Posted on 04/28/2004 12:06:48 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
The Torricelli Option: Will Dems dump Kerry?
Posted: April 28, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
There is palpable fear among Democrats as they contemplate their presumptive nominee, John Kerry, the candidate who couldn't keep his lies straight.
Kerry followed a week made disastrous by his military records fiasco with a Monday morning performance with Charlie Gibson of ABC's Good Morning America that will live in TV history alongside the 1980 Roger Mudd-Teddy Kennedy exchange through which it dawned on America that a senator in search of a verb wasn't really equipped to be a president.
Gibson's refusal to be deflected by Kerry's rambling incoherence led to a post-interview denunciation of ABC by Kerry. "They are doing the work of the Republican National Committee," Kerry muttered. Yeah, that's the ticket. Jennings et al., are working for the GOP which is working for Fox News' Roger Ailes who is, of course, working for Halliburton. Hillary's vast, right-wing conspiracy just got vaster. Like the Borg, the VRWC has absorbed Disney-owned ABC. Who knew?
There are powers in the Democratic Party, and they cannot be pleased. Tom Daschle, for one, has got to be thinking through the impact of a presidential contest that is over once the polls close at 6 in the East. That sort of wave in 1980 took out George McGovern and a lot of famous liberals just like Daschle.
Streisand's got to be worried as well. She knows what happens when the movie tanks in the first 10 minutes. People return her phone calls, even though she doesn't make any sense at all. Rob Reiner knows a thing or two about stiffs as well. Remember 1994's "North"? Neither does anyone else. Reiner knows that hopes and dreams do not a success make.
And the Clintons-in-Exile, they must hear the music. Forget their ethics and policies, they have a well-deserved reputation for perfect pitch when it comes to politics. Imagine Bill and Hill watching Kerry strangle himself. How they must laugh ... then cry. Hillary gets the nod in 2008, but what will be left after the wipeout?
Another movie analogy: Jim Carrey in the bathroom scene from "Liar, Liar" when he tries to injure himself. That's John Kerry over the past six weeks, throwing himself against walls in front of the national TV audience with the effect of inflicting maximum damage on himself.
It has worked.
Too well, I am afraid. Dems know he's a loser. But can anything be done?
Who knows? Don't bother looking up the rules governing nominations. There were rules in Florida, and the Florida Supreme Court tore those up when Gore needed help. There were rules in New Jersey, but when Torricelli flamed, the New Jersey Supreme Court tossed those aside. There were rules in California, and three judges ordered a halt to the recall that only went forward because the luck of an en banc draw brought sanity to the review panel.
No, the rules won't stop Kerry's recall. Only Teddy can, and the weight of the senior senator from Massachusetts shouldn't be underestimated. The Kerry campaign is his last hurrah, and the convention's in Boston, for goodness sake. What kind of a reception would follow a party that tossed Kerry onto the tracks?
Does Daschle care? Does Patty Murray? Barbara Boxer? Any of a half-dozen endangered Dem incumbents in the Senate and a score in the House? So the receiving committee is a littlie frosty and Teddy dumps them from the Christmas card list – they'll still have jobs.
And Dean – what's he thinking when he can get the voices to quiet down? He was robbed, you know ... by the same people now conspiring against Kerry. Dean doesn't forget, and there's not enough Ambien in America to get him a night's sleep. What if, with another yell, he decides to demand an open convention. "Let the delegates vote!" isn't a bad slogan. Bring back all the orange hats and the blog and all that. Quite a party could be had by all.
Bill Clinton just announced the publication date of his new memoir: Late June. How unfortunate for Kerry – Bill has to do a book tour for the month running up to the convention, sucking the air right out of an already spent balloon. Sorry, couldn't be avoided. Publisher deadlines and all.
So as Kerry melts away, there – on every television screen in the land – will be Saturday Night Bill, playing his sax, blowing his own horn, saying stuff. All sorts of stuff. Looking incredibly large, opposite the incredibly small Kerry.
Tick, tick, tick. The Torricelli Option. Coming to theaters near you this summer.
Well, we don't know yet why he will go quietly. There are at least three reasonable possibilities, and I'm sure team Hillary has more:
1) The girl who went to Kenya to get "married" comes back (how many suburban JAPs have mafia boyfriends who live in Nairobi?)
2) The FBI surveillance logs from 1971-72 surface with some really, really bad news (Where have they been all this time, anyway?)
3) Kerry gets really, really quiet-for good.
He was taken out because he said he would ask McAuliffe to resign (and by implication, get rid of the Clintons).
The October Surprise
With the Party of Clinton ... I wouldn't rule it out
Which differentiates him from the typical Lib in what way? It is commical to watch.
OK, Mr or Ms clued-in, expert on US politics, answer these questions:
When was the last time a Democrat running for US Senate from New York ran a million votes behind the national ticket in New York City, and still won?
What was the male-female vote difference in conservative upstate districts?
How many of the fifty states voting in November have women in them?
Hillary has a huge "hidden" vote, and she absolutely can win.
The Clinton dirty tricks have already started and you are correct .. Kerry won't go down quietly
They real question is .. how will the moderate dems handle this all?
No .. I think he was taken out because the Clinton's realized they were losing control of their base
They couldn't afford to let that happen
You are on the right track, but haven't taken it far enough, yet. What they need is a Democratic nomination reality show. Put the 10 contestants on stage, have immunity challenges like 'I hate George W. the most' and 'Outdrink Teddy', vote a nominee off the stage each night, and then have a big no-holds-barred jello wrestle-off between Hillary and Rev. Al at the end to decide nomination
Yeah...but anyone who's not a Dem would RUN to vote for the GOP candidate.
Why?
Because the alternative would be called "President Clinton" for eight years.
Ding!
Ding!
Ding!
Give the man a ceegar!!!!
The flurry of questions from ABC is just the formal, out in the open beginning of this effort. It's all just a big charade to get Kerry off the ticket so some other DIM can run this year. All the noise that Jennings is out to get even is just so much spin.
They are seeing what a boob he is and need a mechanism to unload him. I mean, even this is turning our to offer more a forum for Kerry to accuse the Republicans of trash politics than a real questioning of his ability to tell the truth.
If they really wanted to crucify him, we'd get hard ball questions more like the direct accusations of lying that they threw at Bush. These balls for Kerry are only hard enough to convince him to drop out. What better campaign slogan than Kerry sinking out of sight before the convention, crying "Blame the Wascally Wepublicans!" That'll build sympathy for his replacement.
Too much blood letting will ensure more than just Kerry will lose. There has to be enough life and credibility left to both give the rest of the party's candidates a push, as well as maybe even whoever replaces him.
I'm still putting my bets on the female mother dog junior senator from New York. I think there are too many skeletons in their closet to survive a bloodletting this November, as well as a Bush Unchained for four years. I think Kerry will be convinced to drop out before the convention to give time for the excitement to build of his replacement (she who cannot be named) jockeying for position.
Can she win? Well, yes, and the problem won't be money. As long as Bush resembles McAuliffe's doormat, she has a very good chance. His stuttering during the media lynching party press conference was because he wasn't prepared to answer such questions. Or worse, because he was and what you saw was the best he could do.
Nixon would have been better prepared, as he was for the Kruschev meetings. And he was ready to dig in when he had to. Reagan could have adlibbed better since he had honed his logic skills so well during the radio years.
Preparation would have meant he could have brought out a lot of truths about Iraq that the media have been ignoring. Such as the other Aug. 6 memo, the one highlighting the intelligence failures and how they came about, which would have better publicized the role of Clinton, Reno and Gorelick in creating those walls. This would have allowed Bush to bypass the media who has conveniently ignored this other memo.
Another tact would be in answer to what else he should have known, he might have said it would have been helpful to have known more about the corruption in the UN oil for food program, that it would have allowed him to negotiate more forcefully to build support.
Regarding lying, he might have referenced some recent media whoppers. Not by name of paper etc., but at least by the story, places where the reports (e.g., reporters) did not get it right. And no, he has not told any such lies.
Even now, he could trumpet the information and testimony coming out of the Al Queda/Syrian attack on Jordan. If that isn't evidence of Saddam's WMD, what is? For anyone with doubts on this, see other threads on that topic. The terrorists killings of Iraqi WMD scientists offers further proof. All of these are stories the media is again ignoring. These are stories that a stronger, more logic-oriented President would have found a way to get out when pressed by the media.
I mean, if he took this aggressive of an approach, the press would tremble at his press conferences. Not the other way around. They would have feared his hoisting them on their own petard as opponents two generations ago feared Chruchill.
But no, Bush either doesn't have the desire, the combativeness (still being guided by the "kindler, gentler mantra), or the cleverness. Or, when you get right down to it, a real commitment to do whatever it takes to honor the sacrifices our troops are making. Like Rumsfeld's military have done so successfully in Iraq and Afganistan, he needs to find a new playbook.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.