The Democrats…

When it comes to rules and the law, Liberals and Conservatives have quite different ideas about how to behave. Here is a simple explanation ....
If you don't like a particular law ......

Liberal (Democrat) - break the law, take it to court, find an activist judge and have the law declared unconstitutional - if the judge rules against you, then whine, cry and spout venom for four years and just generally make everyone miserable with your childish behavior.

Conservative (Republican) - schedule a vote and if the majority rules, change the law - if you lose the vote, get over it and carry on.

According to the campaign laws, once a candidate is nominated by his party for the office of President, he or she receives $75 million in federal campaign funding and is allowed to spend only that money and not one cent more. Private contributions are not allowed after that point. This seems to be a fair law, sort of "leveling the playing field". Well, not exactly. John Kerry and the Democratic party are throwing a temper tantrum and looking for a way to circumvent the law. Why? Because the Democratic Convention occurs in Boston at the end of July, five weeks before the Republican Convention in New York. Kerry and the Dems think this gives Bush and the GOP more time to raise campaign funds, so they want to delay the nomination until a month after the convention. The question is, why even bother to have a convention if you're not going to nominate anyone?

The mental midgets in the Democratic Party didn't realize this until it was too late. Now, they're throwing a "hissy fit". They're bawling and whining that it is unfair and they are looking for sneaky ways to get around the campaign laws. As usual, these juvenile delinquents will act like spoiled brats until some idiot judge steps in and lets them have their way.

You can help in November by casting your vote for President Bush and every Republican on the ballots. It's time to send the Democratic Party a message that we're sick and tired of their childish antics.

When asked to comment on this story, Democratic candidate John Kerry responded as follows:

Boon, I think we also need to let them knoe that America is tired of their:
-terror appeasement
-socialism
-radical secularism
-blind allegiance to the U.N.
-radical false Bush-hating slander
-politization ANYTHING that could forward their sick political agenda
-anti-Israel lobbying
-and just plain anti-Americanism

Ha ha. It is YOU who are whining about the BRILLIANT Kerry financing strategy.
There is historical precedent for delaying the actual nomination until AFTER the convention. It is LEGAL and has happened before in US history.

It was brilliant of Bush to schedule his convention for VERY LATE, in New York, around 911. I give them credit for that, and that will be powerful.

This is a brutal political battle and Kerry and the democrats have to do whatever is legally possible to maximize the effectiveness of their campaign. I hope Kerry goes through with this plan to get the benefit of the additional money. Wonderful.

Don't count on it. A convention without confirming a nominee? It's never happened and won't this time either...

Yea, I mean ?????

Your ###### right it will be powerful, it's the story of his incredible leadership that deserves to be told.

It will also remind Americans about who we are fighting and hopefully slap us out of this cowardly daze that we are in now.

It will also remind them of the war that Scary Kerry doesn't want to fight.

NO! Wrong. Incorrect again.

There is a kind of historical precedent for this (from the John Rothman show KGO AM San Francisco):
Presumptive Democratic Party candidate for President John Kerry may keep the "presumptive" in front of his name for a little longer than expected. Kerry may not accept the nomination at the convention this summer because once he becomes the official candidate he's subject to federal spending limitations. With all the money in Bush's war chest, the last thing anyone he faces needs is to limit how much they can spend. So at the convention, we may not see an official acceptance of the nomination. It all sounds a little absurd, but it's not as strange as you might think. There is a long standing tradition of NOT accepting the nomination at the convention. It used to be done with a formal notification ceremony, which came after the convention. So with talk that Kerry waiting to accept until after the convention may not exactly be legal, the formal notification ceremony may be the answer.

It is my understanding FDR did this, as did others. The reasons did not have to do with financing. Kerry's legal team is checking out the legalities and the strategic implications, and if it makes sense, I say, GO FOR IT. If not, they will find other ways.

If Lurch doesn't accept the nonination he risks a big PR hit. Everyone knows that so he'll accept and deal with it.
Won't make any difference in the end as he's not Presidential material anyway and the folks recognize that. Outside that rarified air that hangs over the Bay area!

Yes, it is POWERFULLY SHAMELESS.

To use the victims of 911 for political gain. But that has been Bush's tact from day one after 911.

I think there will no problem with PR.
All Kerry has to do is clearly state the truth, that he is making a small adjustment in order to even the playing field financially so that he can compete moneywise with Bush. Americans who vote know the importance of campaign money and will respect this.

As far as rarified San Francisco Bay Area. Ha! Thank god for that. Bush has zero chance of winning in California, Amerca's greatest electoral vote prize. Or New York.

He (GWB) will take Orange County for sure. People who live there have a little common-sense...

Kerry is using the following for political gain:
The prison scandal
the 9/11 commission
and God knows how much lower he will sink

Bush has EVERY right to use 9/11 the was the defining moment of his Presidency.

Tequila, did you hate Bush this much when he was campaigning for President?

How about right after 9/11, you hate him then too? I'm curious.

When Bush was running in 2000, I did not hate him personally. I hated what he represented.

I began to hate him after he "won" the election using the supreme court. The hatred intensified after it became clear that he lied about being a compassionate conservative, when he was really a radical right wing fundamentalist theocrat. In my opinion, his continued power is a threat to everything great about America, so of course I hate his guts, because I love America.

I thought his initial response to 911 was well done, and I favored the actions in Afghanistan. I am disgusted by his use of fear of terrorism to get Americans to willingly surrender their civil liberties. His action in Iraq was a very damaging mistake. Bush has created more new terrorists than he has killed due to the mistake of Iraq.

Bush has created more new terrorists than he has killed due to the mistake of Iraq.

The whole Arab world hates us anyway, what's a few more. We're not appeasiers so it's "high noon" in Dodge City. No more Kobar Towers, no more Embassys blown up in Tanzania, no more USS Cole's and no more 9/11's.

Back to the subject of Kerry accepting the nomination later than the convention.

Not only is there is PRECEDENT, this is the way it was done for MOST of American history.

Up to 1928 for the democrats and 1940 for the republicans, the official ACCEPTANCE of the nominations was done AFTER the conventions at a NOMINATION CEREMONY, usually in the home town of the candidate.

For those who love TRADITIONAL VALUES, to REVIVE the NOMINATION CEREMONY actually represents the revival of grand American tradition.

And, of course, it is totally LEGAL.

As this of course is being done, if it is done, to free of campaign funds, Kerry's people still need to study whether this will actually work as expected. If they do it, they will likely accept the nomination at roughly the SAME TIME Bush does, in August.