to ensure
that all Ohioans would have a chance to vote, and for their vote to
be counted.

Has Kerry really given up? Or he playing it smart and biding his time? Talk about reverse conspiracy theories!