September 13, 2004
CRUNCH TIME:
Kerry, Edwards and Daschle May Face Vote on Flag (Helen Dewar, Washington Post, 9/13/2004)
As senators, Kerry (Mass.), Edwards (N.C.) and Daschle (S.D.) have voted against the amendment and are described by colleagues as still opposed to it. But Kerry and Edwards, who rarely leave the campaign trail for Senate votes, are not expected to show up for the flag debate unless it appears their votes would be decisive.As it appears now, the vote could be close enough to focus attention on Kerry and Edwards if they do not suspend campaigning to return for the roll call or if they do return and their votes turn out to be critical in defeating the amendment. Similarly, if Daschle turns out to cast the make-or-break vote, Republicans will almost certainly use it against him in his close race for reelection in South Dakota.
Some Republicans believe the three Democrats' votes against the proposal -- or absence when the roll is called -- can be used against them effectively at a time of war, terrorism threats and heightened patriotism. If Kerry and Edwards vote against the amendment or fail to show up for the vote, "they're going to have to explain why," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), a key backer of the proposal.
Imagine the sea of conflicting advice from his teams of "advisers" on this one. So, Sen. Kerry, do you a) vote? [giving the illusion, albeit temporary and retractable, of taking a stand on an issue] b) not show up to ANOTHER vote? c) Resign so you can at least appear interested in being the President? or d) Blame Karl Rove . . . . again.
Posted by John Resnick at September 13, 2004 12:28 PMMy prediction - b and d. They will skip the vote, issue a press release nuanced enough to make it seem like they would have voted for or against it, and then blame the GOP for playing politics with the legislative process.
As for resigning I don't think Kerry can do it successfully anymore. When he was ahead or neck and neck with Bush it could have been spun as a decisive move. With him now trailing Bush it would be seen as a desperation move.
d, followed by e : "I served in Vietnam".
Posted by: Peter at September 13, 2004 1:15 PMI would have selected A and D, since Kerry then could have a little something to deflect criticism of his absenteeism, but otherwise I agree with AWW. Actually, Kerry doesn't need the additional scrutiny that'd come if he resigned now - less astute people than those of us here at BrothersJudd.com would wonder why he up and quit.
Posted by: Joe at September 13, 2004 1:18 PMSomewhat OT; there's a new article up on the American Spectator about Rathergate (dunno how to do the superscripting in these comments!), but spectator.org is down, probably because of traffic load. Instapundit has another excerpt. The gist is that CBS is admitting it doesn't have the originals and has no expectation of getting the originals, and there are several people within the organization who are saying CBS got its copies from the Kerry campaign.
Posted by: Joe at September 13, 2004 1:22 PMJoe: Not that far off topic = Karl Rove!!
Posted by: John Resnick at September 13, 2004 1:34 PMI figure that Kerry will place himself close to DC on the eve of the vote, thus allowing himself to postpone the actual decision on whether to appear to vote, or not.
Also, I again proclaim that there is NO WAY that Kerry will resign the seat and give up $12,500 pay per month. That could be much more than the allowance he gets from Ter-EH-za.
He'll skip the vote for it so he can skip the vote against it.
I'm deeply saddened and disappointed with all of this.
Posted by: Tom Daschle at September 13, 2004 2:46 PMWhy Tom, you'll have plenty of time to cheer up as a lobbyist (like your wife). Will you also work for the airlines, collecting millions in fees while the little guys at US Air, United, and Delta lose everything?
Please don't be sad.
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 13, 2004 3:21 PMThe "little guys" at US Air must have little brains if they're surprised by, and failed to plan for, the SECOND bankruptcy in three years.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 13, 2004 3:28 PMNow Michael, some of them are friends of mine. And they (mostly) are planning 'other' streams of income.
But Tom Daschle would willingly take their life savings if he could. Just like Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Andy & Lea Fastow, and on and on. The Democrats may wail about Dick Cheney and Halliburton, but he tried to steer his firm out of the asbestos shoals. Terry McAuliffe just pocketed his $100 million from Global Crossing (I hope that number is correct, given the emphasis on fact-checking these days) and moved on.
The money whores today are primarily Democrats, but Dan Rather won't tell you that.
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 13, 2004 3:45 PMJim: Who'd believe him now anyway?
Posted by: John Resnick at September 13, 2004 3:49 PMJoe:
Ordinarily, that would be the "sup" tag, but the comment box here appears to strip that out.
Posted by: mike earl at September 13, 2004 3:58 PM