John Kerry, Have You No Shame?

Kerry considers postponing acceptance of nomination

Quote:

---

"Only John Kerry could be for a nominating convention, but be against the nomination," Ken Mehlman, the Bush-Cheney campaign manager, said in a written statement. "This is just the latest example of John Kerry's belief that the rules are for other people, not for him."

---

In the year 2000, the Republicans held their convention first. This time, it is the Democrats turn. In the year 2008, it will be the Republicans turn again. These are the rules that have been set up for years and years.

You can spin it however you want, but this is just another example of the double-speak that most Americans are sick of hearing out of their politicians. Say what you want about Bush, but is Kerry really the best that the demos can trot out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaxSon

Kerry considers postponing acceptance of nomination



In the year 2000, the Republicans held their convention first. This time, it is the Democrats turn. In the year 2008, it will be the Republicans turn again. These are the rules that have been set up for years and years.

You can spin it however you want, but this is just another example of the double-speak that most Americans are sick of hearing out of their politicians. Say what you want about Bush, but is Kerry really the best that the demos can trot out?

---

For the first time ever a presidential candidate, George Bush, declined public financing for the race for his parties nomination. He then raised in excess of 230 million dollars to win a nomination he had no competition for. He continues to raise 30 million per month despite clearly winning the nomination.
John Kerry who had previously supported public financing for the nomination felt he was forced to follow Bushes lead or else be outspent 7 to 1 on funds Bush was clearly using for the campaign for President, not his parties nomination.
There is a real fear that since Bush declined the public financing for his parties nomination he may decline public financing for the election. Bush has refused to publicly rule this out. The Presidential candidates of both parties receive an equal amount, 75 million, to spend on the election after their parties nomination. At the current pace of fundraising and spending Bush will have over 150 million dollars left to spend on the Presidential campaign after the nomination. This does not count money he could raise after the nomination which could be in excess of 100 million more. Bush continues to raise money despite his seemingly inability to spend it all before the nomination.
Sadly the Presidential race is being changed from one where both candidates have a roughly equal amount of money to spend getting their message out, to one where one candidate, Bush, seems determined to drastically outspend his opponent, Kerry.
Kerry faces a dilemma. Since his party nomination is a month before Bush he has to decide whether to accept public financing before he knows if Bush will also accept it. If he does accept public financing he could find himself outspent by a staggering amount. Therefore by delaying the acceptance of his parties nomination he eliminates the possibility of Bush doing what he did in the primaries, declining public financing. This is the only way to allow for a fair election.
This whole issue would end if Bush were to publicly announce he was accepting public financing for the Presidential campaign.
What is interesting is that some people have used this to deflect criticism of Bushes refusal to accept limits on his primary campaign and his obscene amount of fundraising. In fact people who feel one candidate should have tens, if not, hundreds of million more dollars for the campaign indeed have no shame.
So what does the WD community feel, should both candidates have roughly the same amount to spend or should one candidate have a huge advantage.
BTW have you no shame, JaxSon for trying to make this look like Kerry is trying to take advantage when it is Bush who is the one who has broken all bounds of fairness?

Let me get this right. Bush is breaking no rules or traditions, but raising a helluva lot of money. Kerry feels threatened by that fund raising and is considering breaking tradition.

What is this prattling about "fair"? The rules are set up to be as fair as possible on the average. Thats about the best anybody can hope for.

As a final note, why did these bastards feel the need to start campaigning this frickin early. I dont wanna put up with six more months of this crap.

Quote:

---

Bush is breaking no rules or traditions

---

Guess you missed the part about Bush being the first candidate to decline public financing for the primaries so he could raise an amount of money that I believe is almost 10 times greater than anyone has ever raised. John Kerry refused the public money only after Bush did. Seems there is a tradition being broken there. And it was by Bush.
Secondy, I asked if you felt it was fair that one candidate spends 250 million on a presidential campaign and the other 75 million? Especially when the opinion polls show the country evenly split.
Bush has thrown out the traditions. Has he played by the rules? Yes. Is Kerry planning on playing by the rules? Yes. Is Kerry planning on breaking tradition? Yes. Does he have not only the right but the obligation to his party to do so to ensure a fair election? Yes. Who started the fund raising wars? Bush.
Game, set, match and hopefully election- Kerry.

Edit:
btw After Bush declined the public financing Dean who was the leading candidate at the time looked at the 35 million he was going to get from public financing, then looked at the over 100 million Bush had already raised and realized that it was an unfair situation.
So he actually declined the public financing too.
I for one could wish Bush had stuck to the public financing. I think I must have seen 50-100 ads for Bush that were attacks on Kerry. Only they were 2 ads repeated over and over and over again.

The rules should be changed to even the playing field. The start of federal money use should come at the end of the second nomination regardless of which party.

By the way way Jaeger, who loses when one party is able to dominate the air waves? I think we all lose.

The biggest thing that worries me about this election is that based on everthing I've seen, I really don't think either one of them truly wants to win. It just seems like they're both going through the motions with no serious conviction or plan. I got it stuck in my head that Kerry doesn't want to win because that will nullify any chance of Hillary running in 08. But, worse than that, if Bush is there for the next four years would it be inconcievable for him to completely bury the US government so far in dept as to make the next president look like a failure no matter what they might do? Lawyers are devious mofos...

So poor John Kerry can't raise enough money, huh? Boo-hoo. Well, have you ever thought that there might be a good reason for that? Like maybe people don't want to throw good money at a losing candidate. Just a guess...

But regardless, let's change the rules after the game has started. Yeah, that's fair...NOT!

Again, you can try to keep spinning it anyway you want, but the fact is that Kerry doesn't think he can win by following the set rules and guidelines as evidenced by the CNN story above.

You are pitiful. Simply pitiful. You want to steal the election by breaking traditions then you whine, whine, whine that the other guy is going to do the same thing. As JitBob says the goal should be fair elections.

btw Did you see the McLaughlin Group today? McLaughin says the war is unwinnable. The armchair generals in this administration lost it. The US should be making plans for a premature exit. He also says the Generals feel the Administration is trying to use them as a scapegoat. He says they have always wanted more men but were prevented for asking for them. He kept cutting everyone off who wanted to say anything. I have never seen him like that. He really was ticked off at war and the Bush administration. See the transcript at his website.

and just to show how far Bush has his head up his butt:
From the Associated Press http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._ea/us_iraq_26

...recent polling data that showed 82 percent of Iraqis disapprove of the U.S. occupation force. Despite that resentment, the White House maintains a great majority of Iraqis want coalition forces in place to secure the country.

hmm. 82 percent disapprove of the US occupation force. And Bush takes that to mean a great majority want us there. Must be that new math. The one where huge deficits don't matter. And a fair election is when he outspends you 10-1.

Quote:

---

Well, have you ever thought that there might be a good reason for that? Like maybe people don't want to throw good money at a losing candidate.

---

Since Bushes approval ratings are about the same as Carters and Bush Sr. at this time when they both got clobbered it seems Bush is the presumptive loser. So why is he getting so much money? Well he gave the rich an obscene tax cut. So they are donating money.
And of course he is getting donations from INDIA. Did you know that? Seems his support for outsourcing is paying off. He has even outsourced his fundraising to India.

I don't understand what the significance of the public financing is...

Does that mean if public financing is accepted, there is a cap on the total amount permitted to be raised? Then, if you decline and only accept private funding, there is no cap? Or am I completely misunderstanding the whole concept here...?

Who cares?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ya_know

I don't understand what the significance of the public financing is...

Does that mean if public financing is accepted, there is a cap on the total amount permitted to be raised? Then, if you decline and only accept private funding, there is no cap? Or am I completely misunderstanding the whole concept here...?

---

If you accept public financing you are limited to the amount of that financing. If you decline public financing you have to raise all the money yourself but you can spend as much as you want. In the primaries you must also raise matching funds to get the money. If the max is say 35 million you might have to raise 17.5 million to get the other 17.5. There are also rules on how you may raise your share of the money. The rules are designed to prevent a candidate from recieving all his money from one person or group of people (or businesses). You must get, say, at least half your money in donations that are 1000 dollars or less per individual.
In the general election I believe the matching funds rule still applies.
The public financing of elections was designed to do 2 things. Prevent powerful interest groups from buying influence. And to ensure that no candidate had a huge advantage in money.
It may be that the parties don't have to supply the matching funds in the general election. Anyway both parties get 75 million for the Presidential election.
Until Bush declined public financing for th Republican nomination this year I believe the only person to have ever declined public financing was Ross Perot(though I may be wrong on this)

If Bush had accepted public financing to win the Republican nominaton for President he would have gotten 35 million to spend. By declining public financing it is estimated he will have close to 300 million raised before his parties nominating convention. This highlights what I have been calling an obscene amount of money Bush is raising.

if i voted, i vote for bush. but that wood mean that i'd have to care. and i don't.

:spam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

You are pitiful. Simply pitiful. You want to steal the election by breaking traditions then you whine, whine, whine that the other guy is going to do the same thing.

---

You're talking to us about whining?!? And back to name calling, I see. Since you seem to like insulting the President, let's go back to John Kerry's History Page

Personally, I don't think Kerry and his subordinates will pull a bonehead move like postponing his acceptance. That would make their Democratic Convention a sham! To have a convention and not come out with a declared candidate is insanity. And its all tied to money. The American people will surely see through this farce.

Or, maybe Bush should hold off on his acceptance until 2 days before the election. Don't you see how childish that is?

BTW, why are the Demos having their convention so early? This year, it is slated to start July 26th. In the year 2000, they started on August 11th. Surely, this was a politcal decision by the Democrats. Is it possible that they make a mistake?

OFFICIAL 2004 DNC CONVENTION PROGRAM
6:00pm - Opening flag burning ceremony.
6:30pm - Anti-war rally no. 1.
6:40pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
7:00pm - Tribute theme to France.
7:10pm - Collect offerings for al-Zawahri defense fund.
7:20pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
7:25pm - Tribute theme to Spain.
7:45pm - Anti-war rally no. 2. (Moderated by Michael Moore)
8:00pm - John Kerry presents one side of the issues
8:25pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:30pm - Terrorist appeasement workshop.
9:00pm - Gay marriage ceremony.
9:30pm - * Intermission *
10:00pm - Flag burning ceremony no. 2.
10:15pm - Re-enactment of Kerry's fake medal toss.
10:30pm - Cameo by Dean 'Yeeearrrrrrrg!'
10:40pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
10:50pm - Pledge of allegiance to the UN.
11:00pm - Double gay marriage ceremony.
11:15pm - Maximizing Welfare workshop.
11:20pm - John Kerry presents the other side of the issues
11:30pm - 'Free Saddam' pep rally.
11:59pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
12:00am - Nomination of Democrat candidate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

If you accept public financing you are limited to the amount of that financing. If you decline public financing you have to raise all the money yourself but you can spend as much as you want. In the primaries you must also raise matching funds to get the money. If the max is say 35 million you might have to raise 17.5 million to get the other 17.5. There are also rules on how you may raise your share of the money. The rules are designed to prevent a candidate from recieving all his money from one person or group of people (or businesses). You must get, say, at least half your money in donations that are 1000 dollars or less per individual.
In the general election I believe the matching funds rule still applies.
The public financing of elections was designed to do 2 things. Prevent powerful interest groups from buying influence. And to ensure that no candidate had a huge advantage in money.
It may be that the parties don't have to supply the matching funds in the general election. Anyway both parties get 75 million for the Presidential election.
Until Bush declined public financing for th Republican nomination this year I believe the only person to have ever declined public financing was Ross Perot(though I may be wrong on this)

If Bush had accepted public financing to win the Republican nominaton for President he would have gotten 35 million to spend. By declining public financing it is estimated he will have close to 300 million raised before his parties nominating convention. This highlights what I have been calling an obscene amount of money Bush is raising.

---

What you have here is a very heated campaign, and neither candidate wants to show their cards in this situation. Seems to me like a pretty stupid setup, but I don’t see anyone playing dirty pool.

Tech’s, one thing you need to remember in all of the complaining, Kerry also had the whole democratic primary, and the efforts of the other candidates to run Bush through the mud. He and every other Dem were always bashing Bush, never each other. Seems like it started early in that camp…so stop blaming Bush for perpetuating something he didn’t have any control of in the first place.


And to those retards that don't care about this topic, get out of the sandbox!

Quote:

---

You're talking to us about whining?!? And back to name calling, I see. Since you seem to like insulting the President, let's go back to John Kerry's History Page

---

FYI this is not John Kerrys history page. It is a web page made by Kerry haters. So don't try and pull that cr*p JaxSon.

And to everyone, remember, all of Bushes whining is because he wants to have 10 times more money than his opponent in the election.

You can spin it any way you want, but the questions are:

Who started this insane scramble for money by declining public financing:
Bush

Do you think its fair for one candidate to have a HUGE advantage in how much he spends on the Presidential election?
NO