rather than 'i am a sore loser and i want to be president'. the more i consider this, the more it makes sense as framing (?!sorry haven't read lakoff).
his absence leaves it a cleaner fight, one certainly partisan. but i have to think that it maybe a smart move politically (as in, 'designed for politicians') in the sense that any contest won't have
kerry's whining face on the package.
it's disgusting how much of our representation is ruled by the need to market farce.
-----
interesting discussion i found this evening:
Why Remember January 6th, 2001?
On January 6th, 2001, the members of the Senate and the House, save the Congressional Black Caucus, failed to meet their constitutional duty to independently judge the validity of the unlawful Florida electors. Since the inescapable fact was that the FL electors were not "regularly" appointed in accordance with the Electoral Count Act, their further duty was to disallow them.
The electors were not "regularly" appointed because the election laws of Florida include a “contest” provision. That election contest was underway when the Bush v. Gore edict put a stop to vote counting. It was the duty of the Congress to recognize that the Florida election had been truncated and was therefore invalid.<1>
Members of the Black Caucus and several House colleagues had the courage to do their duty and object to Florida's unlawfully appointed electoral votes. The objections were denied because the rules require a signature from both a member of the House and a member of the Senate, and no Senator joined them.
When the members of the House and the Senate convene to count the electoral votes, it is more than a mere formality or ministerial responsibility; they have a positive duty to judge the legality of those votes. It is up to each member of Congress to independently judge whether or not electors are lawfully appointed. In failing to join in the objection, each and every member of the Senate, and many in the House, failed this nation and violated their oath of office to defend the Constitution.
But it is even worse. The next day two Democratic Senators appeared on Meet the Press to answer the question as to why they sat on their hands. (Of course, Russert didn't mention, or even know, what their duty actually was - that would require journalism.)
Their answer was "Nobody asked us." Those two Senators?? Joe Biden and, you guessed it, John Kerry. This was conclusive evidence, insofar as at least these two were concerned, that they were not even mindful of their duty and therefore were derelict.(and WTF is up with that?!)
Perhaps most disturbing were press reports stating that a blanket refusal by Senators to join with the few members of the House who did attempt a challenge to the Florida electors was made part of a power-sharing deal that was struck in the Senate. Negligent dereliction of duty is bad enough, but a willful refusal to confront the responsibility of their offices - for whatever reason - is far worse.
As Justice Breyer noted in his dissent to this Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore, the Electoral Count Act makes it the duty of Congress to ultimately resolve such a situation. In quoting the legislative history, he cites that:
"They can only count legal votes, and in doing so must determine, from the best evidence to be had, what are legal votes…"
And further that:
"The power to judge of the legality of the votes is a necessary consequent of the power to count. The existence of this power is of absolute necessity to the preservation of the Government." Bush v. Gore, J.Breyer dissent (11)
It seems clear that in his dissent Justice Breyer was explicitly instructing Congress as to what their duty was.
there's much more context there, definitely worth the read. eg., baldwin asserting that the theft in 2001 was worse than 9/11.
http://www.unioncountyfordemocracy.org/files/Jan6doc.htm