OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards

Full Version: Why Kerry Has Been So Quiet

OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Elections

BinaBecker

Monday, 15 November 2004, 10:20 pm

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm

QUOTE

When Senator John Kerry (D-MA) talked about how his policy would be different in Iraq, he kept saying, in effect, "It's the how, stupid." He said repeatedly he would fight a "smarter" war.

Flash forward to today. Following the election, there was a problem apparent. The exit polling didn't match the ballot count, and many reasons for that began to become apparent.

John Kerry was faced with three options. One, fight on publicly rather than conceding and put the nation into a media frenzied limbo. Two, concede and go on with his life, turning his back on his promise to his supporters to ensure that "every vote will be counted."

Most people are assuming that John Kerry opted for the second of these while John Edwards, his runningmate, opted for the first, and since Kerry was the big dog, he won out. But people who think this are thinking in Bush terms, all or nothing, either you are for the war or against it, that either Senator Kerry was for recounting the votes or he was against it.

The reality is, John Kerry has chosen a third, much smarter course -- just as he said he would all along.

John Kerry realized that to launch a public campaign calling the vote into question would be disastrous. In fact, he likely realized he would we walking right into a Bush-set booby trap.

In particular, during our election coverage we talked about the pending battle of Fallujah, about the timing of it being an election ploy, about how it was following in the constant Bush pattern of creating a media event to sway the election, as he did last time by making the run up to the Iraq invasion come to a head exactly on election week.

Well, the battle in Fallujah began hitting the media hard in the week before the election, right on cue. Of course it was billed as the solution, the battle that -- if you just keep Bush in office -- will wipe out those insurgents and solve the problems over there. This was yet another obvious use of our nation's troops by President Bush as if they were campaign volunteers rather than non-partisan volunteers to defend our nation.

But Fallujah, it turns out, seems to be even more than that. Fallujah, in effect, was the get away car for an election heist.

Following the fiasco in Florida in 2000, Gore was able to battle on for 30 days to try and get a fair accounting. All the while, the Bush camp claimed he should just stop and give up because his delaying of what they were saying was the inevitable end was threatening the nation's security and stability. They said the stock market was suffering, the nation was unstable, and so Gore should just give up and accept the result as is.

This time, John Kerry had made clear he was prepared to fight 100 times as hard and long as Gore did if necessary. In fact, he had solicited funds just for that eventuality so he could battle all over the nation if necessary to ensure that every vote was properly counted.

Enter Fallujah. As we know -- and saw on election night, as Bush's people began calling Networks and demanding they call Ohio for their camp -- the Bush team's strategy was to try and force all questions to be closed ASAP. Last time, they weren't prepared for that part. This time, they were.

Picture if John Kerry had chosen to call the election into question. Immediately, the Bush camp would talk about how 50,000 of our troops are just about to launch the biggest military operation since the invasion of Baghdad. And, just a couple of days after the election, it was launched.

You can imagine the arguments from the Bushies: "How could Senator Kerry undermine our security while our troops are in the midst of battle." Fallujah was to be the pressure point that would, if not stop Kerry from uncovering all the dirt and getting a fair election count, would at least tarnish his name with much of the nation and, as importantly, create something for the right-wing dominated media to hammer away at him on, making it seem as if he is only caring about himself and not the nation.

It was quite a well-crafted plan. Completely amoral, but smart.

Unfortunately for them, John Kerry was smarter.

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. It is the prosecutor, also one of Kerry?s previous jobs, who knows well enough to thoroughly prepare and investigate his case be leveling charges. You may have a real hunch that someone is responsible for a murder, but until you believe you can win that case in court, you do not make the allegation.

This is called fighting smart. And the Bushies, in the same way they failed to plan for the subtleties of doing battle in Iraq, haven?t even caught on yet that this is what is occurring, that they are, in fact, being outflanked and attacked after being tricked into looking the other way.

And just in case you don't quite believe John Kerry is on the case, and instead think he just turned out to be a wimp who didn't live up to his word, take a look at this letter from his brother, released privately to his supporters:

CAM KERRY'S LETTER

I am grateful to the many people who have contacted me to express their deep concern about questions of miscounting, fraud, vote suppression, and other problems on election day, especially in Florida and Ohio. Their concern reflects how much people care about the outcome of this election. I want to you to know we are not ignoring it. Election protection lawyers are still on the job in Ohio and Florida and in DC making sure all the votes are counted accurately. I have been conferring with lawyers involved and have made them aware of the information and concerns people have given me. Even if the facts don't provide a basis to change the outcome, the information will inform the continuing effort to protect the integrity of our elections. If you have specific factual information about voting problems that could be helpful to the lawyers doing their job, please send it to (e-mail removed for the story) rather than to me. The election protection effort has been important to me personally, and I am proud of the 17,000 lawyers around the country who helped. It's obvious that we have a way to go still, but their efforts helped make a difference. Their work goes on. Thank you, Cam Kerry

Notice that he chose to have his brother, who is not well-known to the public, sign the letter. As far as the public is concerned, John Kerry has conceded at that is that.

But now you know that that is not truly the case.

Make no mistake, he will never publicly call the election into question unless enough fraud turns out to truly challenge the end result. And so, in effect, he is not at this point contesting the election. But in reality, he is like the DA who says, "At this time we are not charging President Bush with anything." Evidence first. It is the best strategy for him personally, the best strategy politically, and the best strategy for the nation.

And now stepping in to help is the man who was supposed to be the spoiler, Ralph Nader. As the Washington Post reports (see article: Losing by 335,000 in N.H., Nader Demands a Recount), Nader is using New Hampshire as a staging ground to call the Diebold machine-recorded electronic votes into question.

Why is he doing it in New Hampshire, which Kerry won? Does this mean he is going after Kerry?

Not at all. 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.

As the WashPost reports, "We have received reports of irregularities in the vote reported on the AccuVote Diebold Machines in comparison to exit polls and trends in voting in New Hampshire," Nader wrote Secretary of State William M. Gardner. "These irregularities favor President George W. Bush by 5% to 15% over what was expected."

So you see clearly he is charging that the machines skewed in favor of President Bush. New Hampshire was just the easiest, smartest, and cheapest place to get a first crack at making the case, and so opening a Pandora's Box that will spread out across the nation.

So enjoy the non-Moderate Independent media's coverage of Fallujah and ignoring of the recount. But rest assured that people are on the case, and that Kerry is taking the fight to them -- in such a smart matter they don't even know what's hitting them. And remember, Watergate didn't break the week after the election. No one knew anything was even fishy, but in the end, the devil go his due.

And on another note, the non-M/I media should be given some credit. As one Washington Post reporter told me, you can bet they are looking into all of this. And, as you see with the above Washington Post story, when they get something concrete they are going to print.

But it is the new media -- the blogs -- that are powering this one as much as the mainstream media.

So rest assured, and feel free to help out in anyway you can. We are the eyes, ears, and analysts of our nation. Support Olbermann at MSNBC, and rest assured, Kerry is on the case.

And lest you not realize what exactly is going on, this today from Olbermann: "With news this morning that the computerized balloting in North Carolina is so thoroughly messed up that all state-wide voting may be thrown out and a second election day scheduled, the story continues."

And, even better, this from a first-hand witness's e-mail being circulated among Kerry supporters:

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 ( 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.

If he is an M/I reader, now he will know.

And now you know, too. Kerry is not caving after all--PASS IT ON!!!

'Bina.

LionTamerX

Monday, 15 November 2004, 11:01 pm

This is exactly what I have been trying to say...
Stay tuned folks.
There may be justice after all.
LTX

Rakshasa

Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 2:26 am

I really hope this isn't too good to be true. I don't consider ModerateIndependent a reliable news source, but when they say there are grumblings at MSNBC and the WashPost, as well as cite speeches, this says something. Even if Bush does come out a winner, if we can prove that these machines are illegitimate and work in his favor, we will come out the winners in the end.

Rev. Day-Bu

Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 5:12 am

I'm awaiting an apology from three people. I'll be deeply impressed and humbled if I receive a sincere and complete apology from even just one of them. It takes a very good-hearted, strong and mature human being to issue a sincere and uncompromised apology when it is warranted and deserved.

I really hope I'm impressed by all three of those people, whom I sincerely love and respect but who did wrong to me.

Pinko_Commie

Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 5:47 am

Can it be possible to overturn "conceding" to Bush? I hope so! I heard they are planning, or ARE recounting Ohio now?

Ohio Recount

Rev. Day-Bu

Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 5:57 am

QUOTE (Pinko_Commie @ Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 3:46 am)

Can it be possible to overturn "conceding" to Bush?

As the article points out, a concession by a candidate is in no way binding. And as for ensuring that the legal framework to permit the election results to be overturned (should recounts lead to a different result), there are some signifiant efforts underway to that end, as well. I know Randi Rhodes has been covering both the recount effort as well as the legal effort to ensure that the office changes hands if the results change. If you feel like listening to a really good show and getting well-informed (and pretty jazzed up), then check out Randi's show from last Thursday, Nov. 11th in her audio archives or the archives at the White Rose Society or Air America Place.

Pinko_Commie

Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 6:33 am

Aah, Thanks for the link Rev. I must admit I only had time for a quick skim read of that article. I`ll read it in full now! and listen to this show you linked too.

Cheers!

tamara

Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 8:56 am

QUOTE (Rev. Day-Bu @ Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 3:11 am)

if john kerry turns out to have actually engaged in this 'smart stategy,' i will openly admit that i was wrong about it.

i hope like hell that i was wrong about kerry- i will never have been so happy to be so wrong in my life!

-t-

i won't apologize to you- i did nothing wrong to you. i'm not in need of 'impressing' you, nor think anything in the world could 'humble' you.

you are not a victim here- don't know why you are in need of feeling sorry for yourself, but surely you could find a better reason.

Ronnie Jakers

Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 12:48 pm

Hell, I'll eat my hat and bina's collection of funky hats!

I'll breath easier... I won't have nightmares... I'll thank the greens, the idependents, the libertarians.... and yes even Kerry.. if this all turns out the way we are hoping...

However, the fact remains.. that they can look into voting fraud and bring a case... but only presidential candidates can call for a re-count... so eventually.. prior to Dec. 5 (I think) he will need to speak up........need to go public with a case... because in early Dec. the electoral votes will be certified. Or are his attorney's working with the green's, the independents, and the libbies? the other pres. candidates... and having them call for the recount?

So in effect we have three weeks to wait and see if Kerry will speak up and out...
And if he does get the white house... we have four years to see if he follows through...

A: Fire's halliburton
B: war crimes, crimes against humanity...

Well, we all know the list.

Perhaps my skeptisism comes from the corporate culture I have been in and hate... The need to know basis... we are really doing everything in your best interest... and then... oops pink slips all around.... while the CEO get's a huge package.

Perhaps that is why America is skeptical.... If and when Kerry does come out... he will need to do so with a speech that covers everything that he has done..... to help, lead, push this recount.

I understand the need to hide, seek, and then destroy...(intellectually) however, it does not negate the feeling of abandonment from a person. A person, myself, has doubts and feelings about this whole election. I don't feel that one should discount their feelings... because another says wait... it will change....he is not done fighting ... but the majority of american's do not see this...do not feel this... have lost the optimisum that there would be change. As I said... it is almost like post tramatic stress...or even a greiving phase..

I further do not feel politics and differing opinions on candidates should be taken personally... or lead in personal attacks. We are all scared for our democracy.. (except the free republic types)
We all want to discuss this... and many only have the option to discusss this here.. in the forum...cause when they try to say.. "hey, looks like ohio is doing a recount" you get the conspiracy therory.. your nuts, shut up.. O'rielly red face in yours response.

I also don't feel we need to have blind trust and faith in any candidate... ever. That is what demacracy is... questioning, fighting, pushing... that is what the bushco far right supporters do... that is what hitlers supporters did. It is a true democracy when the people can stand up and speak out against all candidates... and say... WTF is going on!

I personally do not get offended when a moderate (either side) says but Kerry should have... Kerry didn't do X Y Z... can you believe that teresa said this... (and that all comes from my moderate left father) Yeah there are things we may not fully understand...and perhaps... in the end... democracy will prevail... Kerry will come out to face the people and explain his actions... what he and the dnc did... how four parties united to bring down the rouge regime in america....

And as I started this rant I will end it: I will eat my hat and Bina's collection of funky hats and say... Bu, glad you had the faith that I didn't when this was happening.. glad you had the knowledge that I didn't at the time...by the way... do you take salt with your hat?

Count Jeronimo

Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 2:39 pm

QUOTE

if john kerry turns out to have actually engaged in this 'smart stategy,' i will openly admit that i was wrong about it.

I seriously doubt that he has, Tamara, otherwise he’d be STUPID to include this statement in his concession:

QUOTE

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 can not win this election.

First of all, the column headlining this thread is a speculative opinion piece from a non-mainstream internet site whose sources are probably second-hand, insofar as there are any. Here are some FACTS:

With regard to the Cam Kerry statement, the Boston Globe, with direct access to the candidate reported the following:

QUOTE

After one e-mailer erroneously suggested that Kerry's brother, Cameron, was compiling reports of voting problems, Cameron Kerry's e-mail inbox was inundated with hundreds of messages, received at the pace of several per minute through yesterday. He sent out a stock response saying ''we are not ignoring" the reports, asking that they be forwarded to the Democratic National Committee instead of his e-mail address at his Boston law firm.

Boston Globe, 11/10/04

Secondly, the operative part of Mr. Kerry’s statement, other than ensuring that all votes will be counted, blahblahblah, is this: ”Even if the facts don't provide a basis to change the outcome, the information will inform the continuing effort to protect the integrity of our elections.”

So, he has consistently maintained the skeptical line put out by the Kerry campaign that the outcome is actually not in doubt. The notion that JFK sent his brother on a campaign-coordinated mission to tell supporters “privately” that he hasn’t concended is speculative bunk. There’s absolutely no evidence that shows otherwise, no matter what kind of spin the Kerry tea leaf readers want to place on this.

Here are MORE FACTS, from the horse’s mouth itself:

QUOTE

Kerry campaign officials and a range of election-law specialists agree that while machines made errors and long lines in Democratic precincts kept many voters away, there's no realistic chance that Kerry actually beat Bush.

''No one would be more interested than me in finding out that we really won, but that ain't the case," said Jack Corrigan, a veteran Kerry adviser who led the Democrats' team of 3,600 attorneys who fanned out across the country on Election Day to address voting irregularities.

''I get why people are frustrated, but they did not steal this election," Corrigan said. ''There were a few problems here and there in the election. But unlike 2000, there is no doubt that they actually got more votes than we did, and they got them in the states that mattered."

Boston Globe, 11/11/04

And this, from the NYT that took an editorial position on the vote count that was far more direct and unambiguous than anything the Kerry campaign said:

QUOTE

For its part, the Kerry campaign has been trying to tamp down the conspiracy theories and to tell supporters that their mission now is to ensure that every vote is counted, not that the election be overturned.

"We know this was an emotional election, and the losing side is very upset," said Daniel Hoffheimer, the lead lawyer for the Kerry campaign in Ohio. But, he said, "I have not seen anything to indicate intentional fraud or tampering."

NYT, 11/12/04

And this, a statement clearly defeatist in tone:

QUOTE

Though Corrigan said all allegations will be investigated by the Democratic legal team, he added that it has become clear that 2004 was no repeat of 2000. That year, an abbreviated Florida recount resulted in a 537-vote margin of victory for Bush, and many Democrats believe a full and impartial recount would have handed the election to Democrat Al Gore.

Boston Globe, 11/11/04

QUOTE

"I'd give my right arm for Internet rumors of a stolen election to be true," said David Wade, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign, "but blogging it doesn't make it so. We can change the future; we can't rewrite the past."

NYT, 11/12/04

These DIRECT QUOTES reflect what the Kerry campaing at its highest levels was REALLY THINKING. The idea that there is a coordinated effort at the highest levels to spread disinformation and LIE so consistently is patent nonsense. This is what they believe, or believed when those statements were made around 11/11 or 12:

1) The election wasn’t “stolen.”

2) There’s no way the outcome will change.

3) We will do everything to ensure that the votes are counted.

If they had bought into any other possibility, the campaign wouldn’t have “been trying to tamp down the conspiracy theories and to tell supporters that their mission now is to ensure that every vote is counted, not that the election be overturned.” If for no other reason than not to discourage the grassroots and Blogs’ efforts.

Not once has any Kerry spokesperson said publicly, for example, that there is a possibility election outcomes might change with all the votes counted, so that’s why it’s important to count the votes. Not once. We have Cam Kerry’s statement that, according to the Boston Globe, was a “stock response” after his e-mail address was “inundated” with messages, some of which may have been hoaxes.

And this is what some are hanging their hat on, while choosing to ignore the MANY public statements by the campaign seeking to distance itself from the Blogs’ efforts? I find it amusing how gullible individuals are making unfounded interpretations of the Senator’s posture even in the face of the most unambiguous statements by top-level campaign officials. Here’s what Kerry said in his concession:

QUOTE

Earlier today, I spoke to President Bush, and I offered him and Laura our congratulations on their victory. We had a good conversation and we talked about the danger of division in our country and the need – the desperate need – for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together. Today, I hope that we can begin the healing. In America it is vital that every vote count, and that every vote be counted. But the outcome should be decided by voters, not a protracted legal process.

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 can not win this election.

If John Kerry said this, with full knowledge that it was only a “strategy” designed to out-ROVE ROVE, as the conspiracists claim, then he is A LIAR. Secondly, if he indeed wished to encourage the Blogs’ efforts rather than “tamp them down” as the Globe reported, one effective way to have done so, without LYING if the intent was different, would be to DELETE THE UNDERLINED PARAGRAPH ABOVE FROM HIS CONCESSION SPEECH! Very simple. If he had said, “In America it is vital that every vote count, and that every vote be counted. But the outcome should be decided by voters, not a protracted legal process,” AND STOPS THERE, HE DIDN’T CONCEDE THE OUTCOME AND HE DIDN’T LIE.

One final point. It would be interesting to know if there was any coordination between Kerrry, the DNC and the Green Party on the recount. That would certainly shed quite a bit of light on whether Kerry’s position has evolved. My guess is there wasn’t, because there’s (1) no downside in this for the Greens, and (2) the Green Party is truly a GRASSROOTS political party, so their response to this upswelling of grassroots demand for a recount appears to be genuine and of its own initiative, with Kerry and the DNC as passive observers.

The fact that the New York Times has editorialized on this issue, and that other mainstream media is finally latching on to this issue, may compel the Kerry people and the DNC to take notice, and give the conspiracists and pompous dilletantes another crack at misreading John Kerry’s mind.

tamara

Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 2:48 pm

CJ,

i agree- it is depressing to look at the facts so succinctly laid out, but i think it is pretty clear and convincing-

i'd like nothing more than for kerry to have went for testicular reconstructive surgery and turn out to be a real fighter- but i doubt he's gonna unconcede.

which is stupid sounding anyway- UNCONCEDE- how the hell do you UNSURRENDER- for real.

-t-

Dr. Left

Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 2:50 pm

QUOTE (tamara @ Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 12:48 pm)

Well....you just yell....DO OVER!!!!!!

'Dov

Count Jeronimo

Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 3:00 pm

At this point he won't say anything. He's LOCKED IN by the statement he made in his concession, which I cited above. If he does open his mouth, Rove and the wingers will feast on that statement as another example of a Kerry "flip-flop." But he's got his lawyers in Ohio, presumably, and he still has the right to call for a full recount within five days of the results being certified in Ohio. So we'll see. But this notion that this is some GRAND "smart strategy" by the Kerry campaign is just BULLSHIT. He conceded and he meant what he said.

But, no matter what his motivation, it ain't over!

Pinko_Commie

Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 4:41 pm

it would go down very well in the media! Kerry the flip-flopper concedes, then unconcedes? hmmmmm I`m sure they would love it !

Ronnie Jakers

Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 6:34 pm

QUOTE (Pinko_Commie @ Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 2:40 pm)

it would go down very well in the media! Kerry the flip-flopper concedes, then unconcedes? hmmmmm I`m sure they would love it !

Good point...

BinaBecker

Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 8:54 pm

Don't forget, though, that concessions are NOT legally binding. Especially if evidence comes up that he was robbed.

'Bina.

Rakshasa

Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 10:47 pm

I still could see it going very bad for him, even if he was to get the Presidency in light of vote fraud. The media, the pundits, EVERYONE would be all over him, and they'd make what they did to Clinton look like a light warm-up.

BinaBecker

Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 10:58 pm

QUOTE (Rakshasa @ Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 11:47 pm)

Oh, absolutely. They'd savage him. They'd probably dig up all the Swift Boat Liar shit and make up more. And they'd have a new "scandal" about Teresa every week, if not every day of the week. The culture war of the '90s is, in the eyes of the wingnuts, about to be won by the forces of Rapturists once and for all. To have it taken away from them is gonna make them howl for blood.

'Bina.

tamara

Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 11:39 pm

QUOTE (BinaBecker @ Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 8:58 pm)

by the time they got through with him, bina
he'd be the fucking antichrist (nevermind that W is the antichrist, i'll save that one for another thread)-

they'd impeach him and convince billy bob horton to ASSASSINATe his ass.

seriously,

there'd be no point.

not that the fucker would be willing to do it- he is a pussy.

-t-

Ronnie Jakers

Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 11:45 pm

QUOTE

billy bob horton to ASSASSINATe his ass

Billy bo Thorton is in love with angelie..Jolie... ohhh wait, wrong guy...

sorry!

tamara

Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 11:50 pm

QUOTE (Ronnie Jakers @ Tuesday, 16 November 2004, 9:45 pm)

Billy bo Thorton is in love with angelie..Jolie... ohhh wait, wrong guy...

sorry!

i think i had the same hypothetical guy in mind...

a freudian slip

though NO other redneck ON THE FACE OF EARTH could have a woman who looked remotely like angelina jolie (except maybe my exhusband- when i'm feeling really good about myself)

one of those beer fantasy commercials...

-t-

Ronnie Jakers

Wednesday, 17 November 2004, 12:07 am

She is one sexy gal... if I was into gal's. YA know I saw a special on that.. who is the sexy man/woman in hollywood... and she got the highest rating amonst the women and the men!

FogerRox

Wednesday, 17 November 2004, 10:12 am

Additionally- Were some Kerry statements meant for the faithfull--and then some made for the press and Rove?

Kerry has never just up and quit --in his whole life--his charging the ambushers in Nam-- ended up being the standard tactical doctrine for future use of Swift boats.

So it must be right--Kerry just up and quit.

Dr. Left

Wednesday, 17 November 2004, 10:21 am

QUOTE (FogerRox @ Wednesday, 17 November 2004, 8:12 am)

You know I thought about this and you know what, it could be possible that Kerry is keeping a low profile and letting the Greens and the Libertarians contest the vote, to keep the pundits off his back. Once the recount is completed and it's proven that Kerry did when than he can pull his concession. Remember a concession is not binding.

'Doc

FogerRox

Wednesday, 17 November 2004, 10:37 am

Yes, additionally--If Kerry went with a Gore type fight---
1)Bushs legal contingency fund had raised nearly 7 million--Kerry only about 4 million.
2)Bush could bring the full weight of the incumbancy to bear.

So why pick a fight, where the other guy has the advantage from the git go? That would be STUPID.

What is our advantage? The dems grassroots base,,isnt that where the effort is right now?

The road to victory is clear---and I have my marching orders.

Dr. Left

Wednesday, 17 November 2004, 10:53 am

QUOTE (FogerRox @ Wednesday, 17 November 2004, 8:36 am)

Me too, me too....

Doc

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.