If Kerry were here and joined in the

[shraby]

election challenge, wouldn't the fact that he has a vested interest in a successful challenge be reason for the Republicans to question the whole process? By being in Iraq and out of the fray, as far as I can see he furthers the cause for the challenge.

[darkism]

1. Exactly. It's best he not be in town. n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

2. Ding ding ding!

You win the Logic Award!

Congratulations!

At least someone is thinking rationally over here...

[LittleClarkie]

3. That's what I see too, but apparently others don't

and I find that frustrating. I think having him right in the middle would suck rocks. It would make it look like this whole thing was about him. Some still think we can flip the election. It's about the vote, not him.

That's what I think his email was about too. That and letting us know exactly where he stood. No guessing games.

[seito]

4. Hmmm, Logical, Reasonable, Unemotional

Are you sure you are in the right place? lol

Thank you very much for your wise assessment.

[sepia_steel]

5. Yep.

I don't think this would have a shot in hell if he were here.

[txindy]

6. You're exactly right.

:toast:

This has been brilliantly played, IMO, and we get to witness the next moves tomorrow in Congress.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Firespirit]

8. And if he were here and DIDN'T join...

...It would be used to discredit the challenge.

What I've been saying for days. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

I do believe he wants the challenge to go forward and for there to be an investigation, and I think the letter is code for that. That's not a hand-wringing rationalization of obscure "Kerryisms" either; that was my real first impression of it.

-Sent on the 5th.
-Solely about voting rights and reforms.
-Acknowledges objection but does not put it down or ask anyone not to challenge.
-Questions the machinery in the first paragraph
-Acknowledges fraud and illegalities
-Briefly discusses Conyers' report
-"Congress (must) commit itself this year to reforming the electoral system"
-"Will they (Republicans) now ignore what happened in 2004?"
-"I am only sorry that we haven't seen the same from Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell and GOP officials."

...and finally,

-"I will soon introduce legislation to reform our election system"


I think he supports it but realizes that his presence would be detrimental to the effort.

[NightOwwl]

9. He should have a vested interest in it.

He would have won if it hadn't been for the fraud. And can someone please explain why we are still concerned whether the Republicans question us or not? For god's sake, Hastert's rep is quoted in the NYT as calling those who would contest the election the "looney left." They'll smear us no matter what.

Besides, it's not about whether the election will be overturned, it's about the fraud. But Kerry won't be there to support Conyers. He's sent his CYA letter out and he'll be in Iraq, far way from the slings and arrows.

I hope we see some courageous Senators tomorrow, but IMO, Kerry is a coward for running away from this.

[WildEyedLiberal]

10. Well I'd rather stuff actually get accomplished

Than have Kerry offer himself up as a sacrifice just to appease the crowds.

Like the original poster said: this will be taken more seriously if Kerry is not around. You DO want this issue taken seriously by Congress, I assume? Not laughed off as the antics of wacko liberal wingnuts, or dismissed as sore losermanship by Kerry? I think he's playing this brilliantly. Yeah, obviously he has a vested interest in this. And that's exactly why he should butt out for now. The American people and Congress need to understand that this is about democracy, not about electing John Kerry.

[NightOwwl]

12. I'd rather see the man who said "no retreat, no surrender"

live up to his words. Instead, he is literally retreating (to Iraq) and surrendering (he will not protest the Ohio election.)

We are already laughed off as liberal wingnuts and loonies, so that's irrelevant.

[shraby]

13. NightOwl

Did you ever hear of "conflict of interest"? That's what Kerry would be accused of if he joined in the challenge. It would be shouted from all sources of MSM. It would give Rovie Boy plenty of ammunition to feed to MSM. Rove would discredit the whole challenge with those 3 words.."conflict of interest".

[NightOwwl]

16. Like Kenneth Blackwell?

MSM slams him hard on that. /end sarcasm

Again: MSM, Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity, we have to start changing our mindset. Might as well do the honorable thing because they will screw us no matter what.

[Blue_In_AK]

11. This is exactly as it should be. n/t

[Vektor]

14. Agreed...

They'd rake him over the coals again for sour grapes if he were here. Anything Kerry does won't be good enough for someone...he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. I don't care what anyone says, I trust him. He's too slick, too wily, too experienced, too smart, and too mature to not have a plan. He's crafty and he's been in over his head before. I have studied his life, times, career, and character for quite a while now, in depth, and he's a hell of a man. I'm confident in that. Whatever he's doing now is the best course of action. I'm not a lawyer, a lawmaker, a veteran, or a person of that age and wisdom, so until I have DAMN good reason to doubt him, I trust him.

[stirringstill]

15. Symbols can be powerful

Kerry should absolutely not be present in Washington for the challenge. By being in Iraq Kerry only helps the cause because he remains mostly above the fray. Would it be better for Kerry to be in Washington so CNN or Fox could run some 20 second Kerry response to "How do you feel? I bet deep down you are a sore loser?" So he can stand up with the other senators (if any)? It is not for Kerry to stand in the first place since he was the candidate. His absence in congress (and presence in IRAQ) makes it easier for others to stand and dispute the election. This way the focus is on the process and not Kerry, and when Kerry's absence is noted, he will be shown in Iraq, looking dare I say presidential. People try to spin it into being about 2008, but like it or not Kerry was the Democratic nominee in 2004. On the very day that George Bush gets enough electoral votes to remain President, I hope everyone who did not vote for the Democrat John Kerry will wish they had. That would make the loss a lot less painful and may bode well for Dems in 2008 no matter who is nominated. The future is the future, but Kerry will always be our choice for 2004. We should be proud of that choice. By abandoning Kerry, what are Dems saying--"You're right Kerry was the wrong Democratic choice to lead this country. Jeez we sure can't pick 'em." In 2004, Kerry was the right choice to be commander-in-chief and he became the 2004 symbol of our opposition, humanity, and vision. Every move that makes Bush supporters have voter's remorse is a victory for Democrats. We may not have "won" but we were right. Kerry being in Iraq rings true.

(Copied from my post in an almost identical thread--since multiples of this topic are on the boards tonight.)

[WildEyedLiberal]

17. Very eloquent

Thank you.

[FreepFryer]

18. Correct! You found a valid framebusting strategy. Here's a Snickers!

[shraby]

19. Thank you, I like Snickers

of the candy type.

[FreepFryer]

20. Well, them's the only kind you deserve for that post! :)

[pamela]

21. Bingo!

Great post. Kerry is doing exactly what he needs to be doing.