Reply #122: Fancy legal footwork vs. evidence [View All]

[Casablanca]

None of this changes the fact that if the evidence isn't there there isn't a case or a chance at the Oval Office. And if the evidence is there, fancy legal footwork is largely moot.

This is starting to remind me of stories of Germany before the fall of Berlin, when rumors abounded that Hitler had a secret weapon that he would unleash at the 11th hour to utterly vanquish the Allies. Because Bush is the Hitler in this case, it makes it all the more alarming.

Hope is vital, but this article has nothing more than the rationalizations we've been hearing for the last month. It's a bad idea to place your hope upon a politician's changing terminology, and the fact that Kerry is distancing himself from the election fraud effort is a tacit admission that he knows his fancy legal footwork may not be enough, so be prepared.

Remember that it was the Mary Beth Cahall-inspired tactic of playing Kerry's candidacy under the radar that was part and parcel of Bush getting within election-stealing distance. A real candidate wouldn't have given the Frat Boy that undeserved luxury. If Kerry had campaigned aggressively the entire time, and if the Democratic Party had seen the predictable election fraud in Ohio as something to be prevented before the fact, instread of responded to after the fact, he might have not needed to put himself and his credibility on the line in this way. It's always better and safer to win fair and square.

Or I could just be playing good cop. Choose your rationalization.
But you've got to mean what you say at some point in the war.