Passing Kerry By

[Pliablemoose]

Passing Kerry by

Here?s a thought: Why did no one give a thought to nominating John Kerry to serve as the next Senate minority leader?

One reason, clearly, is that in scoping out that 45-vote contest, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada had it all but won even before the race began. Reid was poised to advance from minority whip as soon as Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota joined onetime House Speaker Tom Foley among that rare breed of national legislative leaders turned out by the voters.

Still, it?s worth noting that if the founders had adopted the British parliamentary system then Kerry would now emerge as what?s known on the other side of the pond as leader of ?Her Majesty?s Loyal Opposition.? That is not to suggest that the Brits failed to take an avid interest in the 2004 U.S. presidential contest, as witness the post-election headline in London?s Daily Mirror: ?How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb??

Pundits would have lots more to say about Kerry had the senator snared 75,000 or so more votes in Ohio, requiring the Daily Mirror to come up with an altogether different front-page headline. Yet, as matters stand, he remains a long-serving Democratic senator from Massachusetts, removed from the rest of the pack by Secret Service protection for the next six months or so, (should he care to keep it).

It is no secret that Kerry would have a hard time winning a Mr. Congeniality contest in the clubby Senate chambers. Kerry?s underwhelming popularity among his peers is not entirely due to his having missed a long string of votes in the past two years during his ultimately futile quest for the presidency while occupying some of the finest motel rooms that Iowa and New Hampshire had to offer.

If there is any talk in inner Democratic circles about giving Kerry another shot at the top prize in 2008, I have yet to hear it.

Within the party hierarchy, Kerry, it appears, isn?t cut from the same silvery cloth as the once-beloved Adlai Stevenson, who ran in 1956 against Dwight Eisenhower after Ike had trounced him in 1952. Nor can you compare him to William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925), who ran and lost three times.

What is somewhat surprising is the spate of vicious attacks launched from within the liberal and neoliberal camps against Kerry ? repeatedly cited during the campaign by President Bush as possessing the ?most liberal? voting record of any U.S. senator.

Take, for example, the comments of Marty Peretz, editor in chief of The New Republic, writing last week, in all places, on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.

In 1968, as a young Harvard firebrand, Peretz helped kick-start the presidential antiwar insurgency of Minnesota Sen. Eugene McCarthy ? a campaign that undid LBJ?s dreams of a second term. Peretz proclaimed: ?What the electorate did on Nov. 2 was essentially (or maybe just merely) turn down John Kerry, a candidate who until very late in the Democratic primaries was almost no one?s choice as the nominee, the party?s last option because it could rally around no one else. What a pathetic vessel in which to have placed liberalism?s hopes! A senator for two decades who had stood for nothing, really nothing.?

At least the congressional Democratic leadership had the grace last week to invite Kerry to meet with Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) to talk about the need for unity and a clear agenda. Nevertheless, one suspects it will be quite a while before insiders seek, let alone take, Kerry?s political counsel.

http://www.thehill.com/glass/111604.aspx

 

[AFB]

Is it not obvious?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Passing Kerry by

Here?s a thought: Why did no one give a thought to nominating John Kerry to serve as the next Senate minority leader?

One reason, clearly, is that in scoping out that 45-vote contest, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada had it all but won even before the race began. Reid was poised to advance from minority whip as soon as Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota joined onetime House Speaker Tom Foley among that rare breed of national legislative leaders turned out by the voters.

Still, it?s worth noting that if the founders had adopted the British parliamentary system then Kerry would now emerge as what?s known on the other side of the pond as leader of ?Her Majesty?s Loyal Opposition.? That is not to suggest that the Brits failed to take an avid interest in the 2004 U.S. presidential contest, as witness the post-election headline in London?s Daily Mirror: ?How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb??

Pundits would have lots more to say about Kerry had the senator snared 75,000 or so more votes in Ohio, requiring the Daily Mirror to come up with an altogether different front-page headline. Yet, as matters stand, he remains a long-serving Democratic senator from Massachusetts, removed from the rest of the pack by Secret Service protection for the next six months or so, (should he care to keep it).

It is no secret that Kerry would have a hard time winning a Mr. Congeniality contest in the clubby Senate chambers. Kerry?s underwhelming popularity among his peers is not entirely due to his having missed a long string of votes in the past two years during his ultimately futile quest for the presidency while occupying some of the finest motel rooms that Iowa and New Hampshire had to offer.

If there is any talk in inner Democratic circles about giving Kerry another shot at the top prize in 2008, I have yet to hear it.

Within the party hierarchy, Kerry, it appears, isn?t cut from the same silvery cloth as the once-beloved Adlai Stevenson, who ran in 1956 against Dwight Eisenhower after Ike had trounced him in 1952. Nor can you compare him to William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925), who ran and lost three times.

What is somewhat surprising is the spate of vicious attacks launched from within the liberal and neoliberal camps against Kerry ? repeatedly cited during the campaign by President Bush as possessing the ?most liberal? voting record of any U.S. senator.

Take, for example, the comments of Marty Peretz, editor in chief of The New Republic, writing last week, in all places, on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.

In 1968, as a young Harvard firebrand, Peretz helped kick-start the presidential antiwar insurgency of Minnesota Sen. Eugene McCarthy ? a campaign that undid LBJ?s dreams of a second term. Peretz proclaimed: ?What the electorate did on Nov. 2 was essentially (or maybe just merely) turn down John Kerry, a candidate who until very late in the Democratic primaries was almost no one?s choice as the nominee, the party?s last option because it could rally around no one else. What a pathetic vessel in which to have placed liberalism?s hopes! A senator for two decades who had stood for nothing, really nothing.?

At least the congressional Democratic leadership had the grace last week to invite Kerry to meet with Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) to talk about the need for unity and a clear agenda. Nevertheless, one suspects it will be quite a while before insiders seek, let alone take, Kerry?s political counsel.

http://www.thehill.com/glass/111604.aspx

What is with your consistent bashing of the left, yet trying to portray yourself as some kind of moderate? You guys won, now you please get over it. If the answer isn't obvious to you, then I don't know how to help you.......

 

[LunarRay]

Kerry's status is above minority leader.. he is elder statesman of the democratic party in office. His 50 percent of the popular vote carries much more sway than what a minority leader can muster.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

What is with your consistent bashing of the left, yet trying to portray yourself as some kind of moderate? You guys won, now you please get over it. If the answer isn't obvious to you, then I don't know how to help you.......

LOL, I'm a freaking Totalitarian, you couldn't imagine what I'd do if I were in a position of power.

The jack booted thugs would be knocking on your door tonight....

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Kerry's status is above minority leader.. he is elder statesman of the democratic party in office. His 50 percent of the popular vote carries much more sway than what a minority leader can muster.

Rounding up are we?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Passing Kerry by

Here?s a thought: Why did no one give a thought to nominating John Kerry to serve as the next Senate minority leader?

One reason, clearly, is that in scoping out that 45-vote contest, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada had it all but won even before the race began. Reid was poised to advance from minority whip as soon as Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota joined onetime House Speaker Tom Foley among that rare breed of national legislative leaders turned out by the voters.

Still, it?s worth noting that if the founders had adopted the British parliamentary system then Kerry would now emerge as what?s known on the other side of the pond as leader of ?Her Majesty?s Loyal Opposition.? That is not to suggest that the Brits failed to take an avid interest in the 2004 U.S. presidential contest, as witness the post-election headline in London?s Daily Mirror: ?How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb??

Pundits would have lots more to say about Kerry had the senator snared 75,000 or so more votes in Ohio, requiring the Daily Mirror to come up with an altogether different front-page headline. Yet, as matters stand, he remains a long-serving Democratic senator from Massachusetts, removed from the rest of the pack by Secret Service protection for the next six months or so, (should he care to keep it).

It is no secret that Kerry would have a hard time winning a Mr. Congeniality contest in the clubby Senate chambers. Kerry?s underwhelming popularity among his peers is not entirely due to his having missed a long string of votes in the past two years during his ultimately futile quest for the presidency while occupying some of the finest motel rooms that Iowa and New Hampshire had to offer.

If there is any talk in inner Democratic circles about giving Kerry another shot at the top prize in 2008, I have yet to hear it.

Within the party hierarchy, Kerry, it appears, isn?t cut from the same silvery cloth as the once-beloved Adlai Stevenson, who ran in 1956 against Dwight Eisenhower after Ike had trounced him in 1952. Nor can you compare him to William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925), who ran and lost three times.

What is somewhat surprising is the spate of vicious attacks launched from within the liberal and neoliberal camps against Kerry ? repeatedly cited during the campaign by President Bush as possessing the ?most liberal? voting record of any U.S. senator.

Take, for example, the comments of Marty Peretz, editor in chief of The New Republic, writing last week, in all places, on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.

In 1968, as a young Harvard firebrand, Peretz helped kick-start the presidential antiwar insurgency of Minnesota Sen. Eugene McCarthy ? a campaign that undid LBJ?s dreams of a second term. Peretz proclaimed: ?What the electorate did on Nov. 2 was essentially (or maybe just merely) turn down John Kerry, a candidate who until very late in the Democratic primaries was almost no one?s choice as the nominee, the party?s last option because it could rally around no one else. What a pathetic vessel in which to have placed liberalism?s hopes! A senator for two decades who had stood for nothing, really nothing.?

At least the congressional Democratic leadership had the grace last week to invite Kerry to meet with Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) to talk about the need for unity and a clear agenda. Nevertheless, one suspects it will be quite a while before insiders seek, let alone take, Kerry?s political counsel.

http://www.thehill.com/glass/111604.aspx

What is with your consistent bashing of the left, yet trying to portray yourself as some kind of moderate? You guys won, now you please get over it. If the answer isn't obvious to you, then I don't know how to help you.......

The right will probably get over winning after the left accept losing. Apparently that hasn't happened yet.

 

[nageov3t]

do we even know that Kerry wanted the job?

after over a year of campaigning, maybe he wants a break from having to try and rally the party every day.

 

[Tom]

Were William Jenning Bryant or Adlai Stevens ever leaders of the Senate ?

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Kerry's status is above minority leader.. he is elder statesman of the democratic party in office. His 50 percent of the popular vote carries much more sway than what a minority leader can muster.

50% is rather generous! Exit polls justify (as I read it), of the 48% of the popular vote (55,949,407) cast for John Kerry, a whoping 70% cast their votes for John Kerry simply because he was NOT Bush. In other words they had no faith in him as a person, as a politician, or as a candidate. The only reasons he got as high as he did was due to party affiliation, animosity over the war in iraq, and that his last name was not Bush.

I cite CNN.com's exit polls.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Kerry's status is above minority leader.. he is elder statesman of the democratic party in office. His 50 percent of the popular vote carries much more sway than what a minority leader can muster.

Rounding up are we?

I guess... but when the Ohio and Florida votes are corrected It should be close to that... 🙂

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: gutharius

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Kerry's status is above minority leader.. he is elder statesman of the democratic party in office. His 50 percent of the popular vote carries much more sway than what a minority leader can muster.

50% is rather generous! Exit polls justify (as I read it), of the 48% of the popular vote (55,949,407) cast for John Kerry, a whoping 70% cast their votes for John Kerry simply because he was NOT Bush. In other words they had no faith in him as a person, as a politician, or as a candidate. The only reasons he got as high as he did was due to party affiliation, animosity over the war in iraq, and that his last name was not Bush.

I cite CNN.com's exit polls.

I guess that is possible too. But anyone who runs for President and comes as close as Kerry did has clout. Imagine him saying to a junior senator something like "you think just like Bush"... hehehehehe then those anti Bush voters will come into play.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: loki8481
do we even know that Kerry wanted the job?

after over a year of campaigning, maybe he wants a break from having to try and rally the party every day.

 

[Kibbo]

In a parliamentary system, often a leader who loses an election (especially one he was expected by the party to win) will resign his position, and sit in the back benches as a respected member of the caucus.

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: gutharius

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Kerry's status is above minority leader.. he is elder statesman of the democratic party in office. His 50 percent of the popular vote carries much more sway than what a minority leader can muster.

50% is rather generous! Exit polls justify (as I read it), of the 48% of the popular vote (55,949,407) cast for John Kerry, a whoping 70% cast their votes for John Kerry simply because he was NOT Bush. In other words they had no faith in him as a person, as a politician, or as a candidate. The only reasons he got as high as he did was due to party affiliation, animosity over the war in iraq, and that his last name was not Bush.

I cite CNN.com's exit polls.

I guess that is possible too. But anyone who runs for President and comes as close as Kerry did has clout. Imagine him saying to a junior senator something like "you think just like Bush"... hehehehehe then those anti Bush voters will come into play.

Possible? No. Fact that Kerry is the equivalent of a HUGE hot air ballon, all air no substance, when it comes to voter support? DING DING DING YES!

 

[slyedog]

probably didnot get the job because he is not a winner. simple as that