Reply #62: SLICK MOVES? Sounds like you're trying to rationalize...

[Not a Sheep]

I voted for Kerry. I'd love to see something happen that indisputably proves fraud and gives the presidency to Kerry. However, I've been reading the forums for awhile and see people attempting to rationalize what has happened. For example:



BreakforNews:
When the Bush administration began preparing an assault on Fallujah timed to begin within days of the November '04 vote, the motive was transparent.

........................................................

While I believe one benefit of the Fallujah assault after Nov 2nd COULD BE to distract from election fraud, how about a more likely reason: Why start a bloody and potenitally disastorous battle in Fallujah before the election when polls showed Iraq was one of Bush's weaknesses? Why would they want the MSM reporting on a fight that would most likely not go well and remind voters of how bad things were going in Iraq?



BreakforNews:
The Cobb/LaMarche legal team led the charge on the recount front.

........................................................

All of the Kerry team's smooth under the radar moves depended on Cobb/LaMarche leading the recount? So, either Kerry was banking on Cobb/LaMarche getting involved or Kerry knew they were going to get involved because they were collaborating from the start?



BreakforNews:
In mid-December, Cliff Arnebeck told the L.A.Times that Kerry did not really want to challenge Bush. Why? It must be some kind of "Skull & Bones thing," said Arnebeck.

Just eleven days ago, David Cobb, said that Kerry was trying to "undermine" Green party efforts to get an effective recount. He called Kerry a member of the "ruling elite."

Within days Kerry had signed on to the G/Lib lawsuit -as just announced by Daniel Hoffheimer with such great gusto. And then as quickly downplayed by him with such great chutzpah.

Confused? Good. It must be working.

........................................................

So, let me get this straight. Kerry wants to appear reluctant and uninvolved to some extent so as not to look like a sore loser, so others are intentionally making these statements to play the game with him and help him? Or is the rationale supposed to be that Kerry is trying to not appear like a sore loser to them also and so when they make these statements they are speaking honestly and unintentionally playing into Kerry's intricate PR game?



BreakforNews:
When the candidate is asked whether he is running for office, the reply is not:

"You bet!. I've been eyeing this job for years."

Rather the approach is:

"Well, I could never aspire to such a position, but so many friends and members of the public have urged me to run that I am now actively considering the position."

........................................................

I don't think a candidate would reply either way. Obviously, no one says, "You bet!. I've been eyeing this job for years." That's just ridiculous. The second (supposedly "correct") reply is almost equally ridiculous. The candidate is saying he could "never aspire to such a position" but was persauded by others urging him to run? Come on. At some point you have to aspire/want the job. Who comes across as though they never thought of being president until so many others urged them to run?

Why doesn't the candidate say, "Yes, I've aspired to a life of public service and I believe I have the integrity, ideas and leadership to be President. Even when I was young I dreamed of being President and I've worked hard to earn the trust of my constituency to get where I am today."

So, who would dare aspire to be president in his youth and have it be public knowledge? Bill Clinton.


Washington Post: Sunday, August 25, 1996; Page A01
"Clinton is a politician who has wanted since he was a young man not merely to win the presidency but to join the small company of large presidents, to be one of those rare leaders who stamp an imprint deep on an era."