Sounds like a good idea to me. What's the problem? Everyone knows the conventions are a joke, anyways,

if he didn't flip and flop on accepting the nomination it would be out of character for him.

"I accepted the nomimation before I didn't accept the nomination."

Delaying accepting thee nomination would mean another 5 weeks for Kausfiles and other doubters to gin up "Toricelli" options of dumping Kerry if his poll numbers look grim.

Besides 527 money and the like plus another mortage backed by Theresa and selected violations of the campaign finance rules (fines are paid after innauguration and are essentially meaningless provided everyone keeps their mouths shut for the critical couple of weeks at te end of October) should allow Kerry more than enough money to be competitive.

Besides delaying acceptance might well open up another whole can of worms with ballot access issues - sure these can be solved but they take money t get signatures or hire alwyers and some attention from the campaign managers.

I betcha he doesn't back down....

Which time?

Yes, screw Kerry for thinking of ways to UNtilt the playing field.

Party > Company > God > Country. We are NOT your father's Republican Party: GOP 2004

All he has to do is set off on a whistle-stop tour of the 50 states the day after the convention, ending in Hawaii five weeks later, when he'll accept the nomination officially.

It could be played for lots of free media coverage.

Kevin Drum is correct. John Kerry's campaign advisers, and therefore Kerry, think the same way Bush's do -- the prerequisite for any campaign is large amounts of money. Campaign advisers often get a cut of media ad buys by the campaign they work for, so they have a personal incentive to encourage the campaign to raise as much money as it can for as long as it can.

It's all about the money, which makes it a kind of "inside baseball" issue the public is likely to lose interest in very quickly once it is brought up by Kerry's delaying acceptance of his nomination. I don't see how he loses by doing so, unless it is by looking evasive if the traveling press corps decides to ask him the same question about why he is doing something no previous nominee of either major party has done in modern times, over and over. Someone like Kevin Drum is liable to dismiss this possibility with the thought that naturally Kerry ought to respond by telling the simple truth that Bush gets to raise money without restriction longer because the GOP convention comes last this year, which means Kerry has to match him however he can.

This answer, though, is the one Kevin Drum would give if he were the Democratic candidate. He's not. John Kerry may do something different; he may try to "add nuance" in an effort to appear as if he is not just interested in raising money, and in the process may make his responses convoluted enough to give the Republicans something to work with.

What in hell is John Kerry thinking? Where are his advisors? It is absurd for Kerry to be speculating in public on this issue. He should keep his mouth shut unless the decision has definitely been made to switch the dates. Kerry has just given the Bush people further ammunition to describe him as a flip flopping waffler.

The Rasmussen daily tracking poll show that the President is no longer going down in the polls:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

President Bush has endured non stop negative media coverage since the beginning of the year. Has the bleeding stopped? Will the liberal media, the unofficial left arm of the Democrat campaign machine, be able to manufacture more exaggerated news stories---or continue to downplay the very good economic news? If not, Senator Kerry is probably going to fall behind President Bush by a solid 6-8% points. According to Fox News, this is the reality currently in the crucial seventeen battleground states. I strongly suspect that by the time the Democrats meet in Boston, the discussion will revolve on how best to push Kerry out of the way.

If the democrats replace Kerry it will be difficult for anyone on the middle ground to trust a democrat for a long while.

If Kerry doesn't accept the nomination at the nominating convention, perhaps Kucinch will :-)

"I have decided that I must withdrawel from the United States presidential race because of an old war injury."

This kind of "inside baseball" can be readily explained away. Indeed, it might even lead to changes in the campaign finance laws -- both candidates would get their public money at the same time, to make it a fair fight.

The Republican Convention this year is very, very, very late...as close to 9/11 as possible.

When Bush says something he sticks to it, even if he is wrong later on. When Kerry says something it changes with the poll numbers.
Let's hope Kerry doesn't get the chance to fight a war by the poll numbers.

Rodger is right. This is "inside baseball" followed by only a tiny minority. Most people think Kerry has already been nominated and that the convention is just a formality. If the convention formally votes to nominate Kerry effective four weeks hence instead of immediately, I don't see very many people noticing the difference or caring if they do.

Kerry defering the date when he starts using the federal matching funds just doesn't allow for much traction by the opposition. Yeah, the usual winnuts will be all over it, but who cares what they think?

The real question is whether its possible from a legal standpoint. I'm not qualified to comment on that - it's one for the lawyers. If the Kerry camp can credibly make the argument, then they should go for it. Why let the opposition manipulate the rules for their advantage?

I’ve got a question.

Both the DNC and RNC received about $14 million apiece from the federal government for the purpose of holding a nominating convention for their respective presidential candidates. If the Democrats hold a convention but do not actually nominate a candidate and/or intentionally delay their nomination – are they required to return the money?

The WSJ reports this morning that John Kerry is considering delaying accepting his nomination to the Democrat run for tghe Presidency. Why? The WSJ explains:

"The Kerry camp is considering this maneuver so it can keep raising and spending money as long as possible without having to abide by spending limits that kick in once a party formally nominates its candidate. "

Ummm... wait a second, here. Didn't Kerry back these rules after Gore lost the last election?

"Of course, the late July date was the Democratic Party's own choice--and it was selected precisely so it would let the nominee accept matching federal campaign funds a month earlier than President Bush, who will be nominated in late August. The assumption had been that the Democratic candidate would have run out of cash by this summer, but Mr. Kerry has been raising more money than he expected. In other words, Mr. Kerry embraced the rules when they helped him but now wants to ignore them when they don't."

Ah. So, nothing new here, except for the degree.
Well, itis more brazen than it was before, but it's still the same old dishonesty from the Democrats.

Thorley:

Best question I've seen all day. Or maybe, just the best argument against this super-regulated presidential campaign environment we have. The fact that Kerry is in this situation suggests that the laws are not doing what they were supposed to do. (The only law that ever works with 100% efficiency is the law of unintended consequences.)

And as for the host's post -- what else is Kerry supposed to do? Get killed in the advertising wars in August? Even if Kerry were that stupid..er...idelistic..., his advisors surely aren't. While, like Zathras, I can see Kerry talking his way into a disaster on this, I don't see him flip flopping.If there is one thing any politician cares deeply about, it is getting elected. And allowing Rove to kill the usual post-convention bounce with unanswered negative ads would work against that desire.

And as for the host's post -- what else is Kerry supposed to do?

I suppsoe following the rules he wanted (until recently) is too much to ask? The rules are not there only for HIS advantage, which seems to be how he's playing it.

Actually it looks like if the DNC goes forth with this proposal, they could be in violation of federal election law:

http://www.tacitus.org/story/2004/5/24/104148/228

Bithead:

I don't see why you're outraged, to be honest. Kerry sees a way to get more money by exploiting the way the statute is written. As anyone who works with the tax code knows, this is perfectly legitimate behavior. Just as we taxpayers are under no obligation to pay more to the IRS than we absolutely have to, Kerry is under no obligation to act in a way that cuts back on his copntributions.

Does this behavior expose McCain-Feingold as a crock? Well, yes. But my guess is that you already knew that. (I wish I could convince more moderates of that fact...)

This seems to be a complete non-issue to me. Its a little like the difference betweek receiving a check on December 31st and on Jan 1st. In one case, it goes to one years tax bill, in another case to the other years bill.

Most people regard Kerry as the nominee now anyway, despite the "presumptive" tag. I also think this will keep Republicans off-balance for a while since they don't know whether he's going to do this.

Like I said non-issue. Its a technical requirement, and he's meeting it technically.

But, you see Thorley, the convention really will nominate him.

The delegates will nominate Kerry. So there *will* be a nomination at the convention.

He just won't *accept* it at the convention. I suggest that he go state to state, accepting each state's nomination in that state, until finally accepting the national nomination.

There doesn't appear to be any requirement that the nomination be accepted and settled at the convention.

Consider a scenario where a convention took place, but the nominated candidate for some reason was unable to attend. Perhaps a sudden medical emergency. There'd be a delay, until party officials determined if the candidate would be able to accept, or not, and if not, who to pass the nomination to, and how to go about that.

Jon H wrote:

But, you see Thorley, the convention really will nominate him.

The delegates will nominate Kerry. So there *will* be a nomination at the convention.

He just won't *accept* it at the convention.

The statute is not dependent on the nominee accepting the party’s nomination, it is based on the party choosing their nominee. In which case the clock probably starts ticking when the party has chosen its nominee, regardless of when he decides to formally accept it.

I don't see why you're outraged, to be honest. Kerry sees a way to get more money by exploiting the way the statute is written

Kerry is clearly not adhering to the intent of the law... even though it was a law he himself pushed for.

And outraged? No. This has become so commonplace with these criminals, aia'm not even mildy amused anymore, as I once was by their antics.

Does this behavior expose McCain-Feingold as a crock?

A law is only relevant if people are honorable enough to obey it both in word and intent. So, to answer your question; THe only one being exposed as a crock is Kerry.

The GOP had the deadlines certain states had for the submission of the names of party nominees moved, pushing it later, to allow the GOP to have a late convention, creating the money-time gap. A logical ploy would be to sue those states get them to return their deadlines to the original dates. Might not work, but it sure would be fun.

Interestingly, it appears that the practice of the nominee accepting at the convention is fairly recent.

According to Britannica, FDR broke the prior tradition, of NOT appearing, at the 1932 convention:

"Roosevelt then broke tradition by appearing in person to accept his party's nomination. "

Thorley writes: "The statute is not dependent on the nominee accepting the party’s nomination, it is based on the party choosing their nominee. In which case the clock probably starts ticking when the party has chosen its nominee, regardless of when he decides to formally accept it. "

One thing I'm not clear on. There's the issue of Federal money for the convention. There's the other issue of Federal money for the campaign.

If these are covered by the same statute (the part I'm not clear on), then you may be correct.

If they're covered by *different* statutes, it may be entirely possible for lawyers to come up with a way to satisfy both statutes - to have a nominating convention that legally qualifies for $14 million in Federal convention funding, yet which doesn't result in Kerry receiving the $70 million in Federal campaign funds until later.

That's the issue you haven't addressed. Is the $70 million in campaign funds triggered by the convention itself, or the acceptance by the candidate?

It seems more likely to me that the two issues are quite separate, because the convention can nominate, but cannot *force* the nominated candidate to run. If the nominee doesn't run, or can't run, there's no point throwing $70 million at him.