In the 2000 Election Florida Fiasco a Democratic Party hack designed a butterfly ballot for the voters of Palm Beach County. Unfortunately (for the Democrats) the ballot design proved confusing for Gore voters who inadvertently cast their vote for Pat Buchanan. The Democrats did not like the way their ballot design decision turned out. So they tried everything they could to try to change the results into something they liked. Little details like fairness and election law mattered not.

Fast forward to the 2004 election and again we see the Democrats unhappy with the results of their decision making. It seems that based on their expectation that by the time the convention rolled around their candidate would be gasping for funds they decided to hold their convention early and cash that $75 million federal campaign check. It seems they were wrong. Not only is their candidate swimming in cash - so is their opponent who's convention is five weeks later. What are the Democrats to do?

Do they stand up and say, "Well we kind of screwed the pooch on the whole convention scheduling thing but we believe in our candidate and his ideas so we will go ahead as planned? Or do they spout some drivel about a level playing field (completely ignoring the fact that they created the field they are on) and try to pull a fast one?

Straight up and honest or slippery and sleazy?

Well they are politicians, and Democratic politicians at that. They are taking a long hard look at slippery and sleazy.

The current plan under consideration is for the party to hold its convention and nominate Kerry as planned. The twist is that Kerry would not accept the nomination. At least not right away. The idea is that if Kerry does not accept the nomination right away, he is free to continue spending the sizable amount of money he has raised as opposed to being limited to his federal campaign financing.

The nuance would go something like "I actually campaigned for the nomination before I decided not to accept it. Then I accepted it."

The less nuanced version would go something like "They made their bed and they refuse to lay in it. Maybe the interns weren't up to par."

Or Maybe... Kerry is being set up.

(Conspiracy theory in extended entry) It is fun to think that maybe the powerful in the party who perhaps have loyalty to certain other power figures in the party are putting this idea forward as a way to steal the convention. There have been constant rumblings in the press of the left's dissatisfaction with Kerry as a candidate. And a certain power player in the party (who happens to be married to another power player in the party) is releasing his memoir just weeks before the convention. Perhaps unaware of just how much coverage this will suck away from his party's presumptive nominee.

The scenario would play out like this. The delegates vote and as well we all know the vote will go to Kerry. He won the delegates in the primaries and they are obligated to vote for him - in the first vote. Then, as planned, Kerry takes the stage and gives a long nuanced speech in which he does not accept the nomination. This is immediately followed by a "spontaneous" outrage on the part of some delegates at Kerry's bait and switch game. Speeches are made, tensions are high. After a bit of back room negotiation it is decided that another vote needs to be held to determine if a majority of delegates still want Kerry as their nominee - or would they prefer some other candidate? Some other candidate with the integrity to not throw the nomination back in the delegates faces. Some other candidate with the courage to accept the situation and the $75 million in federal funds and get on with the business of taking back the Whitewater House.

The only question is where in the State of New York do you find such a candidate?

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 04:07 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment