Reactions to Nader
Ralph Nader dominated the political news over the weekend about his 2004 independent run. Calling the decision as contentious - to the Democrats - would be understatement.
First, here is a story with protest pictures outside of the NBC studios Sunday: ["Ralph Nader Announces Run for Presidency"].
The onslaught of criticism is falling on deaf ears as Nader says he will run hard: ["Nader says he won't back off even if major candidates in a dead heat"].
In the Manchester Union Leader Sunday [no link], former-U.S. Sen. John Durkin said it best: "Gore ran like a sleepwalker [in 2000]. It's a reach to blame Nader." Durkin, who endorsed Howard Dean in the primary and then pulled his endorsement after the Iowa Screech, extolled Nader for his accomplishments and for refusing to be "seduced by the pomp and circumstance of Washington."
"One of the problems in this country is there is a shortage of Ralph Naders," he said.
The Globe has a pretty good overview this morning: ["Nader joins race, riles Democrats"].
One Arkansas columnist advises the Dems to embrace the Deaniacs: ['Democrats, Deaniacs and Greens"]. But unfortunately, he gets it wrong about New Hampshire.
The Nation's John Nichols also weighs in: ["Will Nader matter at all?"].
Nader's Web site is up and running: http://www.votenader.org/
Other stuff:
Speaking of New Hampshire, the latest general election poll shows President Bush down 15 percent in a hypothetical one on one matchup: ["Bush's Approval Rating Slips In New Hampshire"].
The NYT ran this piece about Republicans mad at Bush: ["Disenchanted Bush Voters Consider Crossing Over"].
While John Kerry slouches back into lazy campaign mode: ["Front-Runner Kerry's Bad Habits Return"].
Then there is Monica Lewinsky, weighing in on the Kerry intern scandal: ["Lewinsky outraged over Kerry 'affair' furore"].
Bob Herbert continues his good column writing: ["Dark Side of Free Trade"].
Monday, February 23, 2004
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Nader: Sunday's the day ...
On Sunday's "Meet the Press," Nader will announce his 2004 intentions: ["Nader to Announce Decision on 2004 Bid"].
FoxNews says he's in: ["Nader to Jump in Presidential Race"]. Also, Nader responds to The Nation magazine: ["Whither The Nation?"]. FoxNews had a stupid national poll on Friday showing Kerry and Bush equal at 45 percent. But throw in Nader and the numbers were Bush 43, Kerry 42, and Nader 4 percent. It is amazing that the guy hasn't even announced and he supposedly would get more votes than he did in 2000! But these national polls are fraudulent and the media shouldn't be reporting them at all.
FoxNews says he's in: ["Nader to Jump in Presidential Race"]. Also, Nader responds to The Nation magazine: ["Whither The Nation?"]. FoxNews had a stupid national poll on Friday showing Kerry and Bush equal at 45 percent. But throw in Nader and the numbers were Bush 43, Kerry 42, and Nader 4 percent. It is amazing that the guy hasn't even announced and he supposedly would get more votes than he did in 2000! But these national polls are fraudulent and the media shouldn't be reporting them at all.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Will the Real John Kerry Please Stand Up?
Watching Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign break down and then later surge has come as a big surprise. For over four years, Kerry has made it known that he desired the Oval Office and his place in history.
As someone who has watched Kerry over the years, seen him in other races, and observed him lose all spine when the tough votes came along, his surge is a big surprise. For 18 years, Kerry has done very little he can point to by way of accomplishment.
When he first came to the senate, Kerry was a champion of campaign finance reform, refusing political action committee [PAC] money and only accepting $250 donations. Then he changed his mind and started taking big money - even forming his own presidential slush fund PAC. Kerry paints himself as a champion of the environment but what has he actually done for the environment? Just voting against drilling in ANWR isn't enough.
For the most part, Kerry has had a safe seat in the Senate. Politicians who have safe seats are the ones who are supposed to be the visionaries. They can afford to take chances as big thinkers and float the new ideas. Despite the opportunity to forward meaningful legislation and really affect people's lives in a positive way, Kerry hasn't done the job.
As he ramped up his road to the White House, Kerry could have started building his legislative resume, laying the foundation for the ideas to come. But instead, he coasted or even hurt his own cause, by ignoring political opportunities to shine in the gentlemen's club. In fact, his actions on legislation may come back to haunt him on a massive scale in the final stages of this campaign.
Take organized labor.
Kerry has always had a bad relationship with the unions in Massachusetts. But lucky for him, most of these voters had nowhere else to turn. Anti-union zealots Jim Rappaport (1990), Bill Weld (1996) and Michael Cloud (2002), were Kerry's challengers. However, instead of making some inroads with the union folks, Kerry kicked the shins of the working class time and time again, by voting for NAFTA, GATT and the WTO, and PMFN trade status for China.
Kerry has taken advantage of the fact that many voters had nowhere else to go in Massachusetts. Instead of standing up for workers, Kerry helped pass bad corporate and workers' legislation. His reaction to working folks has been a blasé toss of the hand, while reciting nonsensical globalist gobbledygook: If Americans can't compete with 10 cent labor in China, too bad. At an event in Manchester, N.H. back in August 2003, Kerry said precisely that to a handful of unionized Verizon workers complaining about outsourcing. They were all pretty shocked but those who have watched Kerry weren’t.
All across middle-America, working families are struggling to put food on the table because the factory jobs are gone. People have lost millions of good manufacturing jobs and now have to work two or three service slave jobs at a fraction of the wages they once earned. Kerry helped these people lose their economic advantages as Americans. He has been part of the problem, not the solution.
In fact, on a myriad of issues Kerry has been part of the problem in Washington, D.C. and so closely resembles President George W. Bush it is a wonder what the Democrats of 2004 are thinking.
Kerry voted for Bush’s war resolution but now attacks it. Kerry fell for what looks like a lie that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the definite falsehood that Saddam Hussein - contained between the 33rd and 36th parallel - was an imminent threat to the United States. Kerry assisted in President Bush's - and President Bill Clinton's - assault on the Constitution by voting for the PATRIOT Act and voting for the anti-terrorism bill in 1996. Kerry also voted for Bush's unfunded federal education mandate "No Child Left Behind," which he also now attacks. Kerry has supported wasteful government programs like foreign aid, hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare every year, IMF/World Bank’s enslavement of the Third World, etc. This morning, the Associated Press is reporting that Kerry worked to protect a $150 million loophole for a major insurance company working on The Big Dig - a $15 billion dollar construction boondoggle in Boston - which has been rife with corruption and political scandal, coming in 500 percent over budget.
For almost two decades, Kerry hasn’t been fighting the special interests he has been enabling the special interests.
And as stated before, Kerry has voted for every free trade deal that has come down the pike and despite being prodded and questioned by the voters back home, he refuses to come out against CAFTA, the extensive of NAFTA to other nations of Latin America. Kerry’s “fighting for us”? Far from it.
In the end, voters may ignore Kerry’s real record and vote for him because the national press corps believes he is “electable.” But voters would be smart to take a second look and sharply analyze Kerry’s true record because when all is said and done, they may not like what they see.
Watching Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign break down and then later surge has come as a big surprise. For over four years, Kerry has made it known that he desired the Oval Office and his place in history.
As someone who has watched Kerry over the years, seen him in other races, and observed him lose all spine when the tough votes came along, his surge is a big surprise. For 18 years, Kerry has done very little he can point to by way of accomplishment.
When he first came to the senate, Kerry was a champion of campaign finance reform, refusing political action committee [PAC] money and only accepting $250 donations. Then he changed his mind and started taking big money - even forming his own presidential slush fund PAC. Kerry paints himself as a champion of the environment but what has he actually done for the environment? Just voting against drilling in ANWR isn't enough.
For the most part, Kerry has had a safe seat in the Senate. Politicians who have safe seats are the ones who are supposed to be the visionaries. They can afford to take chances as big thinkers and float the new ideas. Despite the opportunity to forward meaningful legislation and really affect people's lives in a positive way, Kerry hasn't done the job.
As he ramped up his road to the White House, Kerry could have started building his legislative resume, laying the foundation for the ideas to come. But instead, he coasted or even hurt his own cause, by ignoring political opportunities to shine in the gentlemen's club. In fact, his actions on legislation may come back to haunt him on a massive scale in the final stages of this campaign.
Take organized labor.
Kerry has always had a bad relationship with the unions in Massachusetts. But lucky for him, most of these voters had nowhere else to turn. Anti-union zealots Jim Rappaport (1990), Bill Weld (1996) and Michael Cloud (2002), were Kerry's challengers. However, instead of making some inroads with the union folks, Kerry kicked the shins of the working class time and time again, by voting for NAFTA, GATT and the WTO, and PMFN trade status for China.
Kerry has taken advantage of the fact that many voters had nowhere else to go in Massachusetts. Instead of standing up for workers, Kerry helped pass bad corporate and workers' legislation. His reaction to working folks has been a blasé toss of the hand, while reciting nonsensical globalist gobbledygook: If Americans can't compete with 10 cent labor in China, too bad. At an event in Manchester, N.H. back in August 2003, Kerry said precisely that to a handful of unionized Verizon workers complaining about outsourcing. They were all pretty shocked but those who have watched Kerry weren’t.
All across middle-America, working families are struggling to put food on the table because the factory jobs are gone. People have lost millions of good manufacturing jobs and now have to work two or three service slave jobs at a fraction of the wages they once earned. Kerry helped these people lose their economic advantages as Americans. He has been part of the problem, not the solution.
In fact, on a myriad of issues Kerry has been part of the problem in Washington, D.C. and so closely resembles President George W. Bush it is a wonder what the Democrats of 2004 are thinking.
Kerry voted for Bush’s war resolution but now attacks it. Kerry fell for what looks like a lie that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the definite falsehood that Saddam Hussein - contained between the 33rd and 36th parallel - was an imminent threat to the United States. Kerry assisted in President Bush's - and President Bill Clinton's - assault on the Constitution by voting for the PATRIOT Act and voting for the anti-terrorism bill in 1996. Kerry also voted for Bush's unfunded federal education mandate "No Child Left Behind," which he also now attacks. Kerry has supported wasteful government programs like foreign aid, hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare every year, IMF/World Bank’s enslavement of the Third World, etc. This morning, the Associated Press is reporting that Kerry worked to protect a $150 million loophole for a major insurance company working on The Big Dig - a $15 billion dollar construction boondoggle in Boston - which has been rife with corruption and political scandal, coming in 500 percent over budget.
For almost two decades, Kerry hasn’t been fighting the special interests he has been enabling the special interests.
And as stated before, Kerry has voted for every free trade deal that has come down the pike and despite being prodded and questioned by the voters back home, he refuses to come out against CAFTA, the extensive of NAFTA to other nations of Latin America. Kerry’s “fighting for us”? Far from it.
In the end, voters may ignore Kerry’s real record and vote for him because the national press corps believes he is “electable.” But voters would be smart to take a second look and sharply analyze Kerry’s true record because when all is said and done, they may not like what they see.
The end of Dean
Howard Dean stepped out of the presidential race this afternoon. He did not endorse any of the remaining candidates but said he would try and galvanize his organization to revitalize the Democratic Party. This is like Jerry Brown all over again when he tried to change the Democratic Party with his "We the People" organization but never followed through with it. Of course, there was no Internet then, just Brown's very active 800#. Dean said he would also not be releasing his delegates, a very smart move. He will remain on the ballot in future states to allow his supporters to vote for him in attempt to get more progressive delegates for the convention. But with the 15 percent threshold needed to win delegates, Dean's hope to win more delegates is doubtful. He really should just endorse one of the remaining candidates and be done with it.
Here's Dean's statement from his blog:
FoxNews is reporting that CNN's next Democratic presidential primary debate will limit the inclusion to any candidate who has received at least 10 percent in a primary. This would essentially black out Dennis Kucinich and/or Al Sharpton. Or will it? Kucinich received 16 percent in the Maine Caucus and Sharpton received 20 percent in the D.C. Caucuses, so who knows. If a caucus counts as a primary in CNN's eyes, well, it is still a four-way debate. If not, there could be problems. While John Edwards wants a one-on-one with John Kerry, keeping Sharpton out of the debate would be a mistake and could alienate black voters.
Is it a Weekly Standard ad or a Bush 2004 ad?
So I get home, plunk myself down in a chair and switch on the news, mostly because I want to see some of Dean's announcement and I can't find anything but minor clips. I leave it on FoxNews and start flipping through the newspapers when I hear an ad for The Weekly Standard, a conservative weekly, pimping subscriptions. I look up and in between the media accolades for the mag, there are pictures of President Bush at his desk, in a roundtable, on the aircraft carrier where he declared "Mission Accomplished" in the Iraqi invasion. I stop and think to myself, is this an ad for the president's reelection campaign or a magazine? Yeah, sure, it is a conservative magazine. But the ad is more like a campaign ad than a magazine ad. Is there some department who investigates the content of ads? I don't know but this needs to be looked at. I can imagine the howling that would be going on if a liberal weekly were showing President Clinton in such a glowing light during an election year and promoting the fact that the White House reads its rag. This is ridiculous.
Short clips
Ted Rall has an elegy for Dean: ["Howie, we hardly knew ye"].
FAIR's Laura Flanders looks at Kerry's Foreign Policy team ... and doesn't like what she sees: ["Not quite a dream team"].
You gotta wonder a little about Alex: ["Alex Polier, Insta-Celebster"].
Anti-war protester and former Jane Fonda boy-toy Tom Hayden thinks the time is now: ["The Progressive Populist Moment Has Arrived"].
Howard Dean stepped out of the presidential race this afternoon. He did not endorse any of the remaining candidates but said he would try and galvanize his organization to revitalize the Democratic Party. This is like Jerry Brown all over again when he tried to change the Democratic Party with his "We the People" organization but never followed through with it. Of course, there was no Internet then, just Brown's very active 800#. Dean said he would also not be releasing his delegates, a very smart move. He will remain on the ballot in future states to allow his supporters to vote for him in attempt to get more progressive delegates for the convention. But with the 15 percent threshold needed to win delegates, Dean's hope to win more delegates is doubtful. He really should just endorse one of the remaining candidates and be done with it.
Here's Dean's statement from his blog:
"Today my candidacy may come to an end--but our campaign for change is not over. I want to thank each and every person who has supported this campaign. Over the last year, you have reached out to neighbors, friends, family and colleagues--building one American at a time the greatest grassroots campaign presidential politics has ever seen. I will never forget the work and the heart that you put into our campaign.CNN's new debate rules?
In the coming weeks, we will be launching a new initiative to continue the campaign you helped begin. Please continue to come to www.deanforamerica.com for updates and news as our new initiative develops. There is much work still to be done, and today is not an end-it is just the beginning.
This Party and this country needs change, and you have already begun that process. I want you to think about how far we have come. The truth is: change is tough. There is enormous institutional pressure in our country against change. There is enormous institutional pressure in Washington against change, in the Democratic Party against change. Yet, you have already started to change the Party and together we have transformed this race. Along the way, we've engaged hundreds of thousands of new Americans in the political process, as witnessed by this year's record participation in the primaries and caucuses.
The fight that we began can and must continue. Although my candidacy for president may end today, the most important goal remains defeating George W. Bush in November, and I hope that you will join me in doing everything we can to support the Democrats this fall. From the earliest days of our campaign, I have said that the power to change Washington rests not in my hands, but in yours. Always remember, you have the power to take our country back."
FoxNews is reporting that CNN's next Democratic presidential primary debate will limit the inclusion to any candidate who has received at least 10 percent in a primary. This would essentially black out Dennis Kucinich and/or Al Sharpton. Or will it? Kucinich received 16 percent in the Maine Caucus and Sharpton received 20 percent in the D.C. Caucuses, so who knows. If a caucus counts as a primary in CNN's eyes, well, it is still a four-way debate. If not, there could be problems. While John Edwards wants a one-on-one with John Kerry, keeping Sharpton out of the debate would be a mistake and could alienate black voters.
Is it a Weekly Standard ad or a Bush 2004 ad?
So I get home, plunk myself down in a chair and switch on the news, mostly because I want to see some of Dean's announcement and I can't find anything but minor clips. I leave it on FoxNews and start flipping through the newspapers when I hear an ad for The Weekly Standard, a conservative weekly, pimping subscriptions. I look up and in between the media accolades for the mag, there are pictures of President Bush at his desk, in a roundtable, on the aircraft carrier where he declared "Mission Accomplished" in the Iraqi invasion. I stop and think to myself, is this an ad for the president's reelection campaign or a magazine? Yeah, sure, it is a conservative magazine. But the ad is more like a campaign ad than a magazine ad. Is there some department who investigates the content of ads? I don't know but this needs to be looked at. I can imagine the howling that would be going on if a liberal weekly were showing President Clinton in such a glowing light during an election year and promoting the fact that the White House reads its rag. This is ridiculous.
Short clips
Ted Rall has an elegy for Dean: ["Howie, we hardly knew ye"].
FAIR's Laura Flanders looks at Kerry's Foreign Policy team ... and doesn't like what she sees: ["Not quite a dream team"].
You gotta wonder a little about Alex: ["Alex Polier, Insta-Celebster"].
Anti-war protester and former Jane Fonda boy-toy Tom Hayden thinks the time is now: ["The Progressive Populist Moment Has Arrived"].
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
POLITICAL ROUNDUP
Dean to endorse Edwards? Hmm ...
There is a lot of stuff breaking right now and some of the puzzle pieces are coming together. John Kerry won the Wisconsin Primary tonight. But the Washington Post is reporting that Howard Dean and John Edwards met on Sunday to hash some stuff out: ["Dean: Kingmaker or Rainmaker?"]. No agreements were reached but the two agreed to talk again on Wednesday.
It may be becoming clearer why Steve Grossman made some of his remarks on Sunday - first, suggesting Dean would drop out and later, saying he would move to John Kerry's campaign. Grossman must have known that Dean was working on a deal to keep Kerry from the nomination - which frankly, is a smart move. But Grossman is from Mass. and a former Kerry supporter. He could support Dean but he can't hijack Kerry. Grossman's political career would probably be over if he did that. While Kerry is not liked by many in the state, he currently controls the Massachusetts political mafia and they want Kerry to be the nominee in Boston in July.
However, notice this line in the Post:
God, these people are too much! They kill Dean's campaign via ridicule and now they want his lists. Pathetic.
More on Nader
The Web is bursting with Ralph Nader stuff. Here is a piece from Counterpunch: ["Nader Attack a New Low Point"]. Or this, a little more sarcastic, from the NY Press: ["Please, Mr. Nader, let’s repeat 2000"]. Here is one from the other side of politics: ["Run, Ralph, Run!"]. And something from former radical activist Tom Hayden, although more making the point that Nader isn't needed: ["The Progressive Populist Moment Has Arrived"].
Dean to endorse Edwards? Hmm ...
There is a lot of stuff breaking right now and some of the puzzle pieces are coming together. John Kerry won the Wisconsin Primary tonight. But the Washington Post is reporting that Howard Dean and John Edwards met on Sunday to hash some stuff out: ["Dean: Kingmaker or Rainmaker?"]. No agreements were reached but the two agreed to talk again on Wednesday.
It may be becoming clearer why Steve Grossman made some of his remarks on Sunday - first, suggesting Dean would drop out and later, saying he would move to John Kerry's campaign. Grossman must have known that Dean was working on a deal to keep Kerry from the nomination - which frankly, is a smart move. But Grossman is from Mass. and a former Kerry supporter. He could support Dean but he can't hijack Kerry. Grossman's political career would probably be over if he did that. While Kerry is not liked by many in the state, he currently controls the Massachusetts political mafia and they want Kerry to be the nominee in Boston in July.
However, notice this line in the Post:
A few days earlier, meanwhile, two top officials for the Democratic National Committee traveled to Burlington, Vt., to meet with Roy Neel, the Dean campaign's chief executive. Their agenda, diplomatically stated but unmistakable, was to find out whether and how Dean would harness his network of highly motivated grass-roots activists and small contributors on behalf of the national party and the eventual nominee, according to people familiar with the session.
God, these people are too much! They kill Dean's campaign via ridicule and now they want his lists. Pathetic.
More on Nader
The Web is bursting with Ralph Nader stuff. Here is a piece from Counterpunch: ["Nader Attack a New Low Point"]. Or this, a little more sarcastic, from the NY Press: ["Please, Mr. Nader, let’s repeat 2000"]. Here is one from the other side of politics: ["Run, Ralph, Run!"]. And something from former radical activist Tom Hayden, although more making the point that Nader isn't needed: ["The Progressive Populist Moment Has Arrived"].
Kerry wins Wisconsin
Democrat
John Kerry - 327,672 - 40 percent
John Edwards - 283,327 - 34 percent
Howard Dean - 150,682 - 18 percent
Dennis Kucinich - 27,232 - 3 percent
Al Sharpton - 14,685 - 2 percent
Wesley Clark - 12,687 - 2 percent
Joe Lieberman - 3,910 - 1 percent
Carol Moseley Braun - 1,630
Lyndon LaRouche - 1,630
Dick Gephardt - 1,264
Uninstructed Delegation - 1,136
Republican
George Bush - 158,677 - 99 percent
Uninstructed Delegation - 1,207 - 1 percent
Libertarian
Michael Badnarik - 1,497 - 44 percent
Gary Nolan - 1,488 - 44 percent
Uninstructed Delegation - 393 - 12 percent
Democrat
John Kerry - 327,672 - 40 percent
John Edwards - 283,327 - 34 percent
Howard Dean - 150,682 - 18 percent
Dennis Kucinich - 27,232 - 3 percent
Al Sharpton - 14,685 - 2 percent
Wesley Clark - 12,687 - 2 percent
Joe Lieberman - 3,910 - 1 percent
Carol Moseley Braun - 1,630
Lyndon LaRouche - 1,630
Dick Gephardt - 1,264
Uninstructed Delegation - 1,136
Republican
George Bush - 158,677 - 99 percent
Uninstructed Delegation - 1,207 - 1 percent
Libertarian
Michael Badnarik - 1,497 - 44 percent
Gary Nolan - 1,488 - 44 percent
Uninstructed Delegation - 393 - 12 percent
Too positive?
Have the Democrats been too positive? The NYT thinks so: ["Missing Ingredient in 2004: Attack Ads by Democrats"]. This is very interesting. For some reason, I remember the NYT lecturing candidates in the past for being too negative and here is one reporter advocating the opposite. Ugh, will they make up their minds already?
Nader - 2004
Here is some more stuff suggesting that Nader will be running again in 2004.
The Oregonian has a profile of Jason Kafoury, the college kid who is helping Ralph make the big decision: ["The Monday Profile: Jason Kafoury"].
Despite assertions he won't be running as a Green, in Maine, the Greens are considering drafting him for their ballot line: ["Maine Green Independent Party to Caucus Across State"].
Blogger Daniel Munz gives a pretty balanced view of the pros and cons: ["Ralph: Nadir"].
But some, like John Pearce, keep their blinders and march in lockstep over the Democratic cliff while affecting no real change for themselves or the people: ["Progressives doom their causes by voting third party"].
Others, like Fran Shor, make some good points against a Nader run: ["What's the Historical Alternative?"].
Those who don't think the Nader option is important should read this piece from the New Republic, about retribution against Dean supporters: ["Oops!"]. See how the Democrats eat their own young? Why would you not want other voting options? Why should the voters continue to support this kind of behavior?
Have the Democrats been too positive? The NYT thinks so: ["Missing Ingredient in 2004: Attack Ads by Democrats"]. This is very interesting. For some reason, I remember the NYT lecturing candidates in the past for being too negative and here is one reporter advocating the opposite. Ugh, will they make up their minds already?
Nader - 2004
Here is some more stuff suggesting that Nader will be running again in 2004.
The Oregonian has a profile of Jason Kafoury, the college kid who is helping Ralph make the big decision: ["The Monday Profile: Jason Kafoury"].
Despite assertions he won't be running as a Green, in Maine, the Greens are considering drafting him for their ballot line: ["Maine Green Independent Party to Caucus Across State"].
Blogger Daniel Munz gives a pretty balanced view of the pros and cons: ["Ralph: Nadir"].
But some, like John Pearce, keep their blinders and march in lockstep over the Democratic cliff while affecting no real change for themselves or the people: ["Progressives doom their causes by voting third party"].
Others, like Fran Shor, make some good points against a Nader run: ["What's the Historical Alternative?"].
Those who don't think the Nader option is important should read this piece from the New Republic, about retribution against Dean supporters: ["Oops!"]. See how the Democrats eat their own young? Why would you not want other voting options? Why should the voters continue to support this kind of behavior?
Monday, February 16, 2004
A denial
The woman who has been accused of having a two-year affair with Democratic frontrunner John Kerry denied the affair today: ["Woman Denies Rumors of Kerry Affair"]. It's funny that she would release this press release because many people over the last three days have suggested that a deal would be made and she would recant her comments, saying that she had dated a campaign aide. However, ABCNews reportedly has a videotaped interview with the woman confirming the affair: ["Report: Kerry's intern
tells all to TV network"]. Stay tuned.
The woman who has been accused of having a two-year affair with Democratic frontrunner John Kerry denied the affair today: ["Woman Denies Rumors of Kerry Affair"]. It's funny that she would release this press release because many people over the last three days have suggested that a deal would be made and she would recant her comments, saying that she had dated a campaign aide. However, ABCNews reportedly has a videotaped interview with the woman confirming the affair: ["Report: Kerry's intern
tells all to TV network"]. Stay tuned.
POLITICAL ROUNDUP
Grossman: Fair weather friend?
Former DNC chairman Steve Grossman, the campaign chairman for Howard Dean, has signaled that he will abandon Dean if he doesn't win Wisconsin and will try to mend fences with John Kerry and rally Dean's supporters to the Kerry cause: ["Top Dean Aide Discusses Plans to Back Kerry"] and ["Chairman set to leave Dean camp"].
Grossman isn't a friend of mine but I know him and respect him. However, I don't think this is the best move he could make. Yes, he did a difficult and brave thing by telling Kerry he wasn't going to back him in 2004. And he is smart to be worried about disillusioned Deaniacs bolting the Democrats and flocking to Ralph Nader or the Green Party. But he should stay by Dean's side until the bitter end like a good soldier.
Kerry's 'mistress' ready to talk...
"She wants to tell her story. She has talked at length about her relationship with Kerry. But no one is believing her.": ["John Kerry girl tells all"]. But what the hell is she doing in Kenya?: ["Kerry intern hiding in Kenya"].
And this says is all
["Bush v. Kerry: The Power Elite's Dream Ballot"].
"Bush v. Kerry is simply nirvana for the bluebloods. As they say in the business world: it's a win-win situation. From their perspective, whomever places his hand upon the Bible (yes, the Bible) on January 20, 2005 doesn't matter because with a Bush/Kerry contest they're already assured there will be no meaningful change in America for the next four years. None. Zero. Zippo."
Edwards endorsed
The Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, the organizers of last night's debate, and the Madison Capital Times have endorsed John Edwards: ["John Edwards for the Democrats"] and ["John Edwards best prepared to replace Bush"].
And Nader is leaning towards a run
This from the Seattle Times on Saturday was the only thing I could find but it is all the buzz on the Web boards: ["Nader candidacy expected"].
Grossman: Fair weather friend?
Former DNC chairman Steve Grossman, the campaign chairman for Howard Dean, has signaled that he will abandon Dean if he doesn't win Wisconsin and will try to mend fences with John Kerry and rally Dean's supporters to the Kerry cause: ["Top Dean Aide Discusses Plans to Back Kerry"] and ["Chairman set to leave Dean camp"].
Grossman isn't a friend of mine but I know him and respect him. However, I don't think this is the best move he could make. Yes, he did a difficult and brave thing by telling Kerry he wasn't going to back him in 2004. And he is smart to be worried about disillusioned Deaniacs bolting the Democrats and flocking to Ralph Nader or the Green Party. But he should stay by Dean's side until the bitter end like a good soldier.
Kerry's 'mistress' ready to talk...
"She wants to tell her story. She has talked at length about her relationship with Kerry. But no one is believing her.": ["John Kerry girl tells all"]. But what the hell is she doing in Kenya?: ["Kerry intern hiding in Kenya"].
And this says is all
["Bush v. Kerry: The Power Elite's Dream Ballot"].
"Bush v. Kerry is simply nirvana for the bluebloods. As they say in the business world: it's a win-win situation. From their perspective, whomever places his hand upon the Bible (yes, the Bible) on January 20, 2005 doesn't matter because with a Bush/Kerry contest they're already assured there will be no meaningful change in America for the next four years. None. Zero. Zippo."
Edwards endorsed
The Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, the organizers of last night's debate, and the Madison Capital Times have endorsed John Edwards: ["John Edwards for the Democrats"] and ["John Edwards best prepared to replace Bush"].
And Nader is leaning towards a run
This from the Seattle Times on Saturday was the only thing I could find but it is all the buzz on the Web boards: ["Nader candidacy expected"].
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Dean: Hell no, I won't go!
The AP's Ron Fournier's does a follow up to his earlier piece with Grossman: ["Dean to Advisers: 'We Are Not Bowing Out'"].
The AP's Ron Fournier's does a follow up to his earlier piece with Grossman: ["Dean to Advisers: 'We Are Not Bowing Out'"].
After Tuesday
A lot is going on behind the scenes of the Democratic primary. Not much of it is bubbling to the surface in public forums although the Web is all abuzz with strategy and speculation. However, the decisions are being made on the inside and one has to wonder what is going on.
Despite just 16 states casting ballots, everyone is assuming that John Kerry is the winner. This is a safe assumption but it is an accurate one? Steve Grossman, the former DNC chairman and frontman for the Dean campaign, is saying that Dean will abandon his campaign if he doesn't win in Wisconsin: ["Top aides say Dean prepared to stand down against Kerry"]. Earlier in the day, Dean denied this, saying he would like to stay in until Florida [March 9]: ["Transcript"]. It has become clear, from this and other debates on the Web, that it isn't about which candidate can win - as much as who can stop John Kerry - who is clearly not the best choice for the Democrats. So, I began to think: If I were involved in the Dean or Edwards campaigns, how would I stop Kerry? OK, this is a stretch but I see an opening here to stop Kerry from getting the nomination. After analyzing the primary map again [http://www.state.ma.us/sec/ele/elepdf/presprim04.pdf], here is what I would advise the Dean and Edwards camps to do. Winning the nomination is going to be hard. But stopping Kerry is easier. From there, who knows? The unfortunate thing about these candidates and the modern campaign is the obsession over money and the ignorance about grassroots campaigning. Candidates don't always need money. They can win [or place] with little funds. Jerry Brown proved this in 1992. Third parties and independents prove this over and over again. Why are the Democrats clueless to this truth? But back to the future - and stopping Kerry:
Stay in the race. Barring a very distant third place finish in Wisconsin, stick it out until Super Tuesday March 2. If your campaigns are running on fumes, cut your staff down to the bare minimum: One press person and an advance person or two. Lay out the basic strategy for your volunteers and tell them that this is the only way to survive. They will have to do more with less and if they really want you to be the preisdent, they will have to do all they can - without the help of numerous paid staff. Dean can do this via his very active Web lists and blogs. Also, it is time for the Dean and Edwards camps to start talking to each other if they haven't already. Some people inside the Dean campaign have said that they think Edwards is jockeying for the VP slot. Edwards has denied this but who knows. If these campaigns are serious about stopping Kerry, they have to act together.
March 2. March 2 isn't a southern sweep, as someone pointed out to me. The states include the New England states, Ohio, Maryland, Georgia, and California. Dean will win in Vermont and very well could place second in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. He could also place second in New York and California. All of these states have rabid liberal and anti-war constituencies that haven't been courted at all by Kerry. There is no reason for him to quit before March 2. Go home after Wisconsin, take a few days off. But by staying in, Dean could get more delegates and give the voters a reason to participate in the remaining primaries. Try and get as much free media as possible by holding small events in non-rented locations, similar to New Hampshire grassroots campaigning. This will cost you very little money while at the same time getting you some media. When Clark was campaigning around New Hampshire during the last hours before the primary, he was talking into a $150 portable amplifier. There is no reason why Dean and Edwards can't do the same. Go to the colleges where there are always good size auditoriums, professional audio, and tons of kids who want to hear you speak. For Dean, he should cede Maryland, Georgia, and Ohio, to Kerry, Edwards and Kucinich, respectively. More than likely, Kerry will get cocky and start kicking-in his national strategy. If the sex scandal explodes beyond the Internet, Kerry will sink like a stone. Don't you want to be there when it happens? Edwards will concentrate on Maryland and Georgia, states he will place second in at the very least, if not win.
The southern sweep. Depending on the results of March 2, and barring major Kerry losses, either Dean or Edwards might have to suspend or quit his campaigns. If I were running the Dean campaign, I would advise him not to quit but instead to "suspend" his campaign like Tsongas did in 1992. There is a difference. If he suspends his campaign, Dean could jump in or influence the race later on.
In 1992, Tsongas ran out of money - mostly because one of his fund-raisers was skimming from the till. When he suspended his campaign, he essentially said he wasn't going to campaign but people could vote for him if they wanted to. Tsongas' name stayed on other ballots and a lot of people still voted for him even though he wasn't actively campaigning. As well, when the insiders wanted to get rid of insurgent Jerry Brown - who was destroying Bill Clinton in debates and was leading in polls just before the New York primary - Tsongas jumped back in the week before and siphoned votes from Brown, ending his reform campaign [As a side note, years later during a lunch with a friend of mine, Tsongas said he regretted the move and wished he hadn't hijacked Brown's campaign. He said so many people - from Jimmy Carter on down - were urging him to jump back in. So, he did].
As I said before, if Dean isn't talking to Edwards, he should be. They should be trying to mount some sort of "Stop Kerry" movement as soon as possible. Kerry can be stopped. Looking at the map, there is time and there are states where Kerry can be stopped. There are still thousands of Deaniacs who haven't cast votes yet and Edwards has been gaining popularity.
However, Dean may be getting tired and with his sails deflated and the nomination all but snatched from his grip, he may want to just head home. I can understand where he is at. More than likely, he will drop out. But he might want to wait.
The March 9 states. The March 9 states are all southern: Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Dean will probably not get over 15 percent in these states so if he stays in, he should pass them up and let Edwards and Kerry duke it out. Instead, Dean should move to March 16 - Illinois - where Carol Moseley Braun is still very popular. She endorsed Dean. Yes, there will be pressure for him to quit but why should he? Again, go back to the low money strategy: Get into a car, retail campaign up and down the state and pretend it is New Hampshire. Use the free media. Let Edwards take Kerry out in the south.
Pennsylvania. After March 16 comes Pennsylvania with its April 27 primary. That's a month. A whole month. Almost anything can happen in a month. Pennsylvania is a huge state - a big union state. Will Kerry's free trade past come back to haunt him? Brown, even after being eliminated from contention, still received over 25 percent of the vote and got delegates to the convention in 1992. That's a quarter of the vote interested in an insurgent even if the insurgent can't win. At this point, it will probably be a two person race between someone and Kerry. Will Dean's message survive? Can Edwards [with the help of the Deaniacs, assuming he is out] launch a surprise victory there? Possibly.
Midwest and the south. The future from there spells trouble for Kerry if Edwards can stick it out. The month of May is southern, Midwestern and liberal: May 4: Indiana and North Carolina [Kerry and Edwards split]; May 11: West Virginia and Indiana [Edwards and Kerry split]; May 18: Arkansas, Kentucky, and Oregon [Edwards and Kerry split, with Dean helping Edwards win Oregon]. May 25: Idaho [toss up]. As I have said before, look at Kerry's positions - he is so close to Bush it isn't even funny. How is that going to go over in Oregon where Ralph Nader got 6 percent of the vote and would have gotten more had Gore not scared votes from him. How about West Virginia and Indiana, states that have lost manufacturing jobs due to the bad trade deals passed by Kerry?
June. June 1: Alabama and South Dakota [Edwards and Kerry]. June 6: New Jersey and Montana [Probably both Kerry].
A lot is going on behind the scenes of the Democratic primary. Not much of it is bubbling to the surface in public forums although the Web is all abuzz with strategy and speculation. However, the decisions are being made on the inside and one has to wonder what is going on.
Despite just 16 states casting ballots, everyone is assuming that John Kerry is the winner. This is a safe assumption but it is an accurate one? Steve Grossman, the former DNC chairman and frontman for the Dean campaign, is saying that Dean will abandon his campaign if he doesn't win in Wisconsin: ["Top aides say Dean prepared to stand down against Kerry"]. Earlier in the day, Dean denied this, saying he would like to stay in until Florida [March 9]: ["Transcript"]. It has become clear, from this and other debates on the Web, that it isn't about which candidate can win - as much as who can stop John Kerry - who is clearly not the best choice for the Democrats. So, I began to think: If I were involved in the Dean or Edwards campaigns, how would I stop Kerry? OK, this is a stretch but I see an opening here to stop Kerry from getting the nomination. After analyzing the primary map again [http://www.state.ma.us/sec/ele/elepdf/presprim04.pdf], here is what I would advise the Dean and Edwards camps to do. Winning the nomination is going to be hard. But stopping Kerry is easier. From there, who knows? The unfortunate thing about these candidates and the modern campaign is the obsession over money and the ignorance about grassroots campaigning. Candidates don't always need money. They can win [or place] with little funds. Jerry Brown proved this in 1992. Third parties and independents prove this over and over again. Why are the Democrats clueless to this truth? But back to the future - and stopping Kerry:
Stay in the race. Barring a very distant third place finish in Wisconsin, stick it out until Super Tuesday March 2. If your campaigns are running on fumes, cut your staff down to the bare minimum: One press person and an advance person or two. Lay out the basic strategy for your volunteers and tell them that this is the only way to survive. They will have to do more with less and if they really want you to be the preisdent, they will have to do all they can - without the help of numerous paid staff. Dean can do this via his very active Web lists and blogs. Also, it is time for the Dean and Edwards camps to start talking to each other if they haven't already. Some people inside the Dean campaign have said that they think Edwards is jockeying for the VP slot. Edwards has denied this but who knows. If these campaigns are serious about stopping Kerry, they have to act together.
March 2. March 2 isn't a southern sweep, as someone pointed out to me. The states include the New England states, Ohio, Maryland, Georgia, and California. Dean will win in Vermont and very well could place second in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. He could also place second in New York and California. All of these states have rabid liberal and anti-war constituencies that haven't been courted at all by Kerry. There is no reason for him to quit before March 2. Go home after Wisconsin, take a few days off. But by staying in, Dean could get more delegates and give the voters a reason to participate in the remaining primaries. Try and get as much free media as possible by holding small events in non-rented locations, similar to New Hampshire grassroots campaigning. This will cost you very little money while at the same time getting you some media. When Clark was campaigning around New Hampshire during the last hours before the primary, he was talking into a $150 portable amplifier. There is no reason why Dean and Edwards can't do the same. Go to the colleges where there are always good size auditoriums, professional audio, and tons of kids who want to hear you speak. For Dean, he should cede Maryland, Georgia, and Ohio, to Kerry, Edwards and Kucinich, respectively. More than likely, Kerry will get cocky and start kicking-in his national strategy. If the sex scandal explodes beyond the Internet, Kerry will sink like a stone. Don't you want to be there when it happens? Edwards will concentrate on Maryland and Georgia, states he will place second in at the very least, if not win.
The southern sweep. Depending on the results of March 2, and barring major Kerry losses, either Dean or Edwards might have to suspend or quit his campaigns. If I were running the Dean campaign, I would advise him not to quit but instead to "suspend" his campaign like Tsongas did in 1992. There is a difference. If he suspends his campaign, Dean could jump in or influence the race later on.
In 1992, Tsongas ran out of money - mostly because one of his fund-raisers was skimming from the till. When he suspended his campaign, he essentially said he wasn't going to campaign but people could vote for him if they wanted to. Tsongas' name stayed on other ballots and a lot of people still voted for him even though he wasn't actively campaigning. As well, when the insiders wanted to get rid of insurgent Jerry Brown - who was destroying Bill Clinton in debates and was leading in polls just before the New York primary - Tsongas jumped back in the week before and siphoned votes from Brown, ending his reform campaign [As a side note, years later during a lunch with a friend of mine, Tsongas said he regretted the move and wished he hadn't hijacked Brown's campaign. He said so many people - from Jimmy Carter on down - were urging him to jump back in. So, he did].
As I said before, if Dean isn't talking to Edwards, he should be. They should be trying to mount some sort of "Stop Kerry" movement as soon as possible. Kerry can be stopped. Looking at the map, there is time and there are states where Kerry can be stopped. There are still thousands of Deaniacs who haven't cast votes yet and Edwards has been gaining popularity.
However, Dean may be getting tired and with his sails deflated and the nomination all but snatched from his grip, he may want to just head home. I can understand where he is at. More than likely, he will drop out. But he might want to wait.
The March 9 states. The March 9 states are all southern: Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Dean will probably not get over 15 percent in these states so if he stays in, he should pass them up and let Edwards and Kerry duke it out. Instead, Dean should move to March 16 - Illinois - where Carol Moseley Braun is still very popular. She endorsed Dean. Yes, there will be pressure for him to quit but why should he? Again, go back to the low money strategy: Get into a car, retail campaign up and down the state and pretend it is New Hampshire. Use the free media. Let Edwards take Kerry out in the south.
Pennsylvania. After March 16 comes Pennsylvania with its April 27 primary. That's a month. A whole month. Almost anything can happen in a month. Pennsylvania is a huge state - a big union state. Will Kerry's free trade past come back to haunt him? Brown, even after being eliminated from contention, still received over 25 percent of the vote and got delegates to the convention in 1992. That's a quarter of the vote interested in an insurgent even if the insurgent can't win. At this point, it will probably be a two person race between someone and Kerry. Will Dean's message survive? Can Edwards [with the help of the Deaniacs, assuming he is out] launch a surprise victory there? Possibly.
Midwest and the south. The future from there spells trouble for Kerry if Edwards can stick it out. The month of May is southern, Midwestern and liberal: May 4: Indiana and North Carolina [Kerry and Edwards split]; May 11: West Virginia and Indiana [Edwards and Kerry split]; May 18: Arkansas, Kentucky, and Oregon [Edwards and Kerry split, with Dean helping Edwards win Oregon]. May 25: Idaho [toss up]. As I have said before, look at Kerry's positions - he is so close to Bush it isn't even funny. How is that going to go over in Oregon where Ralph Nader got 6 percent of the vote and would have gotten more had Gore not scared votes from him. How about West Virginia and Indiana, states that have lost manufacturing jobs due to the bad trade deals passed by Kerry?
June. June 1: Alabama and South Dakota [Edwards and Kerry]. June 6: New Jersey and Montana [Probably both Kerry].
Saturday, February 14, 2004
Kerry wins two more ...
D.C. Caucuses
John F. Kerry - 4,278 - 47 percent
Al Sharpton - 1,824 - 20 percent
Howard Dean - 1,596 - 17 percent
John Edwards - 927 - 10 percent
Dennis J. Kucinich - 303 - 3 percent
Wesley K. Clark - 93 - 1 percent
Write-ins - 55 - 1 percent
Joseph I. Lieberman - 31
Uncommitted - 19
Nevada Caucuses
John F. Kerry - 2,252 - 63 percent
Howard Dean - 601 - 17 percent
John Edwards - 373 - 10 percent
Dennis J. Kucinich - 241 - 7 percent
Uncommitted - 90 - 3 percent
Al Sharpton - 25 - 1 percent
So much for "[a]n estimated 6,000 Democrats converged on Chaparral High School ..." 6,000 people didn't even participate.
D.C. Caucuses
John F. Kerry - 4,278 - 47 percent
Al Sharpton - 1,824 - 20 percent
Howard Dean - 1,596 - 17 percent
John Edwards - 927 - 10 percent
Dennis J. Kucinich - 303 - 3 percent
Wesley K. Clark - 93 - 1 percent
Write-ins - 55 - 1 percent
Joseph I. Lieberman - 31
Uncommitted - 19
Nevada Caucuses
John F. Kerry - 2,252 - 63 percent
Howard Dean - 601 - 17 percent
John Edwards - 373 - 10 percent
Dennis J. Kucinich - 241 - 7 percent
Uncommitted - 90 - 3 percent
Al Sharpton - 25 - 1 percent
So much for "[a]n estimated 6,000 Democrats converged on Chaparral High School ..." 6,000 people didn't even participate.
Nevada [and D.C.] Caucuses ...
Nothing yet from the Nevada Caucuses even if the polls have been closed for a couple of hours. However, reports are saying that the turnout was huge, the highest ever seen in the history of caucuses. Check out this from the state Democratic Committee's Web site:
Wow.
Also, there is a caucus in D.C. to send delegates to the convention - not cast votes. That already happened, on Jan. 13, and Howard Dean won, handily. Of course, the media and politicos pooh-poohed it because the primary was "non-binding." But the fact remains, Dean did win one - the first one - the D.C. Primary on Jan. 13.
No results yet on who won the delegate apportionment.
Nothing yet from the Nevada Caucuses even if the polls have been closed for a couple of hours. However, reports are saying that the turnout was huge, the highest ever seen in the history of caucuses. Check out this from the state Democratic Committee's Web site:
"An estimated 6,000 Democrats converged on Chaparral High School in Clark County with thousands more gathering across Nevada to select their candidate for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. With thousands unable to head inside the school, party officials moved the precinct meetings out to the high school's football field; where Senator Harry Reid, Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins and State Senate Democratic Leader Dina Titus spoke of unity and a single-purpose - adding George Bush to the ranks of the unemployed he helped to create."
Wow.
Also, there is a caucus in D.C. to send delegates to the convention - not cast votes. That already happened, on Jan. 13, and Howard Dean won, handily. Of course, the media and politicos pooh-poohed it because the primary was "non-binding." But the fact remains, Dean did win one - the first one - the D.C. Primary on Jan. 13.
No results yet on who won the delegate apportionment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)