04 November 2004

Historical revision watch

[source]

In calling the president, Mr. Kerry abandoned a threat to contest the election result in Ohio in deference to a decisive popular vote victory by a man who four years ago won the presidency with less than 50 percent of the popular vote. [emphasis added]

Adam Nagourney, writing in today’s New York Times.

Er, that’s not right Adam. Kerry, in his graceful concession speech, said as follows:

I would not give up this fight if there was a chance that we would prevail. But it is now clear that even when all the provisional ballots are counted, which they will be, there won’t be enough outstanding votes for us to be able to win Ohio. And therefore we cannot win this election. [emphasis added]

Kerry conceded because he could not win the electoral college—per his own admission and the bare-bones facts—not in “deference to a decisive popular vote victory” writ large.

But it’s what Nagourney meant for Kerry to say, so what’s the problem?

Posted by orbital at 1:24 PM | View 0 TrackBacks | Trackback URL

Brave, brave Sir Michael!

Via dave t in the comments at Junkyard Blog, we have the news the Michael Moore’s response to the election is to close his website. Yeah, gotta “clean up” the historical record before it’s used as gloating material.

Posted by orbital at 8:40 AM | View 0 TrackBacks | Trackback URL