So CNN was reporting 6 million uncounted votes when Kerry conceded ( http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1108-04.htm)? So Ohio still has more than enough uncounted provisional ballots, "spoiled" ballots, and questionable results to swing the outcome there ( http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=392&row=1)? So numerous small, majority Democrat counties in Florida underwent huge, anomalous vote swings in favor of George Bush ( http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1106-30.htm)?
Well, so what?
At this point, the only value of repeating these observations is in convincing, nay, beating it into the heads of millions of well-meaning people who mistakenly put their hopes in Kerry, that this was a BAD decision. Because thousands of us who have followed the Diebold debacle and other Republican shenanigans have been warning of the high probability of foul play in these elections. Because you can't stop election fraud if your candidate concedes without a fight.
The point here is that it really wasn't up to Kerry to decide whether to fight or not. But Kerry has gone right ahead and made the same mistake that Al Gore eventually did: he has fundamentally misunderstood the purpose of elections. Gore's and Kerry's votes weren't theirs to give away to their opponents for the sake of "unity," or "personal credibility," "looking good in the media," etc. Those votes were the votes of citizens expressing their sovereign democratic rights. The decision to fight for the integrity of those votes should rest with those who cast them. Kerry (and Gore) should have consulted their own constituents on the best path forward. If it was to capitulate, then so be it. But if those constituents didn't trust the process, and wanted to fight, if only to lay down a line in the sand and set the tone for continued opposition to the ongoing corruption and barbarities of the Bush regime, then so be it.
Instead, Gore (and now Kerry) set the tone of capitulation from the beginning. And capitulation it has continued to be from the Democratic aisle. Every major policy, blunder, and outrage committed by the Bush regime for the past four years, starting with the appointment of ultraright extremists the likes of Ashcroft to every office of the executive branch, continuing on to unprecedented war crimes and strocities, has faced but token opposition if not cheerful support from the Democrats in Congress. Can the standard bearer of the "opposition" party really be absolved of responsibility for this grotesque abdication, after deliberately flubbing his first significant opportunity for opposition?
However, the purpose of this little rant is not so much to dredge up history as to look forward and ask what people now expect of the Democrats, given their previous performance? Can anyone doubt based on this history that Kerry's early concession heralds the continued and accelerated capitulation of the Democrats on every front? Can anyone who voted for the Democratic standard bearer this time around now say in good faith that they have any reasonable expectation of the Democrats representing their interests any better henceforth?
It's time for anyone who is opposed to the Bush regime and its outrages to fully realize and acknowledge that any hopes for stemming the tide of these outrages rests, not with the Democratic party or any of its officeholders, but only with a massive surge of opposition from the grassroots. That means marching on the streets, yes, but it also means occupying government buildings, blocking munitions shipments, and generally escalating every form of civil disobedience to the insanity of George Bush and his Democratic and Republican lapdogs.