How MA Rethugs see recruiting candidates (& Kerry '08)

[TayTay]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/11/wholl_run_against_kennedy/

In Brief: The Mass Rethugs often recruit candidates to run against high-profile and popular Dems in order to 'season' them for races down the line. The REthugs are attempting to recruit someone to run against Ted Kennedy, even though it is a suicide mission. What was interesting in this was how they see Kerry's seat in '08.

"Maybe, the voters will think it's just time for a change. But even if Kennedy wins again, there is an greater opportunity right down the line for whoever is smart enough to take him on.

John Kerry's term is up in 2008. And, unlike states like Texas, you can have your name on the ballot for only one office in Massachusetts. That means if the wounded Kerry is really serious about running for president again, he won't be able to run again for his Senate seat, making the non-Kennedy seat an open race for the first time since 1984 when the late Paul Tsongas stepped down for health reasons.

An open US Senate seat has to be a tempting thought to any number of Massachusetts Republicans. What do you say, Gloria Larson?

[TayTay]

1. The 'pubbies have a strange take on this

First of all, it is incredibly smart for the 'pubbies to recruit candidates in advance and season them for state-wide races. This creates name recognition and introduces cnadidates to the 'pubbies money guys for later races. (This is what happened with Rethug Gov Romney. He ran against Kennedy in '94 and then later became Gov.)

This article does answer the question, Can John Kerry run for Pres & Senator concurrently. (I looked this up in MA Constitution and the answer appeared to be no.) The 'pubbies have been busy little bees and have come up with a 'no' conclusion. So Kerry has to decide if he wants to roll the dice and seek re-election (a sure thing) or ditch it all in another Pres run. (And bear in mind that, as saracat mentioned in another post, that a lot of national people don't want him to run again. Not that that has ever mattered to Kerry before.)

The 'pubbies have a strange view of Kerry if they think he is 'wounded.' He carried every area of the state last fall, took every city and took the state with 61% of the vote. (And the Globe also reported this week that 100,000 votes in Western MA may have been lost. The SecOfState for MA, a Dem, refuses to believe this, but the national reporting on fraud did mention running up the * vote count in places like MA so that the popular vote would go to *. This was a problem in prior elections in MA, so I wouldn't put it past the 'pubbies to do this.) Kerry is not wounded in his home state, as the glowing small town newspaper reports last week prove.

So, I wonder if Kerry is a gambler and will take this risk. I don't think the 'pubbies could take his seat if he decided to go for a Pres run, but anything can happen. We shall see.

[whometense]

2. Great post, TayTay.

First of all, about the "wounded" thing? In their dreams.

Second, the 100,000 lost votes. I've been taking the Zogby polls for well over a year, and every time I get to the question, "Do you think your vote was counted?" it gives me pause. I mean, who the hell knows? I certainly would not put it past them to skim votes in places like NY, MA and CA in order to run up the popular vote count. The magic lies in those unsecured central tabulators Karl Rove had a link to from his office. :tinfoilhat:

Third, Kerry in 2008. Naturally, this is nothing but speculation on my part, but why not speculate?

1. Kerry knows if he gives up his seat it's nearly a dead certainty it will be filled by another dem, and he could probably even influence who it would be through his endorsement, if he chose to give one. So that removes a certain amount of pressure.

2. It's obvious to anyone who has been watching that today's Senate is not the one Kerry joined in 1984. Will the pendulum swing back towards civility and cooperation? Who knows, but from a personal point of view he might not be giving up that much. It must be awful to watch all that crap legislation sail through, when all you have is your one little no vote.

3. I think Kerry still wants to be president. We still want him to become president. I have no idea at all how the general population feels about him. If he used polls as an indicator he'd be discouraged, but then again we know what polls are worth. It's true that if you need an oily salesman type to win nationally, he's not that man. But it may be that people are so desperate for substance in another two years that Kerry's time will have come. Even with the media doing its level best to make him look like a fool, he still (IMHO) won the election. And if he didn't actually win, it's indisputable that he came damned close.

4. So here's my scenario as of today. Kerry gives up his senate seat and goes for broke in 2008. If he gets the nom, great. If he doesn't get the nom, he breaks his back campaigning for whoever did. If the dem wins in 2008 don't you think Kerry would make a fantastic Secretary of State??? I sure do.

[Mass]

3. Totally agree

1 - If Kerry was to give up his seat, the race would be the primary race, between there are so many valuable people just in the Congressional Delegation that would like to graduate to Senators, starting by Markey, Frank, and Meeham, but not only.

2- I had been wondering if Kerry wanted to stay Senator. My feeling is that one of the major problem is to keep up with the egos of the other Senators while continuing to do an efficient job. I am always puzzled at his reputation for looking for the cameras as he seems to be a lot less doing that than many others.

3- Every place he has been, media have reported a very warm welcome. I think the more real people see him, the more they like him. If he wants to run again, the best thing he can do is to continue to visit the different states low-key, as he has been doing, so that people really learn to know him outside of the media. This is basically what he did in Iowa and it seems that it worked pretty well.

[TayTay]

4. I keep coming back to the national profiles that have run

in the LATimes and the NYTimes. (The NYTimes one that said Kerry was, "More than an ordinary Senator, but not a Presidential nominee.") Those profiles were largely kind and sympathetic. We shall have to see how it plays out.

The odd thing about all those DKos posts is that Kos seems to think that Kerry was an insider. I think he was always too much of a maverick to be a true insider. (And he never really did what other pols did to schmooze up the rest of the Dem Party structure. A lot of Dems never liked Kerry because they could never completely count on him to 'play ball' on some of the political issues. He has bucked the Dem Party Elders on many, many occasions.)

Your number 3 is sort of a nightmare/blue clouds ahead scenario. (In other words, it contains both bad and good.) I wonder about all this, I really do. On the one hand, Sen. Kerry is more comfortable being a liberal in this term. He has been more than willing to mix it up with the Rethugs on a whole host of issues, including the wacky judicial nominees/nuke option, the energy bill and calling them on their hypocrisy on veteran's issues. (Just personally, my fav speech this year was the one on the veterans letters. Tears.)

There is so much that is coming to a head over the next six months. The debacle in Iraq is forcing Pentagon insiders to admit that this war might not be winnable. *'s war in Iraq might just be the most expensive war in US history. What are we going to get for all this money? We are already about $225 Billion in the hole and there is talk of another 'Emergency funding bill' this year for $50 billion.) The US is broke and going into hock in a way that endangers the future financial security of the country. The state of civil rights in this country and press freedom is not good either.

Kerry is a gambler and he isn't. I wonder if all this awful stuff will force more innovative critiques out of him. There will be huge national anti-war rallies in the coming months. I wonder if he will make an appearance. (I would like to see that. Not as a raging liberal, but as a voice of sanity.) On the other hand, it is very early. All the grief and anger and depression from the last election has not yet played out. That has to go away first. The Dems winning some races in '06 would improve everyone's mood and outlook on past and future candidates.

[whometense]

5. Excellent points.

It's true that whatever happens in the 2006 elections could have a profound impact on a lot of other matters. I'm still so skittish about election security, though, that I'm very nervous about the chances the people will have to be heard. * can't run again, but that doesn't mean Rove is going anywhere.

You're right that Kerry is one of the handful of senators who can vote his conscience and only gain support in his home state. He's certainly comfortable in his liberal views.

I was thinking of starting a thread on the Sensenbrenner event yesterday morning, though it's OT for this group. I watched the replay on c-span last night (video online here). I went to bed upset about it, and woke up this morning upset about it. Have you seen the video? The one up-side to the whole thing is that the repukes have been using these gestapo tactics for ages now and getting away with them, but Sensenbrenner did it live and on camera. It was shocking. Hopefully the blogosphere can blow the story up huge. Bradblog has a ton of stuff on it, and there was at least one huge diary on Kos last night about it.

[rox63]

6. I don't think the rethugs have a chance at Kerry's Senate seat

About half of the (totally Dem) MA congressional delegation is chomping at the bit for a Senate seat to open up. It's been over 20 years since there was an opening. That's a long time to go without a promotion. I know that Meehan and Frank were both doing some hefty fundraising last year, when it looked like Kerry might win the White House. Although I like Meehan a lot (he's my congressman), it would be oh-so-sweet to watch Barney Frank deliver the smack-down (he does it so well) in the Senate to the likes of Trent Lott and Bill Frist.

[whometense]

7. I'm for Barney, myself.

He's my congressman, true, but he's got an acid tongue and it would be a pure pleasure to watch him eviscerate those buffoons. And all the sweeter because he's gay, he's out, and he's bulletproof!!!!

[TayTay]

8. I liked Martha Coakley, Middlesex DA

I want a woman in a statewide office in MA. I find it embarrassing that the only woman in current statewide elected office is that Barbie-wannabee Kerry Healey. Coakley is smart, capable and tough. (She is not as liberal as Kerry, but being in as a DA clouds that. She is still a good MA dem and would make a great Senator.) Martha is running for State AG, so I don't know if she would turn around and run for something else in '08. Who knows.

I love Barney Frank. I love Marty Meehan (my Cong. also!) They would both be great. But I can't speculate too much, because it isn't an issue yet. (Cross that sad bridge when I come to it. Even if Kerry got elected Pres I would, selfish narcissist that I am, miss him as my Senator. I really would. I like him and Kennedy. They are a wonderful voice of conscience in the Senate.)

[Mass]

9. I love Markey, probably because he is my congressman

and he is very active in energy and environment issues, but I really like Meehan and Frank as well.

Any of these three is fine for me.