Winning - Even if You Don't Really Win
Drudge linked to a piece about Kerry wanting to avoid the recount errors that Gore faced in 2000. But the statement that caught my eye was this:
Sen. John Kerry, bracing for a potential fight over election results, will not hesitate to declare victory Nov. 2 and defend it, advisers say. He also will be prepared to name a national security team before knowing whether he's secured the presidency.
What does this tell you about Kerry? From just this story alone, it seems Kerry and his team are going to do whatever it takes to take the presidency. Even if it means claiming a false victory. The only reason I can think he is going to do this would be to discourage voters in later time zones from voting for Bush and possibly pull undecided voters over to "the winning team".
November 3rd is going to be an ugly, ugly day.
Comments
Can you say "alarmist FUD"? I knew that you could.
What is he saying here?
"If the numbers say I've won, I'm going to defend that position with all due conviction" .... man, I hope he would, otherwise what the heck did he spend the last year campaigning for?
"If there's a huge controversy over who won, I'm going to proceed on the assumption that I did, so that if there's a decision that I did win, we haven't wasted time that could be spent getting up to speed on security issues, and if it's decided that I didn't, what does it matter to you if I wasted some folks time on the national-security-team-that wasn't?" ... again, seems pretty damned reasonable.
Posted by: Derek | October 21, 2004 3:16 PM
Dude...maybe you missed this.
"will not hesitate to declare victory"
When the hell do you think he's going to do this? November 3rd? January 21st? Hell no, most likely he's going to do it once a poll comes out saying that he's won (before any other polling places actually close) and will push the idea that he's won as long as possible throughout the evening of November 2nd.
And the whole idea that he's going to setup a national security team before he's won is just precious. Until he actually is named "the winner", the CIA and FBI aren't going to brief him on anything; no matter what he says.
You know this whole story is a sad joke. Kerry knows he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by claiming a false victory before polling and results come in saying he's the winner.
Posted by: Brian | October 21, 2004 3:23 PM
"When the hell do you think he's going to do this? November 3rd? January 21st? Hell no, most likely he's going to do it once a poll comes out saying that he's won (before any other polling places actually close) and will push the idea that he's won as long as possible throughout the evening of November 2nd."
Oh, my, Lord. I never realized how reactionary you'd become. Seriously, can you cite one ounce of evidence for this wild-ass-prediction of future events, or did it just come from the darker parts of your lower intestinal tract? :-)
Posted by: Derek | October 22, 2004 11:08 AM
"Oh, my, Lord. I never realized how reactionary you'd become."
But I'm keenly aware how much of a UN Apologist you have become. ;-)
"Seriously, can you cite one ounce of evidence for this wild-ass-prediction of future events, or did it just come from the darker parts of your lower intestinal tract? :-)"
Let me ask you this question. Do you really think that if there are questions in ANY precinct in the US (especially in areas where the race is insanely close) that Kerry won't raise a massive stink about "voter fraud" and "disenfranchisement"? Do you really think they hired 10,000 lawyers (a number offered by the DNC) and are just going to piss away that retainer money?
Call it alarmist FUD, the only way Kerry is going to admit defeat is if he's trounced in the polls. Bush is going to have to win by five or six points in popular vote and a 50 vote loss in the Electoral College for that to happen.
Posted by: Brian | October 22, 2004 11:37 AM