Thursday’s political round-up

September 28, 2006

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* A new Quinnipiac poll in Connecticut shows Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) leading Ned Lamont (D) by 10 points, 49% to 39%. Alan Schlesinger (R) trails with only 5% support, including just 12% of Connecticut Republicans. Last month’s Quinnipiac poll was slightly worse for Lamont – he trailed by 12 — but a 10-point margin is still discouraging.

* Speaking of Connecticut, the same Quinnipiac numbers showed the gubernatorial race far from competitive. Incumbent Gov. Jodi Rell (R) now leads Democrat John DeStefano, 63% to 30%.

* In Oregon, the latest Rasmussen poll shows Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski still maintaining a comfortable lead over Republican Ron Saxton. Though Kulongoski’s 14-point lead in August has dissipated, the incumbent still leads, 47% to 38%.

* Speaking of the Pacific Northwest, the Senate race in Washington state is still a campaign to keep an eye on. Though rumor has it Republicans in DC are beginning to give up hope on the race, the latest Rasmussen poll shows Sen. Maria Cantwell’s (D) lead over Mike McGavick (R) shrinking a bit — 48% to 42%.

* And in 2008 news, it looks like Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) remains very interested in another campaign. Appearing on C-SPAN yesterday, the 2004 Democratic nominee said he’s “pretty much feeling” what you need to feel to run for President. “You just gotta make the judgment,” Kerry said. “You also have to make the judgment, which I’m pretty much feeling, I’m saying that I have something to say, I have some unfinished business from the last round, I don’t like what they did, I don’t like how they framed it, and I don’t like what they’re doing for the country today, and I think we can do better.”

With regard to Kerry’s statement, I think he should be taken very seriously.

His staff appears to have figured out how to use their e-mail list effectively and to respond to replies. He himself has chosen veterans running for House and Senate and has used his organization to raise some substantial sums for those candidates, in a couple of cases bringing that money in at crucial points in their campaigns. If those people win (and most of them are at least seriously competitive if not in front) they are going to remember who it was who stepped up and helped before the rest of the establishment did. Nixon did something similar in 1966, which strongly affected what happened in 1968.

More importantly, Kerry survived 2004 and didn’t retire to the dark woods. He knows what those scum are capable of, and I think his “seasoning” would stand him in good stead in going up against the slimeballs again.

And did I forget to mention that everything he said about what should be done about the important issues was not only right when he said it, but has been proven even more right by events since?

Like Nixon or not (and I am quite proud of the fact that I “watered” his grave once, which should tell you what I think), his ability to weather the worst that had been thrown at him politically was what made him effective in what he did (and like it or not, he did do a couple things that were worthwhile).

I suspect in 2008 we might see a candidate who is a lot closer to the Model 1971 Mk.I Kerry I knew back in the GI antiwar movement than what we got in 2004. And that would definitely be a good thing, because he was among the best I ever knew in the movement.

Not to mention John Kerry also used to build plastic scale model airplanes and still likes them, which in my book makes him a super-excellent person. 🙂

  • Interesting that Kerry is thinking of running again. Will he show some balls this time and stand up to the smears? Will the fact that he didn’t and lost in 2004 hurt his chances this time around? If so, how? (I’m always curious about that one.)

  • You know, I’ve never been particularly high on the idea of another Kerry run, but I think there’s a certain 8 Mile principle for us to keep in mind. The attack dogs have already done what they can do to Kerry. Old news is old news. Voters already know his flaws. Hearing the exact same critiques in 2008 that we heard in 2004 won’t be particularly effective.

    Now, I’m quite certain the Republicans will find some new ones to trot out, but I have a hard time believing they’ll be as effective as they were in 2004.

  • Breaking: Bob Woodward on Bush on Iraq:

    “I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.”

    Does that mean the Bush daughters are for phased withdrawal? 🙂

  • I’ll judge Kerry on what he does to battle the new Swiftboat LIars during this eletion cycle. He doesn’t need to wait till 2008 to go after those guys if he wants to live up to his word.

  • I’ve never experienced a disappointment as deep as what I felt when Kerry lost in 2004. He wasn’t my first choice to be nominee (Clark), or my second (Johnny Sunshine), and he may or may not have been my third. But I was sure he was an honorable, thoughtful man who would have returned the country to the real world rather than this incomprehensible Bush nightmare.

    I still believe that, and I share the admiration of others who applaud him for not disappearing from the scene after that loss. But his political instincts, last time, were terrible. First of all, he hired uber-schmuck Bob Shrum… whose advice to just ignore the Swift Boat attacks might have been the single biggest reason Kerry lost. Second, he kept trying to split the difference on everything from Iraq to gay marriage (where I believe his instincts were noble–he reportedly rejected Clinton’s advice, for instance, to support the hateful bans on various state ballots–but he never spoke up loudly and proudly for why this was a civil rights issue). Third, he just couldn’t speak in a compelling way–too many years in the Senate, too thoughtful, too nuanced, but the result was that he couldn’t sway low-attention-span voters.

    I suspect that, again, he wouldn’t be my first choice. But if he were somehow nominated again–or if it was clear that he was the Non-Hillary alternative–I’d strongly support him.

  • “Does Bush now count the family dog, Barney, as one of his closest advisors?”

    Hey, it worked for Son of Sam.

    I’d like to see Kerry run for simply because I’d like to imagine him personally flinging Prezint MonkeyBalls out of the Oval Orifice. I also think a lot of people have long regretted not voting for him the first time and would like a chance to redeem themselves. [Looking at people who voted for Shrub and also those who voted for Nader, to show they didn’t approve of the current political party system.]

  • Should Kerry make a second attempt, he’ll win hands-down this time. The country now knows that the “swifties” lied through their eternally-damned-and-dishonorable teeth, and the early signals that show “faux” media efforts (the “fair-&-balanced/ path to historical revision straw-bales) to no longer function in the open marketplace of ideas should shift more support his way. A Kerry re-attempt also allows for revisiting the things that have been wholly disproven on the part of herr Bush and his cadre of cronies.

    One side-issue does come to mind, though. If Hillary doeasn’t want the top slot on the ’08 ticket—would she consider the veep position? I somehow seem to enjoy the idea of her, glaring down upon those gods-awful, “minority-party” Republicans on the Senate floor—and brandishing the big stick of “nuclear option” over their greasy little scalps.

    Lamont—it’s pretty much a “wait-and-see” kind of thing now. I still think he could pull off the win, by tying everything—Economic recovery, fixing Medicare and Social Security, better funding for college educations—to the monies saved if the Iraq debacle could be overcome. There’s also the issue of reversing some of those tax cuts—not all, but at least some—and the need to put the separation of powers between the Executive and the Legislative back into balance.

    By the way—I wonder how Joe Lie will vote on the legislative legalization of torture? If he sides with Herr Bush and his “new friends,” that alone could give Lamont a landslide of tsunamic proportions….

  • Here we go again! How many times do we have to loose in order to realize that it’s an extremely tough battle to get politians from the North elected to the White House? Please, everyone, take a step back and look at how many times candidates from the north have lost in the last 40 years. It’s not about how noble or tough he is, it’s about electability. There are good candidates from the south and the west who can win.

  • Kerry is quite possibly damaged goods. He’s wouldn’t be running against Bush, probably someone like Guiliani, so tell me, what will he do differently to motivate more people to vote for him?

    I don’t want a candidate who will simply rely on the fact that there is an anti-Republican trend in the country.

  • I responded to a Kerry fundraising plea yesterday by saying that failing to stand up to the torture bill was the last straw, and no Party organization would be getting any money from me until they stand for something. (Individual candidates who are willing to stand for what they believe in is another matter… but Kerry has a lot of redeeming himself to do in that regard, imho.

  • Has Kerry been doing anything for the party since his last run?

    I was just over at Clark’s securingamerica site and today he’s in Montana for three Dems, yesterday it was Texas, the day before Kentucky — he’s been working flat out pretty much since the last election to turn one of the houses Democratic.

    Just wondering how much Kerry deserves our support.

  • “A new Quinnipiac poll in Connecticut shows Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) leading Ned Lamont (D) by 10 points, 49% to 39%. Alan Schlesinger (R) trails with only 5% support, including just 12% of Connecticut Republicans. Last month’s Quinnipiac poll was slightly worse for Lamont – he trailed by 12 — but a 10-point margin is still discouraging.” – CB

    “The WSJ poll out today has Lieberman up over Lamont by 1.8 percentage points.” – Dave G.

    You guys are just whipsawing my emotions here. I’ll never live it down if Lieberman carries the day for his Lieberboy (JRS Jr.)

  • Kerry ran a B minus campaign in ’04. He needed to run an A plus to win. Gore ran a D plus to C minus campaign in 2000. He needed to run a B plus to win.

    Why *ANYBODY* is willing to gamble on either of these two as nominee in ’08 is a mystery to me.

    Both these guys are good guys – they just aren’t good enough at the game.

  • That statement of Kerry’s is exactly why he lost…I have no idea what he was trying to say and I’m sure more than half the country would agree.

  • I was just over at Clark’s securingamerica site and today he’s in Montana for three Dems, yesterday it was Texas, the day before Kentucky — he’s been working flat out pretty much since the last election to turn one of the houses Democratic.

    Word. Clark is only hampered by Hillary. If she steps out all her big money donors will be available to Clark. He has serious National Security credentials and is from the South. I think he’s an excellent choice and as demonstrated above is working hard for Dems all over the country.

  • By the way—I wonder how Joe Lie will vote on the legislative legalization of torture? If he sides with Herr Bush and his “new friends,” that alone could give Lamont a landslide of tsunamic proportions….

    Comment by Steve — 9/28/2006 @ 1:16 pm (#11)

    I dare say my posting is “after the mustard” and you’ve seen the results. Also, nobody seems to read the roundup once the original (morning and early afternoon) batch of comments had been posted. But, just in case… 🙂

    LIEberman showed his waffling skills again… He voted for the habeas corpus protection ammendment — Nelson (NE) was the only Dem who broke ranks on that one, though several repubs showed to have more honor.

    But, when it came to the “real deal”, The Lie — and 11 other “Dems” (now on my personal hate list) — voted to torture the hell out of everyone whom our Selected Resident deigned to call “an unlawful combatant” or “material witness”, irrespective of citizenship.

    The beleaguered Chaffee was *the only Repub* to break out from the party ranks and vote against the abomination.

    Mz Snowe exhibited maidenly restraint on both — habeas amendment and the all-encompassing torture bill — by not voting in either instance. Better than nothing, I suppose, but there goes the very last of the Mohicans (Repubs I thought might be toleralble)

    One should start reviewing Kafka (Franz), Huxley (Aldous) and Orwell (George) while keeping one’s pets well-leashed (God forbid they poop on your neighbor’s lawn; you’re unlawful combatant *toast*). Instanter.

    I’ve written to the net-root co-ordinator of the Webb campaign (I’m in VA) to urge him to pass the word that Webb and all other Dem challengers running in VA (we’re *lousy* with Reps who need replacing) should repudiate — loudly — this unspeakable bill as soon as maybe.

    At least, for us, it’s relatively easy; the representatives are Repubs, so there were no heart-breaking surprises (I came to terms with Warner’s limp spine several days ago, even as he was still in his full-posturing mode). Their voting against American values is just a part of a pattern and can be used in booting them out.

    But what does one do with an asshole like Menendez in NJ? He’s already running neck-to-neck with Kean Jr, with people deciding to vote for him (because of the caucus issues), while buying strong clips for their noses. And now the asshole votes *for* torture??? All KeanJr has to do is say “I’d have never stained America’s honor like that” and the race is over for Menendez.

    I think *all* incumbents (irrespective of the party) who’d voted for this piece of excrement could be unseated if the whole thing was explained, in single-syllable terms, to the voting public.

    • Comments are closed.