Posted on 09/01/2004 9:31:01 PM PDT by amordei
Newt Gingrich mentioned the THREE trips to Paris tonight and the Spectator is reporting that a news organization is about to run with it BIG.
Stick a fork in him. HE"S DONE.
Let's say the creep looses in November. Do you guys think this will all go away or will the DOJ (or whoever has authority) have the guts to pursue any of these claims against Kerry?
Why do I get the feeling he will just slink away to his mansions and live a happy life?
Why do I get the feeling he will just slink away to his mansions and live a happy life?
Hahahahahaha. With the pickle puss, ketchup lady?
#
Yeah. I don't know what I was thinking. It's late, the blood sugar's low...
Trust me, sleep like a baby, take it to the bank, , Kerry is toast.
Kerry will develop an "ailment" and withdraw from the race.
Then the Hildabeast will rise.
Is this a joke? If this is real, it has to be over for Kerry.
Maybe this is the bombshell the SwiftVets have?
I am sure that when he was in France he travelled around in one of those Citroen's (French Crap Cars).
If I understand your position, it is that if John Kerry becomes unavailable after some deadline (let's pick October 1), then the DEMS have no candidate for president in this election cycle, and a vote cast for Kerry is "wasted." Or, that the candidates (Kerry, Edwards) follow the same line of succession, i.e., a vote for Kerry ends up counting as a vote for Edwards. No doubt, at some point, if a candidate becomes unavailable, it is too late to change the ballots.
Electors to the Electoral College elected in each state are bound to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged in accordance with the laws of the individual states ...
If you can cite for me, one state law that prohibits a party elector from casting a ballot for a different candidate than the one named on the voter's ballot (the one we use in November), I'll donate more $$ to the SBVfT. It's my contention that every state law permits, maybe conditionally, the elector to vote for a different person. One condition where it is reasonable for the party to instruct the elector to vote for a different candidate being that the candidate named on the voter's ballot is not available on that day in December, when the electors cast their ballot for president.
My guess is that the elector's pledge, while it might name a candidate, essentially says "I promise to cast my electoral ballot for the candidate that is chosen by the party," where the party's first choice is from the National Convention. That does not rule out later changes, provided the change is made according to party rules.
Electors are not permitted to vote for whoever some party hacks tell them to. On the other hand, there are no real penalties if the Electors violate the law. It's a matter of honor, mostly.
The number of "party defectors" is small. I think there have been fewer than 10 in the history of the country. But again, in the circumstance where a candidate is unavailable (scandal, health being two good reasons to drop out -- and those issues tend to pop up at unexpected and unscheduled times), our system of choosing a person for the office does not hamstring the political parties.
I think you are WRONG.
I know that is a fact of law, in Illinois. I checked Illinois state law becuase another poster asserted that the GOP had the risk of not being on the ballot due to the GOP convention not reaching a conclusion until closer than 67 days before the election. Illinois law, which requires the name of an elector to be on the ballot in order for the party to be on the ballot, has a deadline for the OPTIONAL addition of the name of the party's presidential candidate.
The DEM and GOP parties are on the ballots in all states. Their electors and alternates are known, now.
10 ILCS 5/ Election Code <-- Illinois (Article 16 - Ballots)
The ballot shall contain no other names, except that in cases of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, the names of the candidates for President and Vice-President may be added to the party designation
Using the released official records, I think this is a non-issue. If you check Kerry's release from active duty orders, you will see that he was transferred into the Inactive Reserves and was not obligated to attend any drills. His only obligation was to keep the Navy informed of his whereabouts since he was subject to recall. On 1 July 1972 Kerry was transferred into the Standby Reserve (Inactive) and then received his Honorable Discharge in 16 Feb 1978. The Navy's 24 May 1986 letter to Kerry gives a good synopsis of Kerry's service.
I can recall a similar timeframe for my naval career. I had served almost eight years, but it was years later until I was finally discharged. I had a regular commission, but I was transferred into the Naval Reserves (inactive) and then Standby Reserves. I was sent some sort of letter asking me if I wished to continue my service in the Standby Reserves. In any event, I wouldn't make too much of Kerry's status as he moved through the Reserve process.
There are several issues that need to be raised relative to Kerry's Reserve status. Kerry met with the Vietnamese Communists in Paris, per his sworn testimony before the Senate, while still being in the Naval Reserves subject to recall. He returned and advocated acceptance of the Communists' negotiating points. Kerry also participated in the VVAW as a national officer and was involved in the infamous Kansas City meeting where discussions were held about assassinating USG officials. The question is whether Kerry was violating the UCMJ by being involved in these activities while still serving in the Reserves and being subject to recall.
What I found curious on Kerry's initial website many months ago was the fact that he listed his military service as 1966-1970-Active Duty and 1972-78-Reserves. He conveniently left a gap between 1970-72, which I can only believe was done intentionally so as not to raise questions. Currently, his service timeline no longer includes his reserve service. Curiously, it ends with the following: April 29, 1970 Kerry listed as Registrant who has completed service.
I have no idea what listed as a Registrant means because Kerry remained a member of the inactive Reserves until he was transferred into the Standby Reserves on July 1, 1972. This could be a smokescreen to inoculate Kerry from charges that he was giving aid and comfort to the enemy while still being a member of the Reserves. We definitely need more information on this one.
That is no journalist. Journalists express their insights, the results of their fact gathering. This person is a propagandist.
Hi CBoldt.
This may be a clumsy effort at foreshadowing, where the 'journalist' is trying to tease his forthcoming big story.
Bump
" I think it's called setting a base marker. Start from respect. Then let the chips start falling.
My point was and is that the laws regarding the choice of electors is the responsibility of the states, and the laws in this regard are to my knowledge, quite varied. I don't have the time or inclination to do the research on the laws of each state, or for that matter even one of them.
I'll repeat my main point just to be clear. Any attempt to remove the selected candidate from the ballot in 50 states, and replace ithat candidate with another, would not succed with equal ease or felicity in every state, and would likely fail in many or most states where it is attempted.
The result would be very confusing to the average voter, to say nothing of the potential legislative and judicial morass. Lawsuits galore would be filed and litigation scheduled and fought through. Most middle of the road voters would be immensely turned off by such an eventually and would turn against the party responsible, leading to an unprecedented debacle for the Dempocrats.
The Democrats would not permit such an eventuality and therefore would not condone Kerry's dropping out before the election. They have their horse already registered, listed, saddled up and on the track. They have to ride that horse to the end of the race, come what may.
I am speaking of political practicalities, not legalistic possibilities. Flights of fancy are not particularly interesting to me. I am willing to stick my neck out and flatly say that this nightmare scenario will never come to pass.
Now, sure, tragedy can always strike and in such cases, a way forward will always be found. I am not interested in any such cases, as they are basically without relevance to a candidate simply up and quiting because he thinks he can't win. That is unprecedented, and we are not about to see it this year.
What else do you think it is all about for these people?
Don't be too sure.
Half of America would vote for a gargoyle chained to the leg of Lord Moloch himself, if it were running on the Democratic ticket.
Worse, loose cannons.
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.