Posted on 03/20/2005 6:29:03 AM PST by bitt
Some backers won't count him out. Others don't want a "shopworn" candidate.
WASHINGTON - John Kerry had come so close; on election night, before the dream died, his chief strategist had even said, "Let me be the first to call you Mr. President." Yet there he was on Inauguration Day, a mere spectator wearing a wan smile in the cold wind.
And when President Bush took the oath of office, Sen. Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa seated beside Kerry, placed his gloved right hand on the vanquished candidate's spine. He rubbed up and down, repeatedly. And as Bush intoned, "... so help me God," Harkin finished with a pair of gentle pats.
Those gestures spoke volumes about Kerry's sense of loss. And Kerry would not have the luxury of recuperating in private. He couldn't grow a beard and vanish, as Al Gore did; he couldn't go to Hawaii and teach college, as Mike Dukakis finally did. No, Kerry had to go back to his day job - becoming the first losing presidential candidate to return to the Senate since George McGovern in 1973.
But unlike McGovern, who stayed low-profile after a landslide defeat, John Kerry is already working hard on a resurrection. In a rudderless, leaderless Democratic Party, he is determined to fill the vacuum.
And don't be shocked if he launches another presidential candidacy in 2008, despite the fact that no U.S. senator has ever run, lost, and won a subsequent nomination. History notwithstanding, however, it may not be easy for Kerry to simply walk away, not after winning 59 million votes - although there are plenty of Democrats who wish that he would.
There he was Thursday, for example, in a Washington hotel, with that familiar ramrod posture, and the familiar portentous voice projecting...
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
Change the height level of your monitor. It works. I went through a similar thing years ago and it mystified the doctor. Someone else told me to change my monitor and the problem went away almost immediately.
I got this advice on my neck and back spasm problems at the computer. Thought you may want to see this.
Well .. let the jerk run - who cares - the SBV's said that if he chooses to run again - THEY WILL RETURN AGAIN TO DEFEAT HIM.
But .. I don't know what MA rules are regarding him running for the Senate and the Pres at the same time. Some states do not allow it.
If he chooses to run for Senate - Jerome Corsi is planning to run against him. If he chooses to run for Pres - he's have to get past the Soros/Hillary cabal.
interesting ....did you move the monitor higher or lower? forward or back? or just change monitors?
presently the rules in MA say he can't run for both positions at the same time...but of course the legislature would just change the rules...
There have been other elections which could have gone the other way if a small number of votes had switched, such as 1916 (a couple of thousand votes switched in California, and Hughes would have defeated Wilson in the electoral college).
Do they have the state legislative numbers to do that ..??
I don't follow MA news.
I know Daschle had to drop out of Pres run because his state did not allow him to run for both. I don't know what their state legislative make-up is either.
I'm guessing Kerry will stick with the senate run - figuring he can bluff his way through that - but I think he's underestimating Corsi's ability to taint him.
Of course, if only 60,000 voters had voted for Bush instead of Kerry in a handfull of Kerry states, then Bush would have won by an electoral college landslide.
Hang the traitor. Only then can we move on, to the next traitor.
If 60,000 Bush voters had instead voted for Kerry, then Kerry would have won by 2,000 votes. If those voters had simply not voted, then Kerry would have still lost by 58,000 votes. Imagining voters switching votes both substracts from Bush's total and adds to Kerry's total.
They like to say it that way, because "if only 60,000 voters had switched votes" sounds like a lot less than "we lost by 120,000 votes."
they have a DOMINANT position in the legislature, so much so, that when they were confronted with the possibility that, if Kerry had won the presidency, the Republican governor could appoint an interim Senator, well then they just convened and changed the rules.
Yeah, I remember that!
And whenever somebody says that, I just say, well, if much less people than that in other states--6000 in WI OR 4,000 in NH had voted "the other way," OH wouldn't matter. So there, hah.
And what's with this crap anyway? Why would these people have not voted or voted for Kerry? It would be just like our side saying if 60,000 of those Kerry voters voted for Bush, voted for somebody else, or didn't vote at all, then Bush would have won OH by much more. This "what if" bullcrap can go on forever in so many ways and cut both ways . . . but I guess if you're the loser you have to find some way to console yourself.
I hate to break it to you but Kerry obviously is no Reagan, in the conviction, charisma and personability department. Also, while Reagan did fail before, that was only in the primaries. To find someone that embodies what Kerry wants to happen in '08, one has to go all the way back to Nixon--a candidate who, like Kerry, actually made it thru' the primaries to get the nomination, lost, and came back to again win the primaries hence the nomination, and went on to win the presidency.
All this happens assuming Kerry wins the nomination again, and I wouldn't bet one plug nickel on that happening next time.
The guys name is Bob Shrum, god, I hate laziness, where the hell is the editor?
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.