VEEPRESSING NEWS FOR DEMS

New York Post ^ | 5/13/04 | DEBORAH ORIN

[kattracks]

May 13, 2004 -- THERE'S now a hope against hope in Democrat-land that somehow John Kerry's vice presidential search can pull a magical rabbit out of a hat because the known prospects aren't turning on the party faithful. Insiders say a frustrated Kerry political guru Bob Shrum has been telling folks that "if only John Glenn [the astronaut and former Ohio senator] was 20 years younger, he'd be the perfect pick." Well, yes, but not at age 84.

[swilhelm73]

I suggest one of the following two. They both are clear paradigms of the modern Democratic party, and could be sure to rev up the base;

[Brandon]

It's going to be Gephardt. I came to that conclusion on Super Tuesday, and I'm sticking to it.

Kerry is risk-averse. Gephardt is a safe choice. He won't outshine Kerry; he might help win Missouri (which would give Kerry the election, if everything else was a re-run of 2000), and he has bona fides with organizaed labor and national security.

Graham will not be the pick, simply because that would mean (in the event of a Kerry victory) that the Dems would lose two Senate seats instead of just one. Likewise, rule out any Senator from a state with a GOP governor, for the same reason.

Gephardt is not really a strong choice; he has a lot of weaknesses, not least of which is that he is almost as boring as Kerry, and also that he is very old news -- he first ran for president in 1988. But what Orin's list really shows us is that the Dems do not have a very deep bench.

[DustyMoment]

Another contender that Lurch has to pass up is Gore. If elected, their entire administration would be spent in fear that anytime these two sticks of wood were in the same room, someone might light a match!!

[I still care]

I keep wondering if Lieberman might do it. After he entered the race with Gore in 2000, that was when the media turned around and started praising Gore to the skies. He would help Kerry's rush to the center, and is Jewish for the Florida demo vote.

Even though he did this before, and is somewhat old news, and hated by the Demo radical base "Holy Joe", he has a reputation as solid anti-terrorism and is the only one that spoke out for Iraq. He also was the first person to tour with Kerry in FL. (I wondered if Kerry was "feeling" him out).

It would be a pretty boring, whiney sounding ticket though.

[jporcus]

Maybe he'll pick Ted Kennedy.

One can dream, right?

[MHT]

DickHart is a loser of a choice. First, he has never run state-wide in MO and may not carry the state. Secondly, his divorced daughter has come out of the closet and is an in-your-face gay who doesn't show the same discretion that Cheney's daughter does. Gep couldn't deliver the union vote in IA, and came in 4th in a neighboring state to boot. He's pedantic, boring, and is an old-style pol with no tv charisma or eyebrows. AND he supported the war.... He's a pro-life Baptist who switched to pro-choice for the 1988 primary.

[NYpeanut]

I'd say that unless Mr. Larouche gets some white strips for those baked bean teeth, he's pretty much unelectable.

[fire_eye]

The real question is whether Kerry can put *anyone* on the ticket who won't make everyone think the roles of the two should have been reversed...

[AntiGuv]

Graham will not be the pick, simply because that would mean (in the event of a Kerry victory) that the Dems would lose two Senate seats instead of just one.

Graham is retiring and his seat is open this year. The point is irrelevant.

[Qwinn]

The reasons he cites for Edwards being a bad choice are in fact pretty weak. I'm putting my money on him picking Edwards.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

Er, guess I should've said "she cites". Pardon me.

Qwinn

[Iowa Granny]

Here's what an Iowa political writer says about "Viltax":

Woolson: Vilsack Used Wilson as Political Pawn
4/19/2004

By Eric Woolson

If Jonathan Wilson's nomination and subsequent Senate rejection for a position on the Iowa Board of Education demonstrate anything, it is that it is better to be one of Gov. Tom Vilsack's enemies than it is to be a "friend."

An enemy knows – or at least should know – that than adversary will take advantage of you for his or her own gain. A friend expects – and deserves – better.

Wilson, who Vilsack nominated precisely because he is openly gay, knew that some Senate Republicans opposed him. He had to know that Vilsack was setting him up so the Senate could knock him down. If Wilson should be angry with anyone, it should be with his "friend," the two-term Democratic governor. Vilsack used his "friend" to advance his own political aspirations.

For Vilsack, it's a zero-sum game. Wilson's loss is his own victory. That's because Vilsack is focused on his own nomination – that as presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's running mate. Sacrificing Wilson at that altar was just another sorry attempt to elevate himself by walking all over other people.

Vilsack, who is in the full throes of vice presidential fever, never intended for Wilson to be confirmed. To him, Wilson was nothing more that a prop in a theatrical performance designed to be an audience for a larger stage.

One only hopes that Wilson is politically savvy enough to know that he was being used – and that he didn't mind. If that's the case, he's a better friend than an opportunist like Vilsack deserves. Or, perhaps he felt the advancement of a larger cause – a broader public discourse of gay rights – was worth it. None of that changes the fact that Vilsack used him.

Whatever Wilson's motives, what transpired in the Iowa Senate will bear no semblance to the truth by the time Vilsack is finished spinning his "Profiles in Courage" tale of how he stood up to the Iowans he accuses of "bigotry."

Vilsack, a master at revisionist history, will claim that he was bold and courageous to nominate Wilson in the face of such critics. He'll claim that he is a champion of justice and equality for all Iowans because he fought like hell to win in the face of such long odds. He'll claim Wilson was rejected solely on the basis of sexual orientation. That will sound great at fund-raising receptions in San Francisco or a high-dollar brunches in New York City but, as is so often the case with Tom Vilsack, he'll be wrong on all counts.

Perhaps a few no votes were cast solely on the basis of Wilson's sexual orientation. I don't know what's in the hearts of Republican legislators and neither does Tom Vilsack. But it is clear that the overwhelming cause of Wilson's defeat was his political philosophy and the fact that voters in the Des Moines School District resoundingly rejected him because they didn't like the direction of the school district under his leadership.

If the man's policies are unacceptable in Des Moines, it's a sure bet that voters in Sioux Center, Pella, Plainfield and Iowa's other communities do not want him exerting influence over the state's educational direction and their own school districts. In other words, senators who voted no did so as representatives of their districts. To call those senators "bigots" is to smear their constituents with the same tar.

Secondly, Vilsack didn't truly fight for Wilson's nomination. All he did was put the man's name in play and then attack his critics. It's the standard Vilsack method of operation. Throw a hand grenade into a crowd, then walk away and disavow responsibility. He doesn't work with legislators. He bullies them. He talks down to them. He insults them. He is as closed minded and dogmatic as the people he criticizes as rigid religious conservatives.

He used to work that way simply because he thought he was superior to everyone else. Now he does it to advance his political career. It's difficult to know which one is worse, but neither serves the interests of our state.

http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=14915

[samtheman]

Lieberman has praised the Bush war too much. It would be a heavy slap in the face to the hard-core Bush-hating (and LIeberman-hating) RATS.

[Brandon]

Lieberman would be a good choice, but unless I'm remembering incorrectly, CT has a GOP governor. Which, again, would mean two Senate seats lost if Kerry wins.

[Brandon]

Gephardt is a boring choice, and therefore probably a losing choice. But I think that's where Kerry's instincts will take him.

If the election turns out to be close (I am not yet sold on that mantra, although everyone else seems to believe it) he might help hold Iowa -- Gephardt really is popular here. And if he spent the campaign shuttling back and forth from K.C. to St.L he might be able to tip Missouri, too. Maybe. It was pretty close in 2000.

[Brandon]

You're quite right about Graham. I guess I was having a senior moment. :)

[Junior]

Can't. The president and vice president cannot be from the same state.

[Agnes Heep]

Word is that the focus now is on finding someone who can rev up Kerry's message - and who'll do no harm....

How about the Marquis de Sade?

[I still care]

But the base has served his use - he has the nomination. Now he can abandon them. And isn't Rowland having a problem with ethics? He might not be governor that much longer.