Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

All Signs Point to a 2nd Kerry Presidential Bid

A story in today's Boston Globe adds more weight to what The Fix has been hearing for much of the past two years -- that John Kerry is planning to run again for the Democratic presidential nomination.

John Kerry
Sen. John Kerry speaks during an Oct. 3 Democratic rally in Columbus, Ohio. The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee is traveling the country to help Democrats in the 2006 midterm races, hinting that he may be planning a second White house run. (AP)

As the Globe reports, Kerry's schedule is loaded of appearances in key 2006 (and 2008 states) over the final days of the midterm campaign (20 states in 30 days). The newspaper quotes several unnamed advisers asserting that the Massachusetts senator is all-but-certain to run in 2008.

While Kerry's campaign appearances are central to his future plans, it is his fundraising -- particularly through the 3-million-person e-mail list he built during the 2004 race -- that keeps him viable in the coming presidential sweepstakes. So far this cycle Kerry has raised $6 million for candidates via the Internet alone; he has raised $13.5 million total for candidates and campaign committees.

Just before the Sept. 30 filing deadline, Kerry sent an e-mail appeal to his list on behalf of several Democratic Senate candidates -- former Navy Secretary Jim Webb (Va.), state Sen. Jon Tester (Mont.), Rep. Ben Cardin (Md.) and former state Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.). It raised $400,000 for the four candidates in just 72 hours.

In this cycle Kerry has raised $100,000 or more online for 11 Democratic candidates: Sens. Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Reps. Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Harold Ford Jr. (Tenn.), Missouri state Auditor Claire McCaskill, Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Webb, Iraq war veterans Tammy Duckworth (Ill.'s 6th District) and Patrick Murphy (Pa.'s 8th District) and retired Admiral Joe Sestak (Pa.'s 7th District).

He is also using his e-mail list to recruit volunteers to help out individual and coordinated campaign efforts in a number of targeted states. Recruitment e-mails were sent to people in 20 states -- including Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada -- and have already produced more than 5,000 volunteers, according to a Kerry adviser.

The continued potency of Kerry's e-mail list shows that while a re-run candidacy is largely dismissed in the nation's capital, there remains energy for the 2004 Democratic nominee out in the hinterlands. To be able to repeatedly tap an e-mail list for other candidates reveals that Kerry may be more relevant than many political insiders believe.

That said, Kerry would start a second national race with a number of disadvantages. While he and his campaign operatives largely dismiss the impact of the chattering class's disdain for him, it does have an impact on his ability to sign up highly sought-after staffers as well as fundraisers. (The Globe story notes that neither Alan Solomont nor Steve Grossman, two Massachusetts money men who aided Kerry in 2004, have agreed to help him should he run in 2008.)

The other major challenge Kerry faces is the weight of history. Not since Adlai Stevenson in 1956 have Democrats renominated a past losing presidential nominee. Stevenson lost the '52 and '56 races to President Dwight Eisenhower (R). And not since John F. Kennedy in 1960 has a senator of either party been directly elected to the presidency.

Kerry also would enter a crowded field that is likely to include Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), former North Carolina Sen. (and Kerry 2004 ticketmate) John Edwards and even Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) or former Vice President Al Gore.

Clinton is the frontrunner today, and Edwards has done considerable spadework to build on his widely praised performance during the 2004 primary process. Both Obama and Gore bring considerable star power to the race and would complicate Kerry's effort to become the most outspoken critic in the party on the war in Iraq.

Earlier this year, The Fix made the case for and against a second Kerry presidential bid.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 9, 2006; 3:21 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Best Political Ad of 2006?
Next: In Governors Races, Dems Still Hold Stronger Hand

Comments

i believe that htis war is so overdone that we cant even pull our troops out because then we will all be putting ourselves in danger including the ones that we love.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 24, 2006 9:57 AM | Report abuse

i believe that htis war is so overdone that we cant even pull our troops out because then we will all be putting ourselves in danger including the ones that we love.

Posted by: britt | October 24, 2006 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Kerry is a new man with a voice that you can recognize as the Vietnam Veteran we all remember. Please give him another look!

He is speaking all over the Country, and he he speaking forcefully.

Posted by: virgil c | October 22, 2006 2:49 AM | Report abuse

The people of this country have got to wake up. Congress is totally ignoring what the citizen wants and demands. The thing to do is get their attention. You can do that with a 2x4 right between the eyes, that is VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE, Demos & Repub. If you don't, you and I are going to pay an additional $13,000,000,000 in taxes.

Posted by: JSArrington | October 17, 2006 2:40 PM | Report abuse

As anyone who has followed it even tangentially knows, we elected John Kerry in 2004. We were robbed of his principled, powerful leadership by something we're only just beginning to recognize. My fervent prayer is that the results of the upcoming November elections will not reek of Rovian slime and Diebold complicity the way that one did.

I don't care how few senators we've elected in our history, or how few second runs for the presidency take. I want a president we can be proud of again. John Kerry stands head and shoulders above whoever else is considering a run. There isn't another candidate in the field on either side with his particular mix of all we not only want in a president, but all we desperately need, now more than ever before.

I consider the upcoming mid-term elections, and the 2008 presidential election, absolute turning points in the destiny of this once-great-and-could-be-again country. If the Republicans remain in power I don't know what will become of us.

Hillary is a Senator New York can be very proud of, but I never understand why she's considered such a contender for the presidency. First Lady experience is all well and good, but basically she's a rookie senator from New York. She's a powerful woman and as tough as they come, but her basic credentials for the presidency are pretty thin. She's unelectable in huge parts of the country basically for no good reason but let's face it, if you want to win you accept the things you can't change and that mindset is one of them.

We have a chance to take the country back from this gang of amoral plunderers currently in power. This is no time to make a statement for women's rights. Geraldine Ferraro was every bit as strong a woman as Hillary is and she hurt Mondale. It's not fair -- it just is. Hillary can run another day -- maybe when she's got a little more experience under her belt, and the country is a little less polarized.

Kerry/Biden 2008. We're talkin' invincible.

http://www.dailykos.com/user/AnarchyRules

Posted by: ReturnToDecency | October 12, 2006 5:17 AM | Report abuse

The big question is not whether Senator John Kerry will make another run at the Presidency in 2008. Instead it is or it should be: "How will the Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory ... once again"?
Being a die-hard JFK Democrat, I love and respect both Senator Kerry and President Gore. Neither are, however, likely to win the 2008 nomination, let alone the White House.
Let's for once go with a winning strategy from the get-go and nominate a candidate with an "iron fist" that's covered with a "velvet glove." Let's give the "ball" to someone who has a fierce bite behind a winning smile. Then let's give her a dynamic, globally respected running-mate, who can draw into the Democratic column the most significant untapped voting group in the nation ... namely the Latino voters who went more than 40% for GW & DC in 2004.
Yup ... I'm calling for a Hillary Clinton -Bill Richardson 2008 Democratic ticket. Together, they'll out-manuever and defeat McCain-Romney, McCain-Hagel, McCain-Powell, McCain-Huckabee, Romney-Huckabee or whoever-whoever the GOP comes up with in 2008.
Without Hillary and the "other" Bill as their ticket, however, the Democrats will inevitably snatch defeat ... once again ... from the jaws of victory in 2008.

Posted by: Shubroto Chattopadhyay | October 11, 2006 11:36 PM | Report abuse

While everyone has their opinions about who is great etc and who brings what to the table, the election is, unfortunately, a numbers game. The only question needed to be asked is.. what candidates are truly going to bring up Kerry's electoral college number?

Richardson and Warner.. those are the only two options. Edwards was not able to bring anything in 04, HRC wont, Bayh maybe Indiana but not much cross over appeal. Biden no, feingold def not.

Richardson puts the southwest back in play for the dems and Warner puts the south back in play. If we want to win, it is this simple.

Posted by: Sensible | October 11, 2006 12:18 PM | Report abuse

I just believe that Kerry had his chance and lost it (OK, it was stolen from him, but he didn't put up a strong enough fight on that either, much like most of his campaign).

I supported Kerry, but he came across as unemotional and unable to defend his own character. I was happy that he picked Edwards as a running mate as it gave his bland campaign some level of excitement and camera appeal (which is very much needed in this age of the ever-present TV cameras).

That said, I still think Edwards makes a better VP candidate than a Pres candidate. But then again, nobody runs for the title of VP anymore.

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | October 10, 2006 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Good Grief!!! Not Kerry!!! Not only did he fail to counter the Swift Boat Liars but he should have seen that coming. As I posted in here the other day, the Swift Boat accusations have been out there for over 30 years. The leader of the Swift Boat Veterans wrote a book about it. He debated Kerry on the Dick Cavett Show in the '70's. This was totally predictable. The Kerry campaign was not prepared for it and it took weeks to mount even a feeble response. That tells you all you need to know about what a poor candidate he is.

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 10, 2006 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Speaking as a reasonably objective bystander from up here in Canada, I really can't see Mr. Kerry winning the next presidential election no matter who he's pitted against. The political climate does not look promising for a Massachussetts liberal and I suspect the Democrats will pick up on that and look elsewhere.

Can't say I was a big fan of Al Gore back in the day either, but there are some compelling reasons in my view why he ought to get a second look.

a) He's a southerner and with the exception of the ever youthful eager beaver John Edwards, Gore would appear to be the only eligible candidate from that region of the country which enjoys ever increasing political clout and which has produced the last two presidents.

b) With all due respect to Ms. Clinton (and to Americans in general), one gets the impression (at least from up here) that the U.S. electorate just isn't ready for a female president yet and that the Republicans would have a field day with her candidacy.

c) Some recent polls seem to reveal a good deal of nostalgia among voters for the " Clinton years " and the economic prosperity and apparent lack of world turmoil that the period marked. Many poll respondents seem to feel that the country has taken " a wrong turn " and may be convinced that it did so in the contested election of 2000 when things appeared at least to change for the worse quite rapidly thereafter. Bringing back a familiar face from the perceived " Wonder Years " might be just the ticket.

d) It could be argued that Gore does not fall within the category of former Democratic presidential candidates who lost an election, since many still seem to believe the election was stolen from him.

e) While he may not be the most enigmatic political figure, it seems fairly rare to find anyone with a heated loathing for the oafish Mr. Gore. You might not want to sit and have to endure a few beers with him, but he seems trustworthy and benign enough and has a history noble, if perhaps idealistic intentions. I suspect these may be seen as very attractive character traits for a presidential candidate in '08, especially in the possible wake of a democratic House who will no doubt go to great lengths to dig deep dirt on Mr. Bush and his pals.

Hope you'll forgive this intrusion in to your debate from a friend north of the border !

Posted by: OCanada | October 10, 2006 4:18 PM | Report abuse

I worked for Sen. Kerry albeit without much enthusiasm in 2004. If he couldn't beat George Bush he certainly wouldn't be able to beat any other Republican candidate since no one else could possibly be less unqualified then Bush.

Posted by: Kay | October 10, 2006 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I find it really funny that you say Kerry would have a hard time winning because of the fact that he's running straight from the Senate and then in the next paragraph you name 3 sitting US Senators who you say could beat him.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | October 10, 2006 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Kerry and he was my first choice. I'm still a supporter of his and have given money to his charities but I don't plan to support him for another White House bid. I've got my eye on Mark Warner.

The '08 Democratic primary is going to be about one thing. Hillary vs. the anti-Hillary. The question will be who is going to be the anti-Hillary. In the first phase of the race you'll have the 40% or so of Democrats who are staunch Hillary fans and the other 60% who hate her. The challenge for the other candidates is going to be who can consolidate the largest group from that 60% the fastest. Kerry's base consists of a lot of Hillary's 40% who won't even consider voting for him as long as Hillary is in it. He's their second choice. The guys who really have a shot are those who can become the first choice from a majority of the anti-Hillary 60% that's still up for grabs. This means Mark Warner or maybe John Edwards. Phase 2 will be after the anti-Hillary has been annointed and it turns into a 2 person race (plus whoever is this cycle's Dennis Kuchinich). Kerry will be long gone by then. Warner can massively outspend John Kerry and doesn't bring any negative baggage. Once it comes down to bringing the actual cash to the table to support the insanely expensive staffing that it takes to have a serious ground operation in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and the other early states, Hillary and Warner are the only guys who we can absolutely say will have the muscle.

Guy to watch: Russ Feingold. Could potentially raise some serious cash from the grassroots and suddenly turn it into a 3 way race after everyone counted him out. Hillary needs the widest field possible for as long as possible in order to win. A tenacious Feingold campaign is exactly what Hillary needs.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | October 10, 2006 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Look at this: "Actually, another Kerry run could be very interesting.A breath of fresh air, instead of that old stale beltway air. I am already on board if he decides to run again. No other candidate offers what he can offer America.posted by: mcheck "

Fresh air and Kerry in the same sentence? Good grief, how old are you? Did you pay attention to haggard and boring campaign of Kerry? There is NOTHING fresh about Kerry, it is the Bob Dole of the Senate.

Speaking of age, McCain will be 72 in 2008, and with his temper; I doubt he will win the nomination.

Senators lack executive experience, and are not part of solving problems. Senators have long lists of debate and how they voted. The people who think McCain and Hillary will face off are also wrong.
McCain will never make it past the primary states who have long supported conservatives not "mavericks". McCain would win a 3rd party nomination, but not the Republican banner.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Condi Rice are strong contenders for VP. They have the new face of their parties and new ideas.

Posted by: Sue from Kalamazoo | October 10, 2006 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Lets see: zero message and no fortitude. Why should I support Kerry?

Democrats need a champion. Kerry is so cautious that he has forgotten who he is. If he wants to run for president at all then he needs to sit this one out and discover himself.

Posted by: Yockel | October 10, 2006 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Not at all sure he could ever win the Republican nomination, but as a Democrat Romney scares me. The guy really does ooze charisma and I think he may be sufficiently skilled to hold onto the religious conservative vote without becoming unacceptable to indie voters.

At the end of the day, I personally hope Republicans nominate a true heir to Bush. If that happens, it almost doesn't matter who Dems run. Heck, Even Kerry might be able to win that race. (and for what it's worth, I would second the fact that Senator Kerry is a good man who would have made a good president. TERRIBLE candidate, however.)

Posted by: Colin | October 10, 2006 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Kerry is a stiff. He always was a stiff, and the fact that he didn't effectively counter the "swift boaters" says more about his self-perception of why he went to Nam and what he did afterwards, than anything they might have said about his service, whether truthful or not. He came across as a sham during the election; shallow, superficially informed, entitled, patrician, not truly connecting with the electorate. He should have taken a page from the book that reversed his fortunes in the Senate challenge by Weld in '96. He was on the ropes for the first debate in Fanueil Hall, and came back swinging for the next two. That won him the Senate reelection in a contest that was closer than it looked from the outside. He's a stiff, always been a stiff, and can't win a national election. ever...........

Posted by: L.Sterling | October 10, 2006 9:57 AM | Report abuse

How does Edwards know how to beat Republicans any better than Mark Warner or Evan Bayh? Or Russ Feingold for that matter (elected statewide 3 times in a Midwestern swing state)?

I'm not going to respond to anonymous comments anymore. If you can't stand by your posts, you're not worth responding to.

Ashamed R: Clinton was indeed impeached, in December 1998. He was acquitted by the Senate however. Check your facts.

Agree with Kevin. Yes, Richardson has skeletons in his closet. He could take a page from Mike Huckabee and lose some weight too.

Staley, if you read my comment above, you will see that I did say Kerry would make a very good president.

RichF: The Toledo Blade may be an unknown paper from a small- to medium-sized, somewhat failing city, but it does solid investigative reporting. The Blade was the paper that broke the huge Coingate scandal in Ohio politics last year, which led to Tom Noe going to prison and Gov. Taft becoming Ohio's first governor to be convicted in court.

I would rather have Gore than Kerry. He actually won a presidential election which gives him more claim to the office than Kerry in my opinion. His experience, intelligence, and leadership I would think about equal Kerry's. Plus, the electorate has had a break from Gore and would be more receptive to him coming back now. Running twice in a row? Even Nixon didn't do that. Looks bad. Power hungry, opportunistic. Kerry had his chance, he blew it.

Edwards is not the real deal at all. I worked against poverty for 3+ years in the Senate--the one issue I worked on my whole time there--and he was one of the Dems who pissed us off by opposing us or showing no courage. Where was he on Bush's unconscionable, draconian welfare reauthorization?? On a national affordable housing trust fund? On anti-hunger work? On child care funding? On SSBG funding? On Bush's massive budget cuts? On overtime pay rules and the rollback of ergonomics standards? Yeah, he had a nice little bill on rural rental housing and supports minimum wage increases. Almost any Democrat can claim as much. He's suddenly dressed himself in this faux concern/effort against poverty since his "populist" message turned out to play so well in the 04 primaries--because no one really gave any serious examination of his Senate record.

What is this nonsensical "liberal left" phrase?? That's a redundancy, and its users know it. Is there a conservative left? Is there a liberal right? Of course not. It would be equally idiotic and disingenuous for people to speak of the "conservative right". Or even the alliterative "reactionary right". Stop this nonsense, respect the English language. You homo sapien humans.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 10, 2006 8:38 AM | Report abuse

r. Bush clearly faces constraints as he seeks to address the public concerns about Iraq that have shrouded this midterm election: 83 percent of respondents thought that Mr. Bush was either hiding something or mostly lying when he discussed how the war in Iraq was going.
83 percent. Th

Posted by: drindl | October 10, 2006 7:57 AM | Report abuse

My requirements for a Dem I'll support in 08:

1. Hasn't run before
2. Is not an extremist(also includes not liberal
3. Has foreign policy experience
4. Has Executive branch experience at some level (state, city, etc...)
5. Brings regional plusses to the table
6. Appeals to a broad range of people
7. Can pull votes from groups Dems either have lost or are losing
8. Is not slick, slimy, filthy rich, cold as a fish, or loose-tongued

As I look at these requirements, there are only a few names being mentioned that might fulfill most if not all of them.

My list from top down would be:

1. Richardson
2. Warner
3. Clinton
4. Katrina Van Heuval(sp)-editor of The Nation[I can't say that she matches much of my criteria but the first, and every, time I heard her I thought she should run
5. Gore
6. Clarke
7. Bayh
8. Napolitano
9.

Posted by: DKinUT | October 10, 2006 7:07 AM | Report abuse

Man, I'd vote for any Dem to get the Republicans out. Here in Europe, we cannot understand why Bush was ever elected, except for voting and registration irregularities.
As an American living abroad and a avid reader on political issues, I think Kerry would make a good president, but he won't win. Image is too damaged, but the guy is very intelligent, just does not know how to runa campaiign or hire the right guys to do it for him.
Gore would be a great president but I doubt he will run.
Obama, not enough experience, give him a few more years and he's our man.
Edwards had charisma. Who knows.
In any case, as long as the regime changes over to the Dems, I'm thrilled.
The problem with US politics and I suppose everywhere else in the world, is they want a quick fix.
Jimmy Carter had a long term vision and he was axed. Too good and honest. He is the most amazing diplomat.
I think Obama has that quality but he's too young and inexperienced. This dooms him too!
Let's wait and see what happens in November. As said before, as long as the republicans are out, I'm thrilled.

Posted by: elisabeth | October 10, 2006 4:20 AM | Report abuse

I sure hope Gore gets in the race. That would make a lot of these guys who shouldn't be running (Kerry, Vilsack, Dodd, et. al) leave the dancefloor and drop out of the race before they embarrass themselves.

A Gore/Obama ticket would be quite inspiring for the nation, I think. It's been awhile since the American people were genuinely excited and hopeful about a presidential ticket.

Bayh lacks charisma and is somewhat of a "GOP Lite" politician.

Warner did a good job in Virginia, but his resume is a little thin.

Clark would make a better Secretary of Defense than a president.

Biden doesn't stand a chance because he is too prone to gaffes, despite his obvious command of foreign policy.

Dodd doesn't stand a chance because he'll be painted too easily as "another Northeastern liberal."

Vilsack doesn't even have the support of people in his home state.

Richardson may merit consideration. He'd certainly put New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Florida in play while keeping California out of play.

Kerry is very intelligent and I'd vote for him if he were the nominee again. But he had his chance and the voters aren't going to trust him again.

Hillary shouldn't run. Period. She would be far more useful in the Senate. And besides, the nation really needs someone who is not so polarizing. Gore isn't nearly as polarizing. He was just easily caricatured as bland and wonky and a nerd--qualities that suddenly look quite attractive when compared to bravado and tough talk and a lack of intellectual curiosity.

Posted by: Zzonkmiles | October 10, 2006 3:06 AM | Report abuse

Thank God the Dems took the House and Senate back in '04 after Kerry blew himself up in that stupid election! It was Kerry's for the picking. We really would have been screwed. That was close.

Oh what a minute, the Dems did blow the Congressional elections!! How the Hell did they do that? Jesus - what was I thinking...

Posted by: BlueWashington | October 10, 2006 12:54 AM | Report abuse

"I just am not sure that he has done enough since '04 to have anything to run on."

Edwards has proven himself a leader all his life; his experience in DC isn't the only gauge of his qualities.

If all you judge about someone is their Senate voting record, you miss a great deal of information, there's more to a Lincoln or a Clinton than just their political record.

It is the whole person we vote for, not just a single chapter, but their entire story.

Much of that occurs well outside the beltway, for anyone running for President, and this applies to Edwards particularly. I trust him to understand, like Clinton, what street level citizens need.

Kerry, Dean, the rest of the Democratic Party Ivy-League patricians have their hearts in the right places, but they've never known what "street level" life is all about, and that surely can't be said about Edwards.

Or the Democratic Party base.

He didn't start life on the top rung of the ladder, he made his own way up there.

That alone gives him an insight and understanding that many Congressmen and even a bigger percentage of Senators lack, no matter how long they've been lawmakers.

Edwards has "real life" experience.

And that makes him a better choice for our "street level" constituency.

Posted by: JEP | October 10, 2006 12:27 AM | Report abuse

So what, Hillary, Gore, Edwards, Obama,Biden, Dodd,Bahy,Warner,Clark and maybe even the kitchen sink may be running for President and competing against Senator Kerry. He has as much to offer- if not more- in my opinion, than the other possible candidates. So, some may have long coat tails to hang on to and more money too. Why would that deter someone with a passion to run? And, why would that matter to those who support him?
If Senator Kerry makes the decision to try again,I say good for him. Life is to short to wonder about what could have been or the what-ifs. There always is the chance of achieving a first.Maybe it is time to consider new idea or a new way. Sure, it won't be easy, but somehow, I think the candidate Kerry from 2004 has learned from his mistakes and a new Kerry has emerged. I think he is more than ready for any fight coming his way this time around. If Senator Kerry "keeps his eye on the prize", I think he has a good shot at making it all the way this time. I would certainly support him again.

Posted by: second edititon | October 10, 2006 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Drindl.

Touche' Jr.s Schiavo legislation is social engineering. The point is this. In Political Science 101, they teach you that politics in a pendulum is much like a clock. The far liberal left occupies the 12-3 hours. The neocons occupy the 9-12 hours. The closer to the 12, the more both the neocons and liberal left look the same.....ie radical. And yes, they both engage in social engineering that is out of the mainstream of most Americans as
most Americans fall between the 4 and 8 hour hands. If you want proof of that, look at most polls on how American self subsribed themselves.

This is not to say that Americans can be left of center (5) or right of center (7).

Ironically, if you are dead on center (6) you are identified as spineless or lacking in conviction.

For those of us who are truely fiscal conservatives but want goverment out of our lives on social issues, there are few places to turn in either party.

This is not to say that a sound fiscal policy does not have a progressive tax structure. IMO, the DLC and Clinton, had the right formula on taxes and regulation. The neocons have destroyed this with their unbashedly reckless regard to anyone paying taxes except the people who can least afford it. The reality is under every Repulbican president since 1980, our deficits have been the highest ever. This includes Reagan, and Bush 1 and 2.

On the other hand, when Dems were in control of the house and senate, their idea of solving problems were to throw money at problems versus solving issues with free market solutions.

In summary, I am looking for a candidate that is a libertarian on social issues (no more Schiavo cases, and no more Alitos and Roberts on the bench) AND someone who will restore this country's fiscal health. And as an aside, someone who will restore our position abroad as a consensus builder on foreign affairs.

IMO, Hagel and Bayh may be the closet to fitting this description.

Posted by: An Ashamed R | October 10, 2006 12:12 AM | Report abuse

"And Rudi--well, I guess it just depends on how much the media focuses on all those pix of him in racy drag. I mean, it was charming in New York, but how does it play in Peoria?"

Especially after the Foley scandal...

Posted by: JEP | October 10, 2006 12:10 AM | Report abuse

I am looking forward to another presidential run by Senator Kerry. I have wanted him to try again since the upsetting loss in 2004. Fresh face? I ask why? Why, when our country needs good leadership and a person with knowledge and vision. Kerry possesses the passion to want to run for all the right reasons. He has ideas and plans to take our country forward. He has as much common sense as he has knowlege and intelligence.
I am involved with many Democrats and I don't hear much negatives on another Kerry run. Most people I speak with would be willing to vote for him again. I suppose they don't buy into the inside the beltway idea that Democrats don't run candidates more than once. When you hear and read about someone as great as Senator Kerry, it is a shame to just dismiss what he could actually offer this country, simply for the so called conventional wisdom. For me, that wisdom went out the window when President Bush was elected first by the US Supreme Court and a second time based on fear. I see Senator Kerry in a better position than before and able to take on the likes of anyone being offered up by the Republican party at ths time- and that includes Senator McCain. Actually, another Kerry run could be very interesting.A breath of fresh air, instead of that old stale beltway air. I am already on board if he decides to run again. No other candidate offers what he can offer America.

Posted by: mcheck | October 9, 2006 11:53 PM | Report abuse

F&B - The "Fear Card" has had it's day. Deputy Dog Bush and the Keystone cops forming his administration wouldn't be trusted to take out the garbage at most American homes. The world, right now, is a scary place. North Korea, Iran, etc. threaten to spiral completely out of control. But trust Bush to handle it? Give me a break! Look at the mess he made of Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and illegal immigration. Like most American's, I figure if that fool and his nutcase crowd do ANYTHING with North Korea, they will end up blowing up the world. So, "yes, indeed", we are all fearful, but we are more fearful of Bush than we are of anything else.

Posted by: MikeB | October 9, 2006 11:52 PM | Report abuse

This is OT on this thread but thought it worthy to point out... to add to my 3:36pm post (from the previous thread):

"...the White House plans to amplify national security issues, especially the threat of terrorism, after North Korea's reported nuclear test, in hopes of shifting the debate away from casualties and controversy during the final month of the campaign. These efforts are aimed largely at prodding disaffected conservatives to vote for GOP candidates despite their unease.."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100901218.html

There it is right there in black and white: Playing the FEAR card for POLITICAL PURPOSES.

Posted by: F&B | October 9, 2006 11:46 PM | Report abuse

drind - This is one case where we completely disagree. John Kerry *is* the most decent, the most competent, and the single most courageous leader this country has produced since Dwight Eisenhower. We got into the the dual morrases of Iraq and Afgahnistan, uncontrolled outsourcing, and just about every other failure you can point to over the past, not just 8, but 18 years! I would quit my job and knock on doors, work on is website, do whatever he asked, if he were to run. He is superior to any other political leader (or any other leader of any sort) this country has produced in the past 20 years. I hope to God he runs and wins.

Posted by: MikeB | October 9, 2006 11:02 PM | Report abuse

John Kerry will go as far in 2008 as Joe Lieberman did in his Presidential run.

Nowhere.

Chris Cizzilla -- as a member of the media -- is as culpable as Kerry for his current status:

In 2004 the Toledo Blade won a Pulitzer for its 22-article series detailing the U.S. Tiger Force unit's activities in Vietnam. That coverage verified Kerry's 1970 'winter soldier' comments, and not only disproved the Swift Boaters' smears about where Kerry was, etc., but ended their supposed reason for existing as a group at all. Since the war crimes occurred, Kerry obviously wasn't besmirching his fellow vets--most of whom he obviously respected.

Yet the media prattled on about the Swift Boaters, 'what'ya make of this? who can figure it all out?' and utterly refused to perform even a lick of truth-squadding.

You wouldn't even know there WAS a Pulitzer that year. In the midst of a Presidential campaign-- the Toledo Blade series was a bombshell. In the midst of the Iraq War--which re-enacted all the same mistakes made in Vietnam--it was a thermonuclear warhead. It should have blown the entire Smear Kerry campaign right outta the arena. Yet, because what passed for the media was just a collection of shills, blindmen, and stooges where reporters and editors once plied a trade, there was no truth-squadding. And as a result, our friends and neighbors are dying in Iraq right now.

Today.

And btw--Hilary and Bayh are already toast. Stale, 2-day old, toast.

Posted by: Richf | October 9, 2006 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Ashamed R -- you still have not documented what it means to be 'far left' and what you mean by 'social engineering' --like what? Specific examples, please.. didn't you think that Junior's 'marriage iniative' and his 'faith-based' social programs are 'social engineering'?

What has the left done that is nearly that intrusive?

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 10:34 PM | Report abuse

I am thrilled that Kerry will be running again. Nobody has the expertise on terrorism he has (people, read up on BCCI). Also, who can deny that he was RIGHT about everything back in 2004? He's the only one in the entire pack that can save this country from the corruption and warmongering of the current administration. Go Kerry!

Somebody upthread who dissed Webb and wearing a uniform -- excuse me, but his son is in Iraq right now. Some nerve you have.

Posted by: Lynn | October 9, 2006 10:32 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to add my voice to the readers who are much more interested in reading about 06 than 08 at this point. The occasional update on who the candidates are likely to be in 08 and how they are positioning themeselves is interesting. More space than that decidated to 08 at this point makes me skip to the next blog.

We all already knew Kerry was very likely to make another run, and that a lot of Democrats are not thrilled by the idea. I started reading your blog because of the density of information I don't already know. Please get back to that.

How will North Koreas actions play into the national security debate? Where is the Monday Line? What effect is the Foley thing likely to have on turnout in key races?

Posted by: Cali49 | October 9, 2006 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of Mark Warner, what's he been up to recently, Chris? Bring us something fresh and new. Bring us the future, not the past!

Posted by: B2O | October 9, 2006 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Feingold, talk about a long Senate record.

Warner looks really good.

Edwards, like Kerry is old news.

Posted by: iowa | October 9, 2006 10:24 PM | Report abuse

It won't be Kerry but who, who, who? Only a Republican would suggest it'll be HRC.

I like Bill Richardon, Gov of New Mexico. He needs an expensive suit and a good haircut and he's good to go.

Posted by: Gale Wheat | October 9, 2006 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Forget for the moment the label of R or D.

Which idealogy or philosophy do you think best represents all of America.,

Social Conservative, Fiscal Conservative:: (I.E. Neocon)

Social Liberal leaning, fiscal Concervative
( i,e Moderate R and/or Centrist Dem)

Social liberal, fiscal liberal (meaning social engineering). (i,e. liberal left)

Posted by: An Ashamed R | October 9, 2006 10:12 PM | Report abuse

John Kerry is not electable in this cognitively-challenged backwater of a nation, because he wasn't wounded nearly enough times in Vietnam after VOLUNTEERING FOR COMBAT there.

No, not when he's up against a man who was drinking his way through the war and occasionally showing up for Guard duty after his daddy helped get him in. No siree. The problem the Democratic Party has is that it gives the American voter far too much credit for brains.

Americans are a stupid, easily manipulated masochistic people who want more than anything to simply be despised throughout the world and attacked at home. We need to nominate accordingly. Any ideas for someone self-destructive enough to our country's interests? Don't let Karl Rove have all the fun, guys.

Posted by: B2O | October 9, 2006 10:08 PM | Report abuse


I tell you what Dean and Pelosi are....
Not right for America. Neither is Feingold.

Why? America is not as conservative of a country as the neocons are governing. Neither is America left leaning in the mold of George McGovern and the Eastern USA leaning Democratic party.

I cant say that Bill Clinton was my favorite person to be president, however, looking back, he led this country to a path of fiscal responsibility, he chose competent people to lead departments, and with the exception of his personal conduct in office, his governemnt was not under a constant scandal as the neocons have ran this far. A government ran totally on loyalties and cronyism is bound to fail.

I think America will chose someone more like they are. It wont be someone to far to the right or too far to the left. IMO, it will be Hagel as he is a fiscal conservative, morally sound, and a fresh face for the GOP. I dont think McCain can go the distance without imploding. Rudi G only plays in NY.

As for Dems, go ahead and run Feingold. He wont win one purple or red state and will not carry the Midwest or FL. Wake up Dems, your answer is not with a far left leaning candidate. Would you rather win on principle or just win baby? At least The R's agree to one thing, they just want to win, by hook or crook.

Posted by: An Ashamed R | October 9, 2006 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Kerry go home. Time for a new guy.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2006 9:59 PM | Report abuse

It's strange how D's let the R's frame the issue for them and demonize their candidates --- what has howard dean or nancy pelosi actually done or believed in that was so awful? Point to something... you're just letting yourself get conned by R PR.

Name an issue that you disagree with either of them on.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Kerry? in '08? Oh, God... no! Please... this Democrat wants to see the Pelosi/Kerry wing of the party OBLITERATED.

Posted by: Rich | October 9, 2006 9:37 PM | Report abuse

It's a rarity for a politician as brilliant as Senator Kerry to come along... I hope he runs again because, regardless of whether the republicans bother to actually listen to what he is saying, he is one of the few that speaks in a detailed way about substantive issues and who has real ideas. That's what I look for in my president.

As for already having lost once, he's learned from his mistakes, anything potentially negative about him is already out in the open, and he's been cementing his strong platform in the Senate ever since.

Posted by: Nick College Student | October 9, 2006 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Kerry is welcome to run again in 2008. He'll probably be deeply embarrassed when it turns out he has no real constituency, and loses badly in every contest he enters. He was only nominated because he was the only plausible choice, and then managed to lose an almost-unlosable election by his weak showing. I have never, in the entire time from 2003 to the present, been told by a single person that they actually LIKE John Kerry or really think he'd be a good President. He was simple the least objectionable of a bad lot. That won't be true in 2008, no matter who runs (because his poor performance in 2004 lowered his stock considerably).

Posted by: Staley | October 9, 2006 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Kevin, people said they say about Bayh that they said about Clinton (when it comes to ideology.) Bayh was chair of the DLC, so was Clinton. That said, Clinton is a much better speak than Bayh could ever dream to be.

HRC is going to be the Dem nominee. She has a lot of money and is going to cruise. McCain and Guiliani are percieved to be too moderate (although McCain isn't really a mod.)

Someone mentioned Harold Ford. I think he will be a great VP candidate. Right now no one knows who he is, put him in the 2 spot and he'll build some name ID.

Finally, everyone is right. Kerry blew it. He ran against a very vunerable president and got pretty much routed (51-48% in this era isn't that close.)

Posted by: Zach | October 9, 2006 8:59 PM | Report abuse

agree about russ!!

Posted by: a fan | October 9, 2006 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Evan Bayh is exactly the type of candidate that is wrong for dems and the country. He's another career politician who loves sliding to the middle and pretending that if we act 'just a little more like the GOP' we can win the elections. I doubt Bayh would have been a senator if it weren't for his father, same last name, who was wildly popular. I see no inspiring characteristics in the whole DLC crew.

I was always curious about Bill Richardson and really wanted him to be the #2 on any ticket last time out. Supposedly there are lots of rumors (aren't there always) about skeletons in his closet. No idea if there is any truth to it or not.

Hillary - ugh

RUSS FEINGOLD - a democrat with some balls.

Posted by: Kevin | October 9, 2006 8:36 PM | Report abuse

'I used to work on the Hill, I have witnessed several meetings where he goes ballistic. He's scary. He explodes at the most minute issues. And "explodes" is not exaggerating. It frightens me to think he may be the frontrunner for the Republican party. If they had only seen some of the meetings I witnessed. Wow.'

Yeah, I've heard that too from folks on the Hill. There's a reason why the bush campaign exploited MCain's anger --because it's there and everyone knows it.

And Rudi--well, I guess it just depends on how much the media focuses on all those pix of him in racy drag. I mean, it was charming in New York, but how does it play in Peoria?

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 8:31 PM | Report abuse


Kerry is to the Dem Party what Doe, Kemp, and Lugar are to the Rep. They inspire no one.

Republicans best shot at 2008 is Hagel of Nebraska. Dems best shot is Bayh, abeit HRC will stir things up.

Anyone who thinks Rudi G is going to make it past the Conservatives in the primaries are betting on wishful thinking. All one has to do is replay his nasty affair as Mayor in soutbern states and the guy is toast. Conservatives like their affairs discrete and their like gays and lesbians in the closet.. IF you do have an affair, you backslid and must go before the alter and ask for forgiveness. Rudi was not discrete and has never asked for forgiveness. This my folks is the baptist way in the south. Why do you think Clinton was not impeached and still is a top draw with folks from all parts of the USA. He asked and received forgiveness and has been granted a new lease on life except for the neocons who despise him. The reason they despise him is they thought following Reagon that their time has come and Clinton denied them that. Look what happened, the neocons are brainless twits with no concept of how to govern. They are into power not to do good for the people, they are into power for power sakes. Their idealogy is about ID...what's into it for them. Apparently they treat government as their own private bank account and will do and say anything to maintain this. That folks is why my party left me high and dry.

The neocons philosophy goes something like this. No good deed goes unpunished. The only value in good government is the pay when you are pulling the levers.

Posted by: An Ashamed R | October 9, 2006 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Kerry:

You are a nice guy and all, but . . .

I busted my ass for you in Ohio, almost every day for nine weeks; hauling the campaign back and forth across the county one pick-up load at a time, going door-to-door, planting yard signs, doing phone work, setting up for fundraisers, GOTV, cash, cash, cash, etc. I made a commitment to the campaign . . . but I won't vote for you again.

At the Dem Convention your glory verse-chorus was "Bring IT ON!" When they did, when they 'Brought IT On Hard!' you went missing from the campaign - AWOL from your dedicated volunteers and supporters. As such, we ended up carrying your sorry ass over the finish-line.

But, God bless you for sticking with it, dedicating yourself as a volunteer for other Dem's campaigns - they can use your assistance and cash

AND, you owe them BIG TIME!

Dear Chris:

I believe you've mistaken the purpose of John Kerry's campaign travels through important states, banging the drum and passing the hat. He's not doing that for his future prospects. He's paying off old debts.

Posted by: MichaelOhio | October 9, 2006 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Kerry 2008? Slow learners, those Dems.

Posted by: Amazed in MD | October 9, 2006 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Dan,

Thanks for the Richardson vote - and for mentioning that he would also bring in the Hispanic vote. He should have been a candidate in '04 - but maybe he was biding his time - I hope so. I think that Richardson with one of the senators for VP (not HRC, not Kerry, not Feingold) would be a good pair - maybe Edwards again (but he may remind too many people of '04) - maybe Obama - but I still think he won't have the experience necessary.

It was sad to watch the '04 campaign - the Dems were so inept in responding to the Republicans - I can't figure out why we can't find a Rove for us. I hope that the Dems can manage the N Korea situation well - there are so many ways they can use it to their advantage (that sounds wrong). Something along the lines of 'They aren't keeping us safe like they promised to do - what they are doing is not working - here's what we can do.' They need to come up with a good message for '08.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2006 7:19 PM | Report abuse

JEP -

Edwards had to have a heck of lot of money for his Senate run, too. Maybe not unlimited but had to be close - he made a ton of it in his litigation practice. Money can get you anywhere.

I am not saying that he is a bad candidate - I just am not sure that he has done enough since '04 to have anything to run on. His anti-poverty stuff isn't enough. I do think he would be great - but he just doesn't have enough experience actually governing people - and no foreign policy experience - the Republicans would have a pretty valid points in their campaign against him. How can you make up for that?

On the other hand, he does have a compelling story. There is a lot there that would be helpful in trying to relate to people. With a little bit of governing experience, he would be great.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2006 7:02 PM | Report abuse

The best candidate hands down for the dems is Bill Richardson of New Mexico.
COnressional experience, foreign policy experience, solid governor and Hispanic, as well.
Not from the liberal demo bastions in the east.
A winner

Posted by: Dan | October 9, 2006 6:55 PM | Report abuse

I agree that John Kerry should NOT run in '08.

OT:

Check out this disturbing and insulting video of Tom Kean Jr. totally dismissing a woman whose son is currently serving in Iraq:

http://www.perfectlywrong.com/2006/10/07/tom-kean-jr-runs-away-from-a-troops-mother/

What a total jerk. If you have no answer for her, tell her you have no answer. Dont just walk away like a pompous prick. Jeez. These Bush-ite Republicans are just too much.

Posted by: F&B | October 9, 2006 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about the mistake on Edwards but I didn't say that Obama would only have two years - I meant that it would be the equivalent of Edwards - apparently it would be even less than what Edwards had, which makes him even less electable (I hate to say that because I think he is great). AS far as Feingold, ok - he is just a little bit too much straight to the point, which is not a bad attriubute, and it WOULD be refreshing, but there just isn't enough there - plus he is from the mid-West - has a presidential nominee from that part of the country ever done well? (I am from MN so that DOES hurt.)

Warner or Richardson - that is it. Add on the fact that Warner is very handsome and as we all know, that doesn't hurt - as sad as it may be.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2006 6:25 PM | Report abuse

"Edwards ran in 04 with 6 years in the Senate; not two. He defeated Lauch Faircloth in 1998."

Lauch Faircloth(NC), David Sentele(NC) and Jesse Helms(NC) hired Ken Starr(NC).

Faircloth had unlimited old tobacco money and stinky new hoglot money to run his campaign, and Edwards still popped him.

Edwards knows how to beat Republicans, we just need to give him a chance to beat the other Democrats first.

That may be his hardest chore this time around.

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 6:24 PM | Report abuse

I am 49 year old registered Dem in Oak Park, IL.

I won't vote for John Kerry. He ran a terrible campaign. He did not know how to manage that. How could he manage/lead this country.

No Go.

Posted by: P. McNamara | October 9, 2006 6:23 PM | Report abuse

"The Bomb that Wasn't"

A sub-kiloton nuclear explosion?

Now the experts aren't even sure it was an actual nuclear explosion.

A 4.2 on the Richter scale means maybe a lot of dynamite, but not a nuke. It's been called a "ruse" but at whose hand?

Do I smell a turdblossom scheme that fell flat?

An "October Surprise" that fizzled instead of exploding?

Or was NKorea's nuke just a dud?

Just asking interesting questions; I'm certainly not asserting any of it as "fact."

Just food for thought.


Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 6:19 PM | Report abuse

That's hilarious. Reminds me of the Twinkie experiment.

Americans don't want a Mormon. Sorry to say it, but check recent Gallup data. Who else you got?

Hey ANONYMOUS, Edwards ran in 04 with 6 years in the Senate; not two. He defeated Lauch Faircloth in 1998. Check your facts. If we win in 08, Obama doesn't get a chance to run again until 2016. Then he has a 12 year Senate record and is in his 50s, hardly the fresh, young, energetic, new face with new ideas he comes across as now. And Obama would run in 08 with four years Senate experience, not two. Marriage problems?? When we already elected a divorced and remarried president? And Newt Gingrich of extensive marriage foibles may well run in 08? Of all the arguments for Feingold's non-viability, I find that one to be absolutely the least plausible and longest shot.

Warner and Richardson will probably run. I'm not crazy about either. Warner seems most electable without Obama in the race.

I meant to say earlier that Kerry would be good in someone's cabinet. His highest ranking committee assignment in the Senate is--anyone??--Small Business. He chairs it if we win back the Senate. Does he get Commerce Secretary?? That seems demeaning for him. He's also on Foreign Affairs, but I don't see him heading State or Defense. Energy?

Sue, was that your declaration of candidacy?

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! It's Turkey Day in Canada.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 9, 2006 6:16 PM | Report abuse

That's hilarious. Reminds me of the Twinkie experiment.

Americans don't want a Mormon. Sorry to say it, but check recent Gallup data. Who else you got?

Hey ANONYMOUS, Edwards ran in 04 with 6 years in the Senate; not two. He defeated Lauch Faircloth in 1998. Check your facts. If we win in 08, Obama doesn't get a chance to run again until 2016. Then he has a 12 year Senate record and is in his 50s, hardly the fresh, young, energetic, new face with new ideas he comes across as now. And Obama would run in 08 with four years Senate experience, not two. Marriage problems?? When we already elected a divorced and remarried president? And Newt Gingrich of extensive marriage foibles may well run in 08? Of all the arguments for Feingold's non-viability, I find that one to be absolutely the least plausible and longest shot.

Warner and Richardson will probably run. I'm not crazy about either. Warner seems most electable without Obama in the race.

I meant to say earlier that Kerry would be good in someone's cabinet. His highest ranking committee assignment in the Senate is--anyone??--Small Business. He chairs it if we win back the Senate. Does he get Commerce Secretary?? That seems demeaning for him. He's also on Foreign Affairs, but I don't see him heading State or Defense. Energy?

Sue, was that your declaration of candidacy?

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! It's Turkey Day in Canada.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 9, 2006 6:16 PM | Report abuse

KOZ - Romney would have to be YOUR candidate - if you put him up against Hillary, I just wouldn't vote and then I would just move somewhere - across US borders. Hey - maybe that's how you guys can get rid of a bunch of us!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2006 6:11 PM | Report abuse

If you like governors, and who doesn't, then Mitt seems like the right guy. If he can win in the bluest of blue, he can flip a few blue states too. sounds almost Seussian.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 6:01 PM | Report abuse

No way is Kerry the right candidate, but neither is Obama. It would be a huge mistake for him to run - he will not even have one term as a senator finished - don't get me wrong - I KNOW he has what it takes but not with only four years in the Senate. Let's save him for at least '12 or '16. It would be the same mistake that Edwards made - he ran with two years in the Senate (granted, as VP) but he is not viable this time around because he still only has two years in the Senate. I think he has wonderful ideas and is very charming but two years in the Seante gives him nothing to run on - can you imagine the fun the Republicans would have with that. Feingold isn't it, either - as much as I want to think it wouldn't matter, he has too much baggage with his marriage problems. If HRC is the candidate, I would consider crossing the party line - and as a woman that hurts - depending on who the Republican is - but it wouldn't matter because there is not any possible way she can win. She is not the right candidate - for so many reasons that it would make this post oh way too long. If hte Democrats choose her, I will have to vote for the Republican just on matter of principle - if they are stupid enough to let her be the candidate, they do not deserve party loyalty - or my vote.

Let's look at who has actually WON the presidential election lately (well, much longer than that, really) - they have all been governors first, not senators. This fact makes most of the people that have been mentioned not electable - let's look at Richardson - he pulls in at least one Western state besides CA. How about Warner? He pulls in a southern state - the electoral votes from these states might have made a difference in the last election, plus he might have cross-over appeal in other southern states.

Why would the Democrats not think about who would be the best candidate instead of picking the candidate with the most money - which seems to happen too often. There has to be someone who can tell Hillary to put aside her own ambitions for the good of the party - which is what the whole process should be all about. Warner or Richardson would be the best - no question about it. I hope that something besides money speaks in '08.

That aside, I too would like to see more of what is going on as far as the upcoming election - I was little disappointed with today's topics - funny - no one sticks to them anyway.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2006 5:55 PM | Report abuse

If there were a draft, the war would be over. Jenna and Barbara ain't goin.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 9, 2006 5:55 PM | Report abuse

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

tin foil hat people from MIT.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Let's forget about Kerry, McCain, Hillary, Liberman, and ANYONE NAMED BUSH! We need some new people with fresh ideas and not someone connected at the hip to the lobbyist, big business or THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT or FAR LEFT! Let's not recycle the same old faces, same old pledges etc., our world is a complete mess, especially our country THX GWB/DC/RUMMY/ROVE/RICE/ETAL, now it's time for the American public to stop voting because someone carries a bible and spews expletive's about gays, terriorists etc., We need someone who is strong and not afraid to take on BIG CORPORATIONS, we need someone who truly cares about our future and that of our children, grandchildren and our EARTH. What this country has been drug through the past almost six years is enough already! Let's also forget about the "swiftboaters" and all those Rove clones who's motto is "win at any cost, smear anyone and everyone, even if not true, and it doesn't matter if your qualified as long as your on our side". I would like our country back and I would like to know what the next Presidential hopefully plans on doing for OUR COUNTRY, Not IRAQ, not IRAN, NOT AFGHANISTAN, NOT MEXICO, but OUR COUNTRY! Remember us, the peons who have all that money deducted from our checks, pay our taxes at the grocery store, mall, gas station and so on, all that money that these people use at their pleasure! Someone who has a plan for getting us out of IRAQ,remember Bush said it's the next PREZ'S PROBLEM!, someone who will secure our borders, ports and infrastructure, someone who will raise the minimum wage (NO STRINGS ATTACHED), SOMEONE who realizes our planet is in trouble and we need to start putting the screws to the oil companies and other industries, they have all made record profits under Bush/Cheney, so it's time to pay up and stop polluting! It's time for the Auto industry to do what the Europeans and others have been doing for years, make a car that gets hundredes of miles to the gallon, or doesn't run on gas at all! Don't tell me we don't have the technology. I want someone who is going to fix our screwed up healthcare system, which I have worked in for over thirty years, and I want someone more interested in lining the stores with affordable products which aren't being made by some kid in India that earns 10 cents an hour rather then someone who lines their own pockets. So, throw all those old names out and bring on some knew ones, God only knows we need it! Thanks Grannysue

Posted by: Sue F | October 9, 2006 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Let's forget about Kerry, McCain, Hillary, Liberman, and ANYONE NAMED BUSH! We need some new people with fresh ideas and not someone connected at the hip to the lobbyist, big business or THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT or FAR LEFT! Let's not recycle the same old faces, same old pledges etc., our world is a complete mess, especially our country THX GWB/DC/RUMMY/ROVE/RICE/ETAL, now it's time for the American public to stop voting because someone carries a bible and spews expletive's about gays, terriorists etc., We need someone who is strong and not afraid to take on BIG CORPORATIONS, we need someone who truly cares about our future and that of our children, grandchildren and our EARTH. What this country has been drug through the past almost six years is enough already! Let's also forget about the "swiftboaters" and all those Rove clones who's motto is "win at any cost, smear anyone and everyone, even if not true, and it doesn't matter if your qualified as long as your on our side". I would like our country back and I would like to know what the next Presidential hopefully plans on doing for OUR COUNTRY, Not IRAQ, not IRAN, NOT AFGHANISTAN, NOT MEXICO, but OUR COUNTRY! Remember us, the peons who have all that money deducted from our checks, pay our taxes at the grocery store, mall, gas station and so on, all that money that these people use at their pleasure! Someone who has a plan for getting us out of IRAQ,remember Bush said it's the next PREZ'S PROBLEM!, someone who will secure our borders, ports and infrastructure, someone who will raise the minimum wage (NO STRINGS ATTACHED), SOMEONE who realizes our planet is in trouble and we need to start putting the screws to the oil companies and other industries, they have all made record profits under Bush/Cheney, so it's time to pay up and stop polluting! It's time for the Auto industry to do what the Europeans and others have been doing for years, make a car that gets hundredes of miles to the gallon, or doesn't run on gas at all! Don't tell me we don't have the technology. I want someone who is going to fix our screwed up healthcare system, which I have worked in for over thirty years, and I want someone more interested in lining the stores with affordable products which aren't being made by some kid in India that earns 10 cents an hour rather then someone who lines their own pockets. So, throw all those old names out and bring on some knew ones, God only knows we need it! Thanks Grannysue

Posted by: Sue F | October 9, 2006 5:54 PM | Report abuse

McCain harbors gay staffers too; sure the base wouldn't like that. Hill staff know so much inside baseball...

Fun fact: Since 1960, Minnesota has voted Democratic in every presidential election except 1972.

Romney, LOL!

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 9, 2006 5:53 PM | Report abuse


'but in reality this war is not my problem. I only know a few soldiers personally, there is a low casualty rate, the economy is doing well, my house price is up, my 401K is moving again, my grocery store is stocked. what makes you think this war effects me? '

The bottomless selfishness, greed and depraved indifference of this individual continue to shock and repel me... there's your typical R -- in it for himself and everyone else be damned. Too bad there's no draft. But I doubt if the service would even take him, too lazy and cowardly to fight.

Posted by: dana | October 9, 2006 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I am 67 years of age, highly educated, grew up on the streets during WWII when no one had a thing. The 2004 election was the sorriest thing I ever saw in my life. This was the first election I did not vote.
If George Bush and John Kerry are the best that this country can put up by both parties I knew we were in trouble. Look what we have now. Toss them in the air, mix them up and you still have dreck

Posted by: Myron C Marchak | October 9, 2006 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Ok, what is this whole tin foil hat idea and where the bloody hell did it come from? What do they look like? Who wears them and why? I'd like to see some photos.

Giuliani has no chance of winning the Republican nomination, we've been over that here several times before.

Kerry would make a very good president. So would a lot of other people who have no chance of getting elected. Yeah, OF COURSE his vote for the war in 2002 was political expediency. Kennedy voted against it; all the 2004 presidential candidates except Dennis Kucinich voted for the war, most of them because they figured they had to to be viable. Lieberman really supported the war regardless of his ambitions, Edwards might have too. I can't believe Gephardt did. And it's awfully easy for Gov. Dean up in Montpelier to tout his opposition after the fact when he wasn't in Congress in October 2002 faced with having to cast a vote, on the record, at that time, for or against. For all his looniness, Kucinich was the only one with anti-war credibility. Feingold would have that same credibility, and much less looniness, in 2008.

Yeah, no senator has been elected president since 1960, but I thought it was already clear that if the current frontrunners are the nominees--Clinton and McCain--the duo will force that record to be broken. If both major parties nominate a senator for president, the next president will come from the Senate.

I'm still for Feingold unless Obama runs, in which case he walks away with the nomination and has a strong shot at the general. Run, Barack, run! Before you have a 20 year record of votes to be tied down with! McCain will have a 26 year congressional record in 2008; almost as sweet as mining Bob Dole's record in 1996.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 9, 2006 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Right, Kerry won votes because of ANTI-Bush rather than support for John. With the field wide=open in 2008, I doubt the I-hate-Republicans will be a good enough reason to get Kerry on the ballot again.

Speaking of Dean, he recently stated that Bill Clinton told him back in Sept 2003 to stop acting like an insurgent and more like a man who could be president. Dean admits he was wrong. Strange how that $50 million raised for Dean was all gone so soon by early 2004. Must have been all those ads trying to drag down Gephardt in Iowa and boxing with the media.

Dean is still a bit of a mouthy guy, so I guess that lesson from Bill Clinton to act like a grown up got lost in the past 2 years. Same for Kerry. He needs to clean up his mouth.

Posted by: Deaniac is Right | October 9, 2006 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Is Hillary going to lock up her juvenile spouse too? good question. (he says while gesturing wildly with his index finger.) I don't see any Dems who are going to break the lock on red states. which state will switch and for whom? More likely that Rudi or Mitt can flip a blue state.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Oh, oops, sorry. My earlier message was referring to McCain. I saw the earlier posts about his potential Presidential candidacy.

Posted by: Political Junkie | October 9, 2006 5:36 PM | Report abuse

I used to work on the Hill, I have witnessed several meetings where he goes ballistic. He's scary. He explodes at the most minute issues. And "explodes" is not exaggerating. It frightens me to think he may be the frontrunner for the Republican party. If they had only seen some of the meetings I witnessed. Wow.

Posted by: Political Junkie | October 9, 2006 5:35 PM | Report abuse

"That's why people are depressed and tired of supporting pedophiles (Foley), abusers and philanderers (Sherwood), Criminals (Cunningham) and liars (Libby). Face it, the magic is gone out for you guys. Everybody knows you don't care about education, healthcare, winning the war even, you just care about covering your batt."

So the Rs (Bush) have passed big laws about education, healthcare and war over the objections of the Libs. the Libs are running on a platform of we're not them. and you claim that you have popular policies. where? Maybe the NYT can find them in a secret document.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Let's cut to the chase: Kerry is not a fighter. His monotone voice is one more example of why Senators do not win the office of president. (only 2 in the past 100 years, back in 1960 with JFK)

1) Who is the leader of the party of FDR/Truman/Kennedy?

2) The polls are low for Kerry.

3) Will he reach into his wife's wealth again to get him the support he needs? Nice to have a wife opening her purse like that, (that $6 million mansion loan was only his by marriage)

4) what has Kerry done lately to make himself stronger for another race?

5) Just because the hometown paper is kissing Kerry's butt does not mean the entire party will support him.

6) Is Kerry going to lock up his mouthy wife this time? She is one the reasons why voters rejected Kerry by over 3 million ballots.

Posted by: Stephen | October 9, 2006 5:31 PM | Report abuse

"couldn't possibly be that his policies were terrible. Must be something else. you will see this again in a few weeks. It is called being in denial."

Wow, have you finally come to your senses about Bush? That's about at spot on a judgement of him and the GOP I could think of right now.

Posted by: Will | October 9, 2006 5:26 PM | Report abuse

This is hardly a shock. But terribly ill-advised.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | October 9, 2006 5:25 PM | Report abuse

'Bark bark bark. O'reilly. Bark bark bark. Stupid libs, socialists. Whine whine whine.' You offer nothing new or effective, neither does your party. Only plaits about how bad the other guys are, the ones who haven't been in power for quite some time now.
That's why people are depressed and tired of supporting pedophiles (Foley), abusers and philanderers (Sherwood), Criminals (Cunningham) and liars (Libby). Face it, the magic is gone out for you guys. Everybody knows you don't care about education, healthcare, winning the war even, you just care about covering your batt. It took the dems 40 years to become corrupted in Washington, congratulations, it took y'all only 12.

You've made quite a mess in your time in office, and brought a level of sleaze to Washington I thought would never be topped (Foley masturbated in the halls of congress, according to his own emails. abramoff visited the white house over 300 times), and did your best to bankrupt the government and hand it back to the top 2 percent. But don't worry, we'll fix it and save America, AGAIN.

While we do, you can sit in your corner and froth about how all of it, somehow has just got to be that big, bad Clinton's fault.

Posted by: Will | October 9, 2006 5:24 PM | Report abuse

couldn't possibly be that his policies were terrible. Must be something else. you will see this again in a few weeks. It is called being in denial.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 5:23 PM | Report abuse

So John Kerry wants to be the next Adlai Stevenson? On what does Kerry think will get him the support he needs? the polls in Iowa and national reports clearly show Edwards and Hillary way ahead of Kerry.

If the Senate does manage to win the 6 seats needed to take control, who gets credit? Hillary or Kerry? I want to see that fight over who gets in front of the camera while shoving Schumer to the floor.

Both parties need new blood and fresh faces. Sorry Kerry, you failed in 2004 and are doomed to become another has-been.

Posted by: Joan | October 9, 2006 5:22 PM | Report abuse

So John Kerry wants to be the next Adlai Stevenson? On what does Kerry think will get him the support he needs? the polls in Iowa and national reports clearly show Edwards and Hillary way ahead of Kerry.

If the Senate does manage to win the 6 seats needed to take control, who gets credit? Hillary or Kerry? I want to see that fight over who gets in front of the camera while shoving Schumer to the floor.

Both parties need new blood and fresh faces. Sorry Kerry, you failed in 2004 and are doomed to become another has-been.

Posted by: Joan | October 9, 2006 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Kerry is a good man and would be a great president. I'd take him over Hillary any day. And today is a great day to tout him: once again he was right in 2004 on important issues. Today he is proven right about North Korea. Bush the patheticly weak was wrong about six party talks and look at the consequences.

I admit I favor Feingold or Clark over Kerry, but if he is able to get the nomination, I'd support him with great enthusiam over any wing nut thug.

Posted by: Greg in LA | October 9, 2006 5:16 PM | Report abuse

I used to be a solid Kerry supporter, and I am the type of Democrat who should enthusiastically embrace a Kerry candidacy...but I don't.

Kerry blew 2004. There is no way he should have lost that race.

Putting aside the fact that I think there were many irregularities in the voting (which Kerry didn't take the time to even bother disputing), he ran an awful race.

Allowing the swift-boaters to put him on the defensive makes me shudder to think how he might handle the next assault on his character.

While I currently support Sen. Feingold, I am open to seeing what emerges in the next couple of years after we take back at least the House (which, by the way, if we don't, tells you more about election day corruption than you need to know).

Sorry, Mr. Kerry. 2008 is too important to allow somebody to screw up twice.

http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com

Posted by: scootmandubious | October 9, 2006 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Chris, I thought we were supposed to get the Line twice a week now. Isn't one of them on Mondays?

Posted by: Ryan | October 9, 2006 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Please examine the actual votes on NCLB and Medicare to determine which side these programs fall under. Bush signed them. sorry Will - does not compute. My tin foil hat must be off frequency.

Isn't drinking the Kool-aid an O'Reilly thing. so you watch fox after all. did you buy his book? I assume you didn't buy Woodward's based on the sales figures and the fact that it is already in the discount bin. he so wants to get back into the cocktail circuit before it is too late. shame about the timing of the real news. you probably never even heard of Olbermann's. either no one else did or the market of ideas is whispering something to you. "your opinions are worth $___ to me" Interesting spectrum.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 5:13 PM | Report abuse

If Kerry couldn't defeat Bush he has no reason to ask me to support him again. Been there, done that. His time has passed.

Posted by: mike | October 9, 2006 5:11 PM | Report abuse

KOZ drinks the kool-aid again. Turn off your cellphones people, it's interfering with his tinfoil hat. Dean is an extremist and Bush is a moderate in his world. Okay, KOZ. Okay, take a deep breath and sit by the tv waiting Fox News to deliver your latest helping of mindless drivel talking points.

Here, let me save you the trouble of posting your response:
'Bark, bark... Clinton evil... ...Bark, rant... ...Cut and run... ...Drool, bark... socialist, liberals... ...Bush great...'

Now onto important matters: Kerry shouldn't run again. He had his chance. Time for young politicians like Obama, even Edwards.

Posted by: Will | October 9, 2006 4:50 PM | Report abuse

i wholeheartedly agree with the complaints, Re: covering 2008 a month before 2006.

Who the hell cares? especially because 2006 will have such a huge effect on 2008. Imagine if the Republicans retain control this year. That is bound to completely rework the electoral calculus for the presidential race.

The Democrats will be looking for major, fundamental changes within the party if they don't get either house in '06 -- which would be widely seen as a failure of massive proportions.

To talk about Mr. Establishment himself, John Kerry, running for president when the 2006 elections will go a long way toward establishing/destroying the openness of the party to his "second chance" seems a mite aggressive.

I know you love 08, Chris, but it all seems pretty irrelevent at the moment.

Posted by: bigjim | October 9, 2006 4:49 PM | Report abuse

If the Dems are smart, they'll run Harold Ford from Tennessee as their candidate in '08. Which means, of course, that they will nominate Hillary Clinton and lose. Again.

Posted by: Snookeroo | October 9, 2006 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Kerry 2008 = Leiberman 2004.

Posted by: Chris | October 9, 2006 4:46 PM | Report abuse

"Though I would argue that GOP strategists should actively dump their existing base and move back to traditional GOP issues."

Except that the Democrats now own most of those traditinal issues.

Clinton commandeered "the balanced budget" from the Republicans, by actually doing it instead of just talking about it to get votes.

Now it belongs to the Democrats as an issue, especially with the no-bid Iraq war draining our already-lean purse.

And with the recent Republican history of book-cookers, war profiteers, and old perverts lying for years about their sexuality so they can get re-elected, coming out so unceremoniously to the forefront of the public's wounded psyche, they don't have the moral high ground to claim any more.

So that leaves tax cuts as the one traditional value the Republicans can still claim.

And even that is suspect, because all their tax cutting has taken a toll on the less-affluent rank and file Republicans, who voted Republican all these years not for economic reasons, but for moral issues.

With Foleygate in full swing, and all their Republican icons falling into the same trash heap, these Evangelicals have no one left to turn to but Jesus.

And He isn't running for office, especially as a Republican.

War and torture and fear mongering and weapon sales just aren't His "thing."

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Moderates Unite -- I would respectfully suggest that most Democrats today ARE moderates. Once upon a time, Mark Warner would have been considered an Eisenhower Republican. Same with John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and - yes - even HRC. I think you're right that there are fewer and fewer voters today that are truly willing to switch what party they vote for, but I disagree that there aren't any moderates left. It's simply that because the country has drifted so far to the right over the last 25 years, today's "left" really is the center.

Watching prominent moderate republicans switch their registration to run as Democrats in Kansas is indicative of this phenomenon, IMO, and I think we're going to continue to see more of that kind of party switching over the next 5 years or so. In many ways, truly moderate republicans are dying out just like "conservative" southern democrats eventually died out in the 70's and 80's. I anticipate a waive of party switches similar to what we saw then in the near future.

Posted by: Colin | October 9, 2006 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Nonsense - GW Bush is a moderate, GHW Bush was, Romney, McCain is, Rudi is, HRC is. why bemoan the loss of moderates when it is the extemists who are losing - Kerry, Gore, Dean. Watch how quickly they dump Pelosi after the election (regardless of outcome) for Hoyer. with the house so evenly divided, you have to get some of the other party to vote for your stuff. this eliminates wing policies.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I forgot to mention about Rudi-if he can survive the primary he would be an UNSTOPABLE candidate for the presidency. But the main problem is whether or not he could survive the primary.

Posted by: Moderates Unite | October 9, 2006 4:38 PM | Report abuse

There is something strange going on here. It seems more and more likely that partisan politics will force moderates in both parties (liberal republicans or conservative democrats) are being forced to the wings to get re-elected. Everyone talks big about a Rudy or McCain presidency, yet McCain has already begun to run to the right and is trying to get in bed with the religious right. Rudy is popular, but he is liberal by Republican standards (which is why I think he is staying quite until 2008). And on the Democratic side, who is still out there that is a true moderate? Mark Warner is not making any noise. HRC pretends to care about the middle but it comes off as pandering. To me moderates are an endangered species, sadly doomed to go the way of the honest politician.

Posted by: Moderates Unite | October 9, 2006 4:35 PM | Report abuse

McCain is a non-starter. He is not liked by anyone except the press and even they are starting to wander. I think Rudi will make a very good candidate if he throws in his hat. Very hard to beat. don't believe the misinformation about the base. We want to win and are not caught up in mindless idealogy like the Dem base is - "Lieberman is a sell-out". Rudi is right on the proper issues for 2008. We all held our noses and voted for Bush to beat back the gore effort. how much do you think we will do to defeat HRC in the middle of a war?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Ugh.
Worst. Idea. Ever.

Speaking 'from the left', I will plainly say that the ONLY reason Kerry got as many votes as he did, is because so many people hate Bush so much and want him out of office (and guess what! we still do).

I thought Kerry was okay - not really impressed with him. I agree that like-him-or-not, Kerry ran a TERRIBLE campaign in '04 and such 'comebacks' rarely work. Except for Nixon??

Posted by: Deaniac | October 9, 2006 4:29 PM | Report abuse

JEP says "But, the real question is going to be, can any REAL Republican support McCain or Rudy?"

Look at it this way; if they nominate Rudi, they'll have to give up all the Clinton-is-a-philanderer bashing.

Posted by: bsimon | October 9, 2006 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Good point, JEP. They are having trouble hanging onto their base as it is. See the following from Rasmussen. The scandal shows every sign of continuing to grow and MAYBE by 2008 we'll see results from the Ethics and FBI investigations. Such results become enormously more likely if the D's take control of Congress. If Hastert is still around in 2008 that helps even more.


October 5, 2006
Sixty-one percent (61%) of American adults believe that Republican leaders have been "protecting [Mark] Foley for several years." A Rasmussen Reports national opinion survey conducted Tuesday and Wednesday nights shows that only 21% believe that the leadership "just learn[ed] about Foley's problems last week."
The data supports speculation that this issue could have a devastating impact on Republican prospects at the polls this fall. Even among Republicans, 31% believe the GOP leadership has been protecting Foley. Just under half (46%) of the GOP faithful believe that Congressional leaders just learned about the problem.
Not surprisingly, Democrats overwhelmingly believe that the Republican leaders have been protecting Foley for years (84% of Democrats hold that view).
Perhaps more significant politically, 69% of those not affiliated with either major party believe that leadership has been protecting Foley. Only 9% of unaffiliated voters believe the GOP leaders just learned of the problem last week. How much of an impact this will have on individual Election 2006 races will not be known until our next round of polling is complete.
Older Americans, those most likely to vote, are least likely to believe that Republican leaders just learned about this issue.
The survey also found that just 45% of Americans would allow their son or daughter to be a Congressional intern. Thirty-five percent (35%) would not, while 20% are not sure. Higher-income Americans and Investors are more likely than others to do so.
Sixty-one percent (61%) of Americans say they are following news of the Foley story somewhat or very closely.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 9, 2006 4:22 PM | Report abuse

JEP says "The Republicans will lose their REAL base if they keep sliding to the center."

You can put that in the bank. They're losing the base already. Though I would argue that GOP strategists should actively dump their existing base and move back to traditional GOP issues.

Posted by: bsimon | October 9, 2006 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Member

1. Do you support Hastert staying on as Speaker?

2. Why?

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 4:20 PM | Report abuse


Breaking news about the Foley scandal! Update III

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.waynemadsenreport.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
otherside123.blogspot.com

On October 2, WMR was the first media outlet to report on the involvement of Arizona Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe, the only openly gay GOP congressmen, in the Pagegate matter. We reported that Kolbe was a member and chairman of the House Page Board at the time reports of ex-Florida GOP Rep. Mark Foley's inappropriate sexual conduct with underage male pages was known to the Republican House leadership. WMR reported:

"From 2000 to 2001, the Page Board Chair was Rep. Sue Kelly (R-NY) and members included Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) (inexplicably replaced as chairman by Kelly), Kildee, Trandahl, and Livingood. Crews was the program coordinator. From 1999 to 2000, the Chairman was Kolbe and members included Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO), Kildee, Transdahl, and Livingood. The coordinator was Crews. From 1998 (when the allegations first reportedly surfaced about Foley), the Chair was Tillie Fowler (R-FL) and members were Kildee, Kolbe, House Clerk Robin Carle, and Livingood. The page coordinator was Hugh Addington. Foley became a congressman in 1995."

The Washington Post is reporting today, rather belatedly, that Kolbe was aware of Foley's salacious e-mails with an underage page in 2000. One of Foley's Instant Messages sent in January 2002 to a page stated that Kolbe once invited four pages to use his Washington home while Kolbe was in Arizona.

There is also much focus on the relationship between House Speaker Dennis Hastert and his chief of staff, 56-year old Scott Palmer. Hastert and Palmer, Hastert's longtime unmarried adviser, live together in a DC townhouse along with Hastert's Deputy Chief of Staff, Mike Stokke, while Hastert's wife Jean lives in Yorkville, Illinois and stays at a hotel when she visits Washington.

WMR has also learned of additional Senate links to the Pagegate scandal. There is much focus on GOP Sen. George Allen's predominantly white male staff. There is also interest in the activities of a senior GOP Senator from a Rocky Mountain state.

WMR's State Department sources have also reported that the visits of Hastert and other congressional leaders and staff members to certain Southeast Asian nations and the Northern Marianas should come under the scrutiny of the House Ethics Committee, now officially investigating "Pagegate." The Northern Marianas became infamous in the scandals involving Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff because of the presence in the US slave labor territory of Asian children being used as prostitutes. Conveniently, Foley co-chaired the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, which would have had authority to investigate charges of child prostitution in the Northern Marianas.

Were Hastert and other congressional visits visits to Thailand and Vietnam on the up-and-up?

Our State Department sources report that it is no secret that a number of U.S. Foreign Service officers working out of the U.S. embassies in Bangkok, Phnom Penh, Hanoi, and Manila have been involved with underage nationals of the host countries where they are assigned. In fact, many have rotated their assignments between countries that look sideways at child prostitution and sex between adults and minors. In fact, John Mark Karr, as previously reported by WMR, was quickly whisked out of Bangkok after his arrest on pedophilia charges. The U.S. Embassy in Bangkok, working with the CIA and Department of Homeland Security, arranged for Karr's quick departure from Bangkok on a business class flight to the United States, where all charges, including those stemming from Karr's "admission" that he killed JonBenet Ramsey and child porn charges, were later dropped. WMR has learned that Karr may have been aware of the identities of top U.S. officials in the child sex trade in Thailand and that he was sprung from Thai authorities to prevent him from testifying in a Thai courtroom.

Hastert visited Vietnam, along with Palmer, in April of this year and spent three days in the country. Hastert, along with Illinois GOP Rep. Ray LaHood, canceled a visit to Thailand and Vietnam in January 2006. Hastert was also in Thailand in January 2002.

Posted by: che | October 9, 2006 4:18 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans will lose their REAL base if they keep sliding to the center.

We can only hope.

Posted by: Sean | October 9, 2006 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"Can any Dem beat McCain or Rudi?"

Sure, Edwards is already neck and neck with them both in Iowa polls.

But, the real question is going to be, can any REAL Republican support McCain or Rudy?

The Republicans will lose their REAL base if they keep sliding to the center.

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Jonh Kerry - "Please ignore my votes over all the years to gut the military and grow the government, I was a soldier once about 30 years ago. Can't we just skip the intervening years entirely?"
Webb - "I was in government once a long time ago for a few months - vote for me, please ignore my official stance on anything. Yeah like Kerry."

wow a Dem with a uniform hung in the back of their closet. I am in a trance and can't remember any of their policy presciptions.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 4:11 PM | Report abuse

I think that Chris and the political establishment are right on--Kerry will likely run in 2008. While I didn't not like him, I can't imagine that his candidacy will spark the enthusiasm necessary in 08 because the field will be wide open. However, if either of Kerry's daughters decide to run for office, sign me up! They are two passionate, articulate, dynamic women whom I believe have a great future in politics if they so choose.

Posted by: Michael | October 9, 2006 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Kerry has all the attributes of a person who could be a great president - and since he had the courage to go to Vietnam and get shot at he may actually have the gumption to do the job - unlike quite a few of his predecessors.

Posted by: avraam jack | October 9, 2006 4:10 PM | Report abuse

"Unless, of course, you are trying to steer the public away from discussing the swirling, Republican-damaging current events, a Kerry for President in 08 discusion would certainly accomplish that."

No way. The Republican scandals have very strong legs.

Posted by: Sean | October 9, 2006 4:09 PM | Report abuse

And I agree with John, this Kerry in 08 discussion is not exactly germane to the issue of 06', all this 08' speculation is, at best, speculation.

Aughtsix is upon us, NOW, and there surely enough news in the present day to keep Chris busy with current events rather than future unpredicatables.

Maybe he should start a separate "08' Speculation" blog, I'd sure read it and post to it.

But for here and now, lets stick to the here and now.

Too much happening TODAY to look two years down the road.

Unless, of course, you are trying to steer the public away from discussing the swirling, Republican-damaging current events, a Kerry for President in 08 discusion would certainly accomplish that.

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 4:06 PM | Report abuse

How in the world could a decorated vietnam vet let the swiftboaters win that debate? How can I ever let a man who let that happen be my president?

Sorry. No moral comass there.

Posted by: Sean | October 9, 2006 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Wow and I thought Rs were tough on their outkasts. I hope he has paid off that mortgage on beacon hill from the last go round.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 9, 2006 4:05 PM | Report abuse

How in the world could a decorated vietnam vet let the swiftboaters win that debate? How can I ever let a man who let that happen be my president?

Sorry. No moral comass there.

Posted by: Sean | October 9, 2006 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"Kerry is an intelligent, honorable, decent man with integrity, scruples and varied interests -- i.e., doomed among the sheeple."

I agree. I like Kerry, and I really liked him in 2004, but unfortunately it won't work for him this time. He's a great senator, though, and I'm proud to have him in Massachusetts. I hope he continues to serve as a kingmaker, but not angle for king.

Posted by: JD | October 9, 2006 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Kerry and Gore's time has come and gone. Move on, folks. I want to see HRC run. Her acidic views and temperment will split the Dems in a way unseen since 1968. And don't anyone think that "you know who" will be an asset. He will probably be more of an a$$.

Can any Dem beat McCain or Rudi? Imagine if Rudi runs. He will turn NY, Clinton's "home" state into a battleground. Give the Dems the House in 06. No matter. The GOP will say that Pelosi is a HRC manifestation. Besides, all the real action happens on Penn Ave. Just ask "you know who."

Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Member | October 9, 2006 4:03 PM | Report abuse

I'm with Judge Crater. Been there. Done that. Kerry had the chance to win in '04 and blew it. Nice guy; wrong job.

Posted by: Mike234 | October 9, 2006 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the posters here. There are much fresher faces that would have a much better chance than Kerry against a strong R candidate. Anybody could beat Senator Macaca but both parties should put forth their strongest candidates.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 9, 2006 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Kerry would make a great Secretary of State...

Posted by: JEP | October 9, 2006 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Noooooooo! Not blabbles the make me happy candidate????

Posted by: Sean | October 9, 2006 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Kerry can change that to 2,999,999 person list cause I just took my name off. I'm with you Int liberal. If Kerry isn't careful he might end up with a stiff senate challenge next time around here in Mass. We are getting a little tired of our big politicos angleing for higher office.

Posted by: Andy R | October 9, 2006 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Kerry is an intelligent, honorable, decent man with integrity, scruples and varied interests -- i.e., doomed among the sheeple.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2006 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Heh. I will go with Spitzer/Obama (in either order) unless the Communist Party comes up with a credible candidate :)

Posted by: roo | October 9, 2006 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Chris. I admit it. I'm a Fix addict. But you're not giving it to me lately. I mean, no offense. Your reporting is deep and original. But come on -- we're a months away from what could be an historic power switch in DC (or maybe not!), and The Fix just doesn't seem to realize that. I swear, it is my impression, however possibly inaccurate, that you do just as many posts on the 2008 presidential contest as you do on next month's 535 congressional contests -- with far less information to go on and far less urgency to demand your time (and ours). Plus, an entry on this year's best campaign ad this morning? What is this: People Magazine? I mean, if there really were any reason in the world to support the contention in your headline (like, say, real data), then I admit the story would be interesting, but there isn't. And, in any case, such a story NEVER would be more interesting to me on a day like today than coverage of the Webb-Allen debate or Allen's alleged failure to reports options; any of the latest poll numbers (there are tons of them); this weekend's latest Senate debate on Meet the Press; or ... or ... or. My goodness, I could write 1000s of words just naming the issues you aren't covering. I keep coming back to this page because -- seriously -- I think you're one of the best in the biz and I would RATHER read your analysis of all that stuff I mentioned than just some blogger's. So please give it to me -- I want my fix!

Posted by: John | October 9, 2006 3:45 PM | Report abuse

In my gut I always suspected Kerry's vote in 2002 for the Iraq resolution was about political expediency and not sincere. For a man of his background having served in Vietnam to do that is pretty inexcusable. I busted my ass as a volunteer in '04 because Bush and the GOP are so destructive. But we must do better than Kerry in '08.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | October 9, 2006 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Never. never. never. Fuhgetaboutit, John. You didn't fight hard enough... now make room for someone who will. We deserve better.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2006 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Although I voted for Kerry
Not my first choice
But...
How is he going to do better against say a McCain (If the R's are smart enough to nominate him)?

Posted by: Brian | October 9, 2006 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Funny joke Chris, and it ain't even April Fools Day.......

Posted by: TheIrishCurse | October 9, 2006 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Kerry's time has passed. I don't see the average dem primary voter going back to that well.

Posted by: bsimon | October 9, 2006 3:24 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company