[Dr. Sivana]

There is a reason Peter Fitzgerald didn’t run for re-election in 2004. He would have lost badly.

No. He was told by Baar-Topinka and company that he would not be supported because he was looking into corruption by both parties. He is why Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation) has been making so many indictments.

At the time it wasn't clear who the nominee for the Dems was going to be. Jack Ryan was polling well until his scandal, and he was MORE conservative than Firzgerald. If you are going to make misstatements about that race, don't bother posting. A self-funding incumbent U.S. Senator with a soft right image would be happily accepted by any sane party operation that wasn't corrupt.

[zebrahead]

There were a number of factors, but Fitzgerald would have lost if he had run. He even acknowledged the fact when he bowed out in 2003. The prospect of a primary challenge and spending more of his personal fortune also contributed to the decision.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/16/politics/main549611.shtml