Posted on 06/16/2004 8:31:22 AM PDT by Servant of the 9
IN the race among Democrats to become John Kerry's running mate, former Sen. Sam Nunn, 65, is ahead by a nose. Sources say the FBI has started combing through records of his business dealings, reviewing files and relationships. No wonder they started early — Nunn, a native of Georgia, serves on the boards of ChevronTexaco, Coca-Cola, Dell, GE, Internet Security Systems and Scientific-Atlanta, in addition to acting as co-chair and CEO of the Nuclear Threat Initiative. A rep for the Kerry campaign said, "We're not commenting on the process."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Putting Nunn on the ticket to carry Georgia would be about as effective as Dukakis choosing Bentsen to carry Texas. Didn't wash.
Yeah, I can't fathom that the ticket would be that strong. Replace Kerry with anybody else more electable, and you might be right.
The FBI???
If Richardson is picked we'll hear endlessly about how wonderful he is because he is Hispanic and how bold and courageous Kerry is for making the pick (like Gore with the Lieberman selection because he is Jewish)...but as others have speculated on FR, Richardson may have a skeleton or two in his closet that would make him a liability.
I think Richardson was offered it, and turned it down ...he made some very "Sherman-like" statements a few weeks ago..Nunn is smoke, a "maskirova"...to deflect attenton while they try to find someone, anyone who will at least add something to the ticket..
Kerry needs someone strong on security issues and a politician. Nunn would be a strong "unity" addition even if he is a Southern conservative Democrat. I want GWB to win. Nunn will make it a little more difficult.
Kerry/Gingrich?
Kerry/DeLay
Kerry/Keyes
Kerry/Forbes
I've never gotten the sense that Lieberman cared about his few conservative positions as much as Nunn identified with his southern conservative Democrat image. Lieberman was named because he could solidify Jewish support and win over people with his "morality" that had little bearing on his actual political profile.
The degree of renunciation required of Nunn would negate all of his value to the ticket as a southern pro-defense conservative. I'd be surprised that Kerry would try something this dumb, except that he already did it with McCain.
Blatant pandering to the South.
Cheap attempt to make easy inroads in the south. The fact remains he would be running with a loser.
Agreed.
Suggested Campaign Slogan:
Kerry/Nunn - Leaves All Behind.
I don't think the #2 on the ticket matters as much as the #1. And the #1 reeks for every Southern state.
Sam Nunn will reveal his true character if he accepts Hanoi John Effing Kerry's bid to become VP!
We already know Kerry is a sleazball scumbag LIEberal. And the names being bandied around to run with him are likewise sleazeball scumbag LIEberals (Edwards, Gerblehardt, et al).
I hope Senator Nunn has the decency and good sense to flatly refuse to run with or support Hanoi John!
The problem with Richardson is that he was Clinton's fixer in the Monica affair. Even though he's pretty competent and doesn't have the personal problems that most Clintonites have, he reminds everybody of the one aspect of the Clinton administration everybody would want to forget.
I don't believe the "common thought" about the 2008 race. I know, everybody and their mom thinks its Hillary Clinton's run for the Presidency......
Its not going to happen. She won't ever receive the Democratic Nomination, let alone win the general election.
There is a huge mound of evidence to support my view on this topic. From the basic "no woman has ever had a serious run, let alone won, a nomination" to "Senators rarely win a General Election for President" to "the historic high negatives of Hillary Clinton nationally" to "hard left liberalism is dying" to "Democratic Party membership is decreasing" to "Democratic Party has lost thousands of elective offices in the past decade".
There is simply no single politician in the country that so heatedly gets average voters as angry as the thought of Hillary Clinton does. It surpasses the anger of the far left against Bush. It doesn't "seem that way" today, because she isn't running for anything today, let alone President.
And then there is the simple fact that should the Democrats get blown out in November of this year, as they have the last couple of elections (discounting the 2000 Presidential race, it was another bad election cycle for democrats across the board, from local to state to Fed) Democrats - dumb as they are on most things - are just like the rest of us when it comes to the concept of "winning".
The Democratic Party reflects EXACTLY what the Clinton's want it to at this point, as it has since 1992. Its been a disaster for them politically to date. One more election cycle of losing at all levels, and thats the end of the Clintonian Era within the Democratic Party.
What I refer to as the "Susan Estrich Wing" of the Democratic Party understands this clearly. Among its members is Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, John Edwards, and others I won't list (this post is long enough).
Hillary Clinton isn't the nominee this year, as I predicted since the 2000 race. She won't be the nominee in any other election year as well.
Unless Nunn has changed, I cannot imagine that he would VP for a person like Kerry. When I worked on Capitol Hill, most of the Christian staffers there either worked for Nunn or tried to get on his staff. He is an evangelical. I was, however, extremely disappointed when he signaled a wavering stance on abortion about the time he considered running for president.
Ture enough, but Richardson has done a pretty good job of rehabilitating his image since the end of his time with the Clinton Administration.
No doubt his allegiance will be a factor, how much of one is the question Democrats will have to answer first, before "We the People" get to weigh in.
I heard Georgie Stephanwhatever bandy about the name of Bill Cohen this morning.
Nunn spent most of his political life as a pro-lifer. I remember him making statements that compromised his position on abortion--it must have been some time in the 1980's. I don't remember what he said, but it was not the clear-cut hard-nosed opposition that he once held. I'm not sure what he believes today. I supected then that he was trying to appear more moderate so that he could capture some of the pro-abortion votes if he decided to run for president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.