Something I don't understand about the "Convention" flap..........

[BabsSong]

I realize that the convention speech of a candidate is the most important speech he will ever give because it's the only time to reach a mass of people and flap his gums at them----from then on the audiences for "speech-a-fying" goes downhill fast. But I don't know of any "llth Commandment" handed down by God in reference to conventions.

Why can't Kerry simply give the last address of the convention in which he says everything he was going to say in his acceptance speech except the words "I accept the nomination"??? Heck, 99% of the American people wouldn't even notice the admittance if the media didn't remind them! Why can't this convention be exactly as it would be with the exception of those four little words??? Pundits and other clowns seem to be conveying the notion that Kerry would not be speaking to the convention if he did not "accept". If he voluntarily forgoes the opportunity to speak to the nation, that's another thing----then he's voluntarily foregoing the presidency!!! So why can't he speak???? And why can't a whole bunch of democrats just kind of shut their mouths when he makes the decision and refrain from giving the repukes the "they are not united" line!

[underpants]

1. My wife tells me that she hears a lot of people turned off by this

They see at more "flip-flopping". Some have even said that if they are both going to lie and scheme why not just stick with the one you have at least you KNOW what he is up to.

Seriously this is some of the discourse at her workplace.

[rinsd]

14. The devil you know syndrome.....

I've spoken to a few people who feel that way(at least for right now). Not happy with the direction of the country but not sure what to make of Kerry.

Then again most folks aren't paying attention right now. Kerry not accepting the nomination at the convention may be the first big news(not first thing heard) they hear about him.

I'm not sure if this is a good move yet.

[displacedtexan]

2. You've described exactly what will probably happen.

Until 1932, nominating conventions were just that: they nominated a candidate. Several days (sometimes weeks) later, the committee showed up at the chosen nominee's door and formally offered him the party's nod.

Kerry would just be restoring the party's tradition by waiting to "accept" the nomination formally... plus, it gives him yet another photo op and would keep his name in the news a few cycles longer... not to mention, he'd get to raise a lot more $!

[BabsSong]

4. your right----in the past conventions were basically free for alls and

no one know who the hell would emerge. Once the dust settled they just informed the candidate. We could just advertise it as "going back to our roots and traditions here in the US of A". And I think the people who are saying "another flip-flop" are the ones that have been drinking the Bush Kool-Aid and have no intentions of voting for Kerry any how. If that's all it takes to "turn" these people then I'll guarantee that there will be enough stunts pulled by Bush in the next 5 months to bring these people back adoring at his feet anyway.

[republicansareevil]

3. I was thinking the same thing earlier. (nt)

[Eric J in MN]

5. Kerry can say "I will accept"

Kerry can say "I will accept the nomination."

He just has to add the word "will."

[AlGore-08.com]

6. The FEC regs say that after he accepts the nom, he is limited

to at set amount of public money (I believe it's $75 million). The same is true of Smirk, as soon as he accepts the GOP nom, he is limited to the same amount of public cash. Prior to receiving the nomination, both Kerry and Smirk can raise as much private cash as they want to, since they both refused spending limits. In order to delay accepting the nomination, the DNC would have to change the rules about what the convention is for.

Although this plan does not appear to be against the law, it will almost certainly be challenged in the courts by the GOP - - for no other reason than it will give Kerry a couple weeks/months of very bad press. (The rules don't apply to Kerry, Kerry is a money grubbing scumbag, etc.)

Even if this is legal, there is no guarantee that Kerry would win a court challenge (see Bush v. Gore).

The networks, who work very hard to avoid broadcasting political events (because they can't sell ads during them), are already considering not broadcasting the convention, since "nothing will be happening" there if Kerry is not nominated. And the convention is the biggest, best piece of free press that we have. A convention speech can win a campaign.

If Kerry does this, there's nothing to stop Smirk from doing the same.

It will set a miserable precident for future campaigns, especially any that are trying to run a grassroots, streamlined campaign.

It's just a really, really shortsighted idea IMNSHO.

[BabsSong]

8. I understand they are doing it for the money situation; but it certainly

does not mean that the convention is forbidden to go forward with all the nominating speeches, voting and selection. It also doesn't preclude Kerry givng the conventions "wrap up, farwell delegates, let's go get Bush" speech on the last night. The media would not dare not cover it (acceptance or no acceptance) because it would bring down the rath of God to turn around and cover Bush's speech. So there is nothing stopping this convention from being normal with the exception of Kerry leaving a couple words out of his "speech".

[forgethell]

7. My own understanding of the brouhaha is

not that Kerry is "flip-flopping", although that, too. It is that people will see him as exposed as "after-the-money". That, basically, he is willing to whore out the principles of campaign-finance reform to get more campaign funds. And if those principles, what principles does he hold dear? Anyway, this is what my conservative friends argue to me. And although I intend to vote for Kerry regardless, I have to admit that I am queasy with this tactic. I think that it might possibly damage his campaign. In fact, the damage may already be done, if the R*s can make the "flip-flop charge stick.

x(

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mike1963]

10. Nader has become precisely what he fought for so long and has zero

chance. Voting for him just helps the Village Idiot.

[Disappointed Dem]

15. Looks Like DU is Too Weak to Accept Any Criticism

Nader does not accept contributions from corporations, and this thread is discussing ways to allow another corporate corrupted millionaire to buy an election. In what way has Nader become corrupted?

Like I say, Bush is through. Staging another major terror attack and declaring martial law is his only chance. Nader is already showing as much as 10% support in the West, and November is a long ways away. There will be lots of Libertarian, Reform, Green, Independent, and yes, even Republican voters that will be looking for some alternative to selling their freedom to another corporate shyster, and would like to regain some control of their country.

Your claim that voting for Nader helps Bush does not make any sense. It seems to assume that I would vote for Kerry if Nader wasn't running, and that is not the case. Kerry is no alternative. He is an anti-democratic failure.

I hope that some of the more moderate posters here will at least keep their options open. At the very least, allowing Nader into the debates would substantially revitalize the discussion. Getting Ralph on the ballot will at the very least put some pressure on Kerry to demonstrate some differences between himself and Bush.

[gratuitous]

11. The second after Nader comes clean

Why doesn't Ralph just say:

"You know, I ran my vanity campaign in 2000, and never imagined in my worst nightmares what would come to pass when I assisted George W. Bush in getting close enough to steal the election. We've spent ourselves into bankruptcy, sustained the worst attack on our own soil since the War of 1812, squandered virtually every last drop of good will we once had domestically and abroad. There's really only one way to rectify this, and that's to vote for someone who has a chance of defeating the incumbent. That's someone with a proven track record as an elected official. Someone with a party apparatus that can help get out the vote, and a campaign fund that can broadcast his ideas over the din of the corporate-controlled media. As you know, I have none of that, so I'm voting for John Kerry as the first step toward cleaning up this terrible mess that I helped create. Thank you and God bless."

ON EDIT: Damn, troll tombstoned before I had a chance to hit "post." Oh well.

[On the Road]

12. This Situation Was Caused by

the Democrats enabling Bush to break the laws and hold the convention past the ballot date in many states. This is the result. Kerry should accept the nomination and do the best he can with the money. He needs to take the high road. He can still win.

[forgethell]

13. Here's an article that, I think, explains

some of the problems with this approach.. It is from a source that I have generally found to lean right, so be warned.

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/16/Politics/Unconventional.Approach.Is.Warning.Sign.Of.Kerrys.Weakness-683021.shtml

Of particular concern to me are the follwing excerpts

If that is the case, Galen and others argue, then the Boston convention would not be a national party function; it would be a Kerry-for-president campaign event, meaning that all the limits would still be in place and everything would have to be paid for with what once was called "hard money," meaning it could not be funded by corporations, wealthy individual donors or the unions.

AND

Simply put, if John F. Kerry is to have any chance of victory in November, he has to take control of the party machinery in Washington and in every state at the convention. He cannot afford an additional five weeks in which nervous Democrats, who get butterflies every time a bad poll comes out, can speculate on whether he can be replaced.