Thursday’s political round-up

August 11, 2005

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:

* In Virginia, a new SurveyUSA poll shows former state Attorney General Jerry Kilgore (R) still leading Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine (D), but by less than in previous months. Kilgore’s lead is down to five points, 48% to 43%. Independent Russ Potts got 3%.

* Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro (R) formally kicked off her Senate campaign yesterday in New York, spending most of her time blasting Hillary Clinton for one thing or another. The campaign got off to a rocky start — during her speech, she stopped for 32 seconds because she couldn’t find a page in her written remarks. Ultimately, Pirro turned to an aide and said, “Does anyone have page 10?”

* A Marist College Institute poll released yesterday said that New Yorkers agree with Pirro that Clinton probably wants to run for president in 2008, but unlike Pirro, they don’t care. 55% of voters expect Clinton to launch a national campaign in the next couple of years, but they plan on voting for her anyway.

* In Vermont, Rep. Bernie Sanders (I) is looking strong in his bid for the U.S. Senate, but with a very wealthy Republican opponent, multi-millionaire Richard Tarrant, running against him, Sanders is a little concerned about finances. Bernie is now exploring a little-used provision in federal campaign law — the so-called millionaires’ amendment — to collect up to ten times the normal amount from individual contributors in the general election.

* Political observers in Iowa believe former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s (R) three-day visit, beginning tomorrow, has the look of an early presidential campaign. Gingrich’s trip will include the politically imperative tour of the Iowa State Fair, which activists perceive as a strong hint about his 2008 intentions.

* And in other 2008 news, Bob Woodward is still on his Dick-Cheney-for-president kick. In Colorado yesterday, Woodward said, “Cheney would [run in 2008], and I think it’s highly likely, so stay tuned.” You might also recall that Woodward said the same thing three months ago.

Guess what? I’m running for president in 2008 too!

  • Dick Cheney is to the Republicans as Hillary Clinton
    is to the Democrats: someone the “base” fervently
    supports but who is unelectable. In fact, I’d say that
    Cheney is even more unelectable than Ms. Clinton.
    She at least does not look like an evil demented toad
    (my apologies to toads everywhere).

  • Woodward is probably hoping Cheney runs and wins, so that the lies behind the Iraq debacle remain hidden. Otherwise, under a new President they might get out and look Woodward’s “insider” books on Bush look even more ridiculous.

  • My personal choice is Bill Frist, but
    Cheney will do just fine. Neither could
    challenge half a dozen Democrats.
    It’s the charisma thing. You don’t even
    need to show how horrible they are
    on the issues.

    Remember, mum’s the word on any
    potential, eminently beatable Repug
    candidate. No attacks, no criticisms,
    until one becomes the nominee.

  • And all along I thought Woodward was saying that Hillary’s opponent would be Mary Cheney. Or even Lynne. Isn’t The Dick, with four heart attacks, kind of on the iffy side medically? Not to mention his being charisma-challenged big time. And the F-word thing. And Halliburton. And doesn’t the Constitution prohibit anyone from running the country four twelve years in a row?

  • If Cheney runs, then we might actually stand a chance if Hillary gets the nomination. Having said that: Goooo WES!

  • Ms. Pirro just handed Hilary’s people a brilliant campaign ad if they choose to use it. Can’t you just see the hilarious ads asking, “Does anyone have page 10?”

    How good a candidate can she be if she can’t ad lib over one lousy page? I’m liking Hilary’s chances more all the time.

  • FWIW, here in the UK, the Pirro campaign got blown up hugely on TV – described as ‘a huge threat to Hillary’s pretensions’, ‘certainly derailing any presidential ambitions’, ‘likely to upset {HC}’ and so on. Why this should be, I have no idea.

    • Comments are closed.