Would you favor Kerry not formally accepting nomination at convention?

On CBS News tonight I heard that John Kerry may delay formally accepting the Democratic nomination for president for several weeks even after the convention nominates him in July.

Why? because once he accepts the nomination he has a limit on what he can spend on the general election of $75 million. Meanwhile because the GOP convention is six weeks after the Democratic nomination Bush can continue to raise large sums of money during that time.

On the plus side it would give Kerry more time to raise money to compete with Bush but on the minus side it could stop any momentum that Kerry might get out of formally accepting the nomination with a prime time speech on the final night of the convention.

What do you think?--it isn't written in stone but apparently the Kerry campaign is thinking of doing this.

I don't think money will be as big as an issue as some might think. Kerry's still gonna whip the shrub's ass no matter how much Shrub raises.

What's the downside. He can even say he will accept it, it's just a formality.

The convention may not get as much coverage and if Kerry is not going to formally accept the nomination the networks (not cable news but entertainment networks) might not broadcast the VP and Presidential candidate speeches if at a later date they will formally deliver an acceptance speech. This might hurt our momentum especially if the later formal acceptance speeches are delivered like it was in 1972 when Sargent Shriver was nominated to replace Eagleton as McGovern's VP after the convention before a meeting of the DNC rather than before a packed cheering convention hall.

Of course this might go back to the old days when presidential candidates gave their acceptance speeches weeks after they were nominated usually on the front poarch of their home before delegations railroaded in from around the country.

It has the republicans very upset. That's a good thing. Also, money plays a significant role in modern politics. This could level the playing field. And that's a good thing, too!

against Bush with money. Although Democrats will never have as much money as the Bush Crime Family, Kerry will have to use what money he has wisely.

This idea is a way to get around campaign finance laws. Terry McAuliffe -- genius that he (thinks he) is -- wanted to have the convention as early as possible on the assumption that the nominee would have (1) chosen to take federal matching funds during the primary season and then (2) used up all of his money winning the primaries and thuse just be sitting there with very little money between "locking up" the nomination and actually being nominated. Oops. Wrong and wrong again Terry.

As much as I don't like giving Shrub a head start, I also don't like manipulating the system to avoid the results of the DNC's bad strategy call. If the Republicans tried a stunt like that, the Dems (and many of us on these boards) would raise holy hell.

It's about winning the most important election in our nation's history. We need to be flexible, not rigid. We need to be able to think on our feet, rather than run a robotic, pre-programed road to defeat.

The substantial content of the nominating conventions in the era of the modern are effectively zero.

It's as ethical as Dean saying that he'd accept public financing and changing his mind. We aren't "manipulating" anything. We are playing within a set of (rather silly) rules. Everyone knows that BOTH Bush and Kerry have been the effective nominees since March--why the heck should one start with any extra weeks of fundraising due to the elaborate and not at all kabuiki dance of convention timing?

It would be a first. And I don't know what that would do to the vice presidential nomination, but we can't let bushie get an even more egregious financial lead.

idea and really good strategy.

This move will be very dicey to pull off.

Right now the Repukes can say that they're making their convention late to dodge the Olympics (even though everyone with half a functioning brain knows it was to coincide with Sept 11 celebrations).

If Kerry does this, his only discernable motive will be to avoid campaign finance laws.

I think the Kerry camp should have thought this out more before broaching the subject. They should have a counter argument in the can before they do float something like this. The 'we won't tie our hands' argument is weak, weak - weak.

longer his coattail will be.
:dem:

I really can't fathom how evil the BFEE is, if the Kerry camp deems this necessary I support it.

Long before there was a railroad, after the convention elected a nominee, they would elect a committee that would travel to the home of the nominee and ask him to accept the nomination. There was a gap of several weeks between the end of the convention and the formal acceptance of the nomination.

One could argue that Kerry is trying to restore an old American tradition.

Now, if we could get the liquor stores to open while the polls are still open, we would really be restoring another old American tradition.

It is a brilliant idea and it really pisses off the republicans....that makes it even better.

and then accepts the nomanation about, or on, or the day after ,the Repubs have there convention? Would that take the thunder out of shrubies sails? and take the attention away from him and put it on Kerry and the VP pick.

Somehow it just seems they can turn this into a big negative. I realize the 5 weeks of spending without limits IS important.

Why risk loosing the election for a vanity issue?

Does he say, "I'll think about it." Wink, wink.

It sounds like a smart thing to do to keep the money rolling in! Wow! Talk about a flexible mind and coloring outside the lines, I never would have thought of this angle.

I am impressed.

And I think it will work.

Remember all the jumping for joy about the pug convention being so late, that * wouldn't be on ballots in certain states (like Illinois)???

I think it's stupid. If we can't win on the issues with our canidate, WTF are we running this particular canidate?

If Kerry can't beat *, then it's better to know this now than in Nov!!!

If he doesn't except the nomination at the convention then we need a candidate who will! The conventions are not just for PR, they exist to nominate our candidates and to approve the national platform.

bush is finished.

...I think it makes the puke look sleazy no matter what. It's obviously totally unfair to anyone with half a brain.

Having said that, I do believe Kerry should accept the nomination in Boston. Bush is going to come off as total slime if he doesn't try to play on a level field (ie imposing self-restricting spending limits to be even with Kerry), but he'll look weak to his hardcore constituents if he caves.

Either way, Kerry comes out a big winner in this...UNLESS he somehow comes off as greedy (which I don't think he will).

So far, Kerry is playing this just right, and that is worth a helluva lot more in pr than the money he won't be alowed to spend. A helluva lot more.

I saved about 12 full VCR tapes from the 2000 campaign and have been reviewing them lately, looking for ammo to use against Bush. Predictably, there is plenty!

But much more striking is how the media treated Gore like a cartoon, especially when Chris Matthews and Peggy Noonan tagged teamed. We can't give them any type of opening there this time, and a cutesy move like delaying the acceptance will only apply a too slick label to go along with that flip-flop crap.

The convention is free media, which we need to take absolute advantage of. If Kerry decides to sidestep an acceptance that will be the overriding theme, scrutinized by media types at least as much as the VP choice or proposals of Kerry's speech.

August is lazy travel time and this year the Olympics will snag two weeks of coverage. Money in that period is not especially critical. We need a terrific, unified convention to offset Bush's early September bounce, not a controversial gathering that provides 5 subsequent weeks of Jay Leno ridicule, "Will Kerry accept next Thursday, at a French boutique on Martha's Vinyard?"

Think how anticlimactic it would be if they did the whole convention scene only to NOT have the big build up and acceptance speech.

His speech at the convention should be the highlight - something for the press to grab and run with. As it is, I think he has had trouble getting the press to notice and push his policies and plans very much. This would be his big chance to accentuate the positive thoughts he has for the future of the country.

started by FDR, who flew to the Democratic convention in '32 to accept the nomination.

As to whether or not Kerry should break with this tradition - I am not at all sure. I'm trying to think how the Republicans would spin it. Of course, they'll spin it no matter what Kerry does, so perhaps he shouldn't act on that.

What is necessary specifically to accept the nomination? If Kerry speaks at the convention, but doesn't say "I accept your nomination," has he not accepted the nomination? What are the mechanics involved in accepting a party's nomination?

and when you do it explain that the pugs are trying to captialize on 9/11. We need a level playing field.

We need to use every advantage and tool to neutralize the tricks being used by Rove. The more that I reflect on it, the late GOP convention appears to be designed to take advantage of this loophole and to gain an advantage over the Democrats. We can not let Rove get by with such a nasty trick.

At least three of which are:

1. To increase the Republican fundraising capability.
2. To capitalize on 9-11 with a convention in the city where the biggest attacks occurred and near the time when those attacks occurred.
3. To give Bush's poll numbers a "boost" as near as possible to the election itself.

There are probably more reasons, but thinking about them makes me sick.