Posted on 03/12/2004 10:32:07 AM PST by doug from upland
Reporter Thomas Lipscomb wrote the story which is linked above in the NY SUN. It has the potential to end the Kerry presdential run.
I had a great conversation with Lipscomb a short while ago. This story was too hot for some of the majors. But Lipscomb assured me it is well-sourced and is dead on.
Two witnesses have placed John Kerry at a Kansas City meeting of the hierarchy of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in November of 1971. At that meeting, they actually took a vote about assassinating United States senators. It was called "The Phoenix Project" and was the brainchild of Scott Camil. Kerry spokesman David Wade has denied Kerry was at the meeting.
The two witnesses who place Kerry at the meeting are Terry Du-Bose and Randy Barnes. What is very interesting is that Barnes is a big Kerry supporter and the head of Missouri Vets for Kerry. As a supporter, Barnes would certainly not make up a story that would hurt his candidate. He told Lipscomb of Kerry's attendance at the meeting.
Think of the implications. If the mainsteam media and major news networks do their homework, they may discover that a man who wants to be president was at a meeting discussing the possiblity of assassinating United States senators. That is a conspiracy. Instead of the White House, does John Forbes Kerry belong in the Big House?
Get on the phone to newsrooms and shame them into covering this story. A major mainsteam journalist returned by email in about a half hour after I sent him info. He finds it "interesting." Let's see if pursues it. He is notable enough, that if he does the story, all hell will break loose in the presidential campaign.
Note: Lipscomb is not a right-wing ideologue. He did a recent story defending Kerry over his medals. He also recently did a story in which he went after George Bush's National Guard service. He told me that he expected to find a drunken rich kid with coke up his nose. Instead, he discovered that Bush actually did more than make up the meetings he had missed and he honorably fulfilled his duty. And Terry McAuliffe knows it.
While a few would go along (the New Jersey supreme court certainly has set a precedent for itself with the replace of Torricelli with Lautenberg), it would be beyond the 'Rats reach to get enough states to go along to be able to win.
Moreover, the stink would kill them in any close state, especially if the name on the ballot was still "Kerry", but voters were supposed to vote for "Kerry" in order to get, say, Hitlary. Yeah, the corrupt and the radical leftists, but I repeat myself, would go along. But this would lose a majority of the "silent majority".
What it's really always been anyway: Democide.
That could get really difficult.
The major party so afflicted would ask the voters of each state to vote for the Electoral College delegates who were intended for the departed candidate, with a commitment, publically accepted by these delegates, to vote for the chosen Fill-In instead.
That's part of the reason we have an Electoral College. The delegates to it can accomodate such emergencies.
From that point, until the actual election, a switheroo would require either getting a sufficient number of states to print a new ballots, or getting voters to vote for, say, Kerry, when they really meant Hitlary.
Then after the election, a switheroo would require getting the winning Electoral College delegates to decide on someone other than whom they were sworn to support (say due to an unexpected death).
Though of course, you are right, prior to the Convention results being taken up by the states to print ballots, it's up to the political party.
Wouldn't be the first time it happened. For example, "Was Stalin an Agent of the Tsarist Secret Police?"
**************************************************
What happens if a nominee dies before taking office?
A viewer asked this question on 8/4/2000:
Heaven for bid that this should happen...
However, once a presidential nominee has accepted the nomination from his party (either Democratic or Republican or other) and prior to the election, he/she becomes ill, incapacitated, or die...who then succeeds him/her as the in the election process??? Where can I find a reference to this answer???
Thank you kindly for assisting me in understanding the political process
JesseGordon gave this response on 8/4/2000:
First of all, the Constitution is silent on this issue -- for that matter, it's silent on anything to do with political parties at all. So there's no Constitutional guidance at all.
Second, this HAS happened, or pretty close, in 1968, when Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. He was killed in June after winning the California (and numerous other) primaries; the convention was in August. RFK would presumably have been the nominee had he not been killed.
I'm not too sure what his delegates at the convention did, but the Democrats picked Hubert Humphrey as the candidate. It was a turbulent convention, for all sorts of reasons, but RFK's death was part of the reason.
To answer the question, I assume it's entirely up to the party who has lost a candidate to decide what to do. It would seem polite to have the candidate who came in second in the primaries (McCain or Bradley) take over, but more likely there would be a special convention to choose a new candidate.
To be further polite, I would hope that the elections got postponed from November, to allow a fair race. The Constitution doesn't mandate November elections, so I guess that would be determined by Congress. But the surviving (opposing) candidate would prefer a quick election that he was pretty assured of winning, so who knows what Congress would do.
The other situation where this almost happened was with Pres. William Henry Harrison in 1841. He got ill immediately upon taking office (some say it was at his inauguration itself) and died 3 months later. His V.P., John Tyler, took over. Harrison was the first president to die in office.
*****************************************************
Whoa !! Interesting ! I am amazed that there doesn't seem to be an answer to this. It could happen..then what?
The Constitution is silent !!
You are in the context here of what happens after the convention, before the election. Once any given state has accepted the list of delegates for the Electoral College of each party, and printed ballots, then only that state could decide to reprint ballots or accept different delegate lists.
An arbitrary change of heart by a national party, unless it had a compelling story with it (a death, say), would be insufficient to get most states to change or reprint, and insufficient to get a majority of voters to follow. At least in most states - New Jersey being an obvious exception.
An outright loss (e.g. death) of a candidate would only put the power of selection back in the party's hands to the extent that the party could agree on a compelling alternative, quickly. In this case, compelling enough to overcome already printed ballots in some or most states with the departed candidates name on them.
As soon as it gets close to the actual election, it is simply too late to reprint ballots. Election results in the closely contested battle ground states would shift against any candidate whose name wasn't actually on the ballot.
This may work when done as a last minute surprise in a local or state election, especially if the party doing it already has massive corrupt control of the election. It fails on a national level unless the circumstances are highly favorable.
Amen.
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.