Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Breaking: Senator Kerry; a Senator to Remain

By

This story just appeared on Boston.com and it’s news to me–so it might be to you as well. 

Here’s the upshot:

WASHINGTON –Senator John F. Kerry plans to announce today that he will not run in the 2008 presidential race, and will instead remain in Congress and seek reelection to his Senate seat next year, according to senior Democratic officials.

He’s a good man and if given the chance, would have continued to serve this country well.  That said, I’m glad we get to keep him as ours here in Massachusetts.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

      • The poo that flew around last election actually gave rise to a new verb:  Swiftboating.  lots of pain there, so no thanks, although I’m guessing you were kidding, sco. 

        <

        p>
        Remember when asked if he was supporting his friend Obama for POTUS and Deval said he would support Kerry if he ran since he’s his Senator?  Does this mean he’s now supporting Obama?

        <

        p>
        Kerry’s about to speak on the Senate floor. 

        • No, but perhaps I’m talking about something different than you are.  What I was hoping for was the free-for-all that would result if Kerry had declined to stand for re-election as Senator.  That would have given us some excitement locally, at least, since otherwise 2008 is a foregone conclusion in Massachusetts — the nominees will be chosen long before our primary and we can basically assume that MA will be in the blue column without much effort.

        • …is that Deval’s support for Kery was based on knowledge (or an educated calculation) that Kerry wasn’t going to run. He gets the advantages that come with publically voicing his support for Kerry without the liabilities of actually having to support his campaign.  Also, should he support Obama, he can also play the chip that “I’m not basing my support for Sen. Obama based on race.  If you remember, I first announced that I would support John Kerry for the nomination before I supported Barack”.

          • I think Patrick would have benefited from a Kerry run, assuming that Kerry decided not to simultaneously run for re-election.

            <

            p>
            Deval’s strength was and is his grassroots organization.  He could have used that as a carrot or a stick for ambitious legislators who were eying Meehan and Markey’s House seats as they tried to move up to the Senate.

  2. …still a chance he’ll go down in history as a successful senator rather than an unsuccessful presidential candidate.

    <

    p>
    That said, given how dirty his campaign was in 2004 in IA and NH, I’d gladly vote against him in a primary.

  3. WBUR just reported that Kerry concluded his speech on the floor of the Senate with the announcement that he would not run for President in 2008, and will run for another Senate term.

  4. I am disappointed that Senator Kerry has chosen to seek re-election instead of running for president but reasons outside of the conventional wisdom.

    <

    p>
    Quite frankly, I’m tired of John Kerry and I was hoping that’d he seek the Democratic nomination, thereby opening up the senate seat, and allow for some new blood in the congressional delegation. The idea of a Senator McGovern, or Senator Tierney, or even Senator Lynch is far more appealing to me than six more years of Senator Kerry.

    <

    p>
    I say this as a person who voted for John Kerry in 2004 and worked for him during the primaries. This has nothing to do with the “botched joke” (Though the subsequent media coverage did him very few failures), the disgraceful Swift Boat nonsense or anything else like that. The bottom line is that John Kerry has done, in my opinion, very little on behalf of this Commonwealth in the twenty-two years he’s been down in Washington. Senator Kennedy has always carried the water for Massachusetts and will continue to do so effectively. I proudly voted for him in 2006.

    <

    p>
    We have some very talented people in the congressional delegation who have the intelligence, skills and talent to provide us better representation in that Senate seat. Ted Kennedy cannot serve forever and John Kerry will never have the capacity (or I strongly suspect, the desire) to serve Massachusetts as effectively as our senior senator has.

    <

    p>
    All of this said, I will most likely vote for Senator Kerry in the next election. He is, to paraphrase Winston Churchill’s famous comment about democracy, the worst possible choice we have except for all of the others. I wonder if any of the prominent Democrats mentioned as possible candidates would have the guts to attempt a primary challenge. It would certainly make for an interesting 2008.

    • (A recurring feature of Atrios’)

      <

      p>
      I wonder if any of the prominent Democrats mentioned as possible candidates would have the guts to attempt a primary challenge.

      <

      p>
      No.

      <

      p>
      This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Obvious Questions.

    • You jest.  I’d love to work for anyone who challenged Lynch from the left in a Democratic primary.  Lynch may work well for labor, and he’s pretty good on gun issues and the environment.  However, he’s lousy on abortion and gay rights, not great on civil liberties, and he favors an expansion of the death penalty.  It seems to me that we could do a bit better than Lynch.

  5. John , John , John , Step down don’t run for any thing . Go home  and just watch your soaps .
    You are PRO-WAR .
    KERRY STEP DOWN  NOW!!!

  6. …and let other Democratic politicians move up.

    <

    p>
    Quite frankly, Ted Kennedy should, too.

    <

    p>
    By sitting at the top of the heap for years if not decades, they are stifling the growth of the party at the lower levels.  Kennedy should retire as an “elder statesman” and nurture younger Democrats in the mould that he would like to see.

    <

    p>
    BTW, I have long advocated for that.

    • Raj is right on.  Kerry and Kennedy need to step aside and let a new generation of leaders represent our Commonwealth.  The Kennedy Dynasty needs to come to an end.  I think its undemocratic that Kennedy has served for forty-five years (it will be fifty-one after his current term).  And four terms is quite enough for John Kerry.  His disastrous campaign in 2004, with his wimpy centrist appeals and pro-war rhetoric, should give him enough reason to retire.

      • …it isn’t a dynastic issue.  If Ted Kennedy would like to nurture a member of his family to become senator (I don’t believe there is one here in Massachusetts), so be it.  But Ted should have stepped aside for maybe a Joe Moakley or a Barney Frank, or whomever. 

        <

        p>
        There is something to be said for being an elder statesman.

        <

        p>
        There is a similar problem in other states.  Who was the elder racist from one of the Carolinas that Trent Lot lauded a few years ago, who sat on his seat for millenia?  Oh, yes, Strom Thurmond.

        <

        p>
        I agree that Kerry is something of an embarrassment.  He should just exit stage left.

        • If we dump Kennedy and Kerry, Massachusetts moves to the back of the line, vis a vis who realistically has power in the Senate.

          <

          p>
          This

          …let a new generation of leaders represent our Commonwealth.

          is an oxymoron; for many years our fate would actually be in the hands of more senior senators from other states who have built up seniority and earned important committee assignments.  Is that really what you want?

          <

          p>
          Not only that, but in the 40+ years he’s been in office, Senator Kennedy has been one of the very few principled, unwavering liberal senators from any state.  Your Strom Thurmond example is a strong argument for keeping Ted in office, don’t you think? 

          • …the problem is, the Democrats in the Senate need to change the concept and get away from having the Senate–and the House–be little more than an “old boys club.”  And they have the ability–albeit, I’m sure, not the will or interest–to do so. 

            <

            p>
            As it is currently, and as I’ve said, the system stifles party development.

      • If there were someone more capable of representing Massachusetts in the Senate and if Massachusetts wanted someone else to represent us, then we had the perfect oppurtunity to excersize democracy in 2006 when Senator Kennedy was up for re-election.  Apparently, this is not the case. Kennedy was elected, again, by the state to represent us in the Senate in 2006.  How is that undemocratic?

        <

        p>
        If you think there exists in Massachusetts than John Kerry, I suggest you draft him or her into the ’08 race or start a sticker campaign or something.  You can’t call someone getting elected into office fair and square “undemocratc”.

        • If BMG and its readers are dumping all over Kerry maybe there’s voter appetite and opportunity for someone to mount a viable challenge even if Kerry does run for re-election. 

          • So the snide simple answer posted elsewhere is probably true.

            <

            p>
            You, from the left, are displeased with Kerry because he is a “wimpy” moderate (another poster here made him sound like Dick Cheney with a blown-dry hairdo) and not “leading” the party in a more palpably leftward direction.

            <

            p>
            I, from the middle, or at least the right of you, am displeased with Kerry because I stringly suspect that many of the “moderate” things he says– the very ones that probably drive you batty– are of dubious sincerity, as he seems to try to have it both ways.

            <

            p>
            I’m sure that we are not alone in our respective assessments.

            <

            p>
            I suppose the moral of the story is that one can lead from the left or from the middle, but one has to be clear about where one stands, lest one wind up with no discernable stance.

    • He is great at getting legislation through. He works well with the other side, and does so while keeping his principles. Our House delegation is piling up enormous seniority. Soon it’ll control everything. “Make it Massachusetts” will apply to legislation. Frank, Markey, Meehan, and Delahunt should be having a fine time of it.

      • Say what you will about Kennedy: he is a lion in the Senate, and is far, far more effective than the Fox TV view of him as on the fringe would have you believe.

        <

        p>
        Unfortunately, Mass Dems in a lot of positions of power is sure to be worth a few million in GOP fundraising in places other than New England for the next election.

  7. For his comment made while front-paging this diary, I hereby award Bob what I shall call, for lack of a better term, a “virtual 6”.

    <

    p>
    Breaking: Senator Kerry; a Senator to Remain
    by: lori
    Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 13:57:18 PM EST

    <

    p>
    (Thank God for that. – promoted by Bob) (6.00 / 1)

    • I say its time to dump the bastard, I will support nearly any democratic challenger and would even support a moderate Republican. If Charlie Baker runs in the GE he has my vote, especially because the Senate will likely stay Dem in 08.  That said i would prefer a Democrat, it looks like Cahill wont challenge, I’m sure Galvin won’t, and since the entire Congressional delegation endorsed Kerry and is now in positions of power in the majority, I doubt they will, so this leaves who exactly?

      • I cannot imagine any sort of Republican being an improvement on Kerry. Notice too that the moderate Republicans in the Senate (Collins, Snowe, especially Hagel) are behaving so very much better now that they’re in the minority. Even Bush spared us the the usual socially conservative crap in the SOTU now that Republicans no longer control Congress. Clearly, the best thing for keeping Republicans well-behaved is keeping them in the minority.

        <

        p>
        If a blue state like Massachusetts elects a Republican, we risk putting McConnell in charge of the Senate.

        <

        p>
        You wouldn’t want Senator Collins to sink into recidivism, would you?

      • Any particular votes?  Legislation?  Or is it that he was a victim of the Republican hit machine.  You know the one where they cannot beat you on facts so they just make up crap and repeat it over and over until it sticks.  The one that was previously after (the guy than ran before) Al Gore.  Remember how Gore was perceived a few years ago?  John Kerry will do what Gore did, keep on doing good work and make the ones who get nothing accomplished, destroy our country and have nothing but useless attacks look like the idiots they are.

        <

        p>
        To answer an issue of relevancy, during the Democrats first days in charge they put forth a John Kerry bill and passed it 87-0.  John Kerry re-introduced the Congressional Pension Accountability Act, better known as “The Duke Cunningham Act.”

        <

        p>
        John Kerry has my vote, because he’s a damn good Senator.

        • If you can put up with the consistently outraged tone and occasional heavy-handed repetition, The Daily Howler’s Bob Somerby does an excellent job of pointing out press bias against prominent Democrats, particularly against the personalities of prominent Democrats.

          <

          p>
          Take John McCain. John McCain has spent the last year pandering to conservatives by abandoning past positions. In the remaining time, he offers flatly self-contradictory advice about the war in Iraq — all to somehow carve out a position beyond reproach. Yet, McCain is constantly portrayed as an authentic, straight-talking guy. Kerry, God bless him, is not a clear communicator, but he has never done the sort of crap McCain has. Why doesn’t the media treat Kerry as someone who means well who’s not always easy to understand — obscure but wise (like, say, how Greenspan is portrayed) and McCain as someone who doesn’t mean well, but whose pronouncement of the day is clear — and clearly wrong? Why don’t they treat McCain like a demogogue? Why do they force Kerry to win their favor everytime he’s on?

          <

          p>
          Even if you’re a Super Duper Liberal with blue underwear and a shrine to George S. McGovern in your basement, the media environment will still soak into your brain.

          <

          p>
          Don’t let it.

    • Just for the record, I do like Kerry as a Senator, although I think his vote for the Iraq war was craven. I also don’t think he lost the Presidential election because of the right wing hit machine. His main problem, in my opinion, was that he couldn’t deliver a coherent position on Iraq. I worked on his campaign for months so I had a pretty close view. There were moments when I was proud, but mostly I was frustrated and disappointed. In any event, the reason I’m happy he is not going to run is because I suspect he wouldn’t mount as effective a campaign as needed this time either.

      • The Democratic tendency in 2003-04, when things looked better on the Iraq front, was to grumble that it was just wrong and illegal to take any action without the blessing of the Security Council.  I think that this was poison for Kerry in 2004; he needed to establish that a Democratic President would also be the independent and only Commander in Cheif of the American armed forces.  He wasn’t able to do that.

        <

        p>
        The Bush campaign set his position, which was something along the lines of requiring a permission slip signed by Shroeder, Chirac, and Kofi Annan before responding agressively to a military attack on the US.  This was untrue, and had nothing to do with Iraq, but that is how it landed.

        <

        p>
        He needed to viciously Sister Souljah France, Germany, and the UN to create a little daylight between himself and them in order to make his diplomacy proposals seem like he would be dealing from some position of strength, rather than abject weakness.  Unfortunately, either the opportunity to do that didn’t arise, or wasn’t taken.

        <

        p>

        • that even if the campaign were better run, the Bush campiagn was exceedingly well-run, and may not have been beatable anyway.  Maybe it would have been close enough for the USSC to toss it to Bush by making another non-precedent precedent.

  8. I think he would have made a solid president.

    <

    p>
    And I like his current strong anti-war tone. When he is not botching a joke, he is a forceful and articulate critic of the Bush administration. I think he is bright and I do not see one Democrat in Mass I would rather hold that Senate seat.  Perhaps Barney Frank, but then the Mass House delegation takes a potentially big hit, especaially given Barney’s new found stature in the majority party.

    <

    p>
    And calling him a Bastard is a bit harsh. What did he ever fo to you, jconway? You make it sound as if Kerry came to your house and punched your grandmother in the face or something.

    <

    p>
    I figured someone had to stand up for a guy who served his country and has a distinguished record of public service in Massachusetts. I mean jeez, you don’t have to agree with me, but think of all the other crap Senators out there and imagine having them represent Mass (Brownback, Lott…).

    <

    p> 

  9. and even some numbskulls whimpering that Kennedy should step down to let the cream rise (like who? Meehan).  Not a whole lotta substance to the bitching though, other than the “I don’t like him”, “sick of ’em”  prattle.  One sage did offer “he’s for the war”!  What happened to the discourse on this page? 
    You’re pissed at Kerry because he ran a lousy campaign and lost to a wartime president by 3 points?  He didn’t handle being swift-boated as smartly as you would from the bleacher seats?  Too much equivocating about supporting the war?  Get over it.  Much happened during that campaign some of which Kerry could have controlled and should have handled much better.  I cringed when he talked about his vote for the war.  And a number of other things for that matter.  At various points, he blew major opportunities but there is little evidence that his blunders lost him the election.  Bush and Rove ran a precise, disciplined campaign and they brought out thousands more evangelicals than voted four years earlier. 
    Kerry was head and shoulders above the rest of the Democratic field in ’04 in what it takes to win – he had field, a smarter team and understood the beat of a campaign, at least in the primary. 
    If you have a problem with his Senate record let it rip.  I’m interested in hearing why he doesn’t deserve to be our senator and if not him why someone else does.  And how would that person improve our lot here in sunny MA? 
    And for you anti-Kennedy poets, talk to hand.

    • As to discourse, all the posts so far have been pretty substantive, I think — although one may disagree with the arguments. They certainly are not personal attacks on other posters, and they conform to our rules of the road.

    • if people are supposed to judge John Kerry not for his pathetic public persona, but for his senate record, then what, precisely, is his senate record?

      <

      p>
      – voting for the war (and for the $87 billion after he voted against it)
      – calling for a filibuster of Alito in an oh-so-effective manner
      – going with John McCain to Vietnam to prove conclusively that there were no more POW’s over there (I suppose he went over every corn field with a fine toothed comb)
      – something about drug-running in South America? whatever it was, it sure didn’t work.

      <

      p>
      all that, and how many years has he been in the senate?

      <

      p>
      my 2 cents, the Senate is a place for the best in the field, and John Kerry ain’t it.

  10. Pray that we don’t get fooled again.

    <

    p>
    Ohio election workers convicted of rigging ’04 presidential recount:

    <

    p>

    Prosecutors accused Maiden and Dreamer of secretly reviewing preselected ballots before a public recount on Dec. 16, 2004. They worked behind closed doors for three days to pick ballots they knew would not cause discrepancies when checked by hand, prosecutors said.

    <

    p>
    From and AP reoprt via The Boston Herald.

  11. “All of this said, I will most likely vote for Senator Kerry in the next election. He is, to paraphrase Winston Churchill’s famous comment about democracy, the worst possible choice we have except for all of the others.”

    <

    p>
    I think my prophecy is likely to come true.

    <

    p>
    Unless there is a primary challenge (Paging Jim McGovern, John Tierney or even Tim Cahill), the names being floated as Republican possibilities are laughable at best. Scott “Mr. Gail Huff” Brown? Chris “Who?” Egan? The Return of the Muffy? Please. . .

    <

    p>
    Actually, a Kerry-Healey race would be quite funny. In terms of personality, wealth and an overblown sense of noblesse oblige, Muffy is the female version of John Kerry. Watching them side by side on a stage would be eerie.

    • On a Kerry-Healy race it’d be even funnier since their names are so similar and they look so similar. Neither Kerry would have my vote in that one.

      <

      p>
      In response to a kbusch comment that in voting for a Chafee esque Republican I would give the Senate to Mitch McConell most National Journal, Hotline, and Charlie Cook articles point to potential Dem gains in AK, AZ, CO, NH, maybe even TX and that unlike in 2006 where we had to defend a lot of close seats, in 2008 the GOP will be playing major defense and if enough Dems turnout for an exciting candidate and enough GOPers turn away from voting due to one of the three frontrunners not satisfying them or what have you, GOP stands to lose more seats and we stand to lose no seats.  And this is from non partisan sources.

      <

      p>
      And that said its unlikely a Republican would beat Kerry in Massachusetts, and its even more unlikely a moderate sensible Republican thats socially liberal and fiscally conservative would could nominated by the statewide GOP. Our choices will likely be Sen. Scott “Mr. Huff” Brown who is pro-war, anti-gay, and got his ass kicked by BMGs own Charley. Andy Card, Bush staffer so I ain’t voting for him. And our US Attorney and Norfolks DA who will run on anti-crime platforms when crime in MA isn’t that bad, they can do little as Senators to stop crime, and are both likely pro-death penalty. Only Charlie Baker, Lincoln Chafee moving to MA, or a resurrected Leveret Salanstoll will get my vote. So its unlikley I’ll push GOP in 2008 against Kerry.

      <

      p>
      That said Kerry does deserve a challenger, a Senator is supposed to actively assist his constituents and state, Kennedy is a liberal crusader, lots of great legislative accomplishments, consistent anti war stance, and lots of federal funds to Massachusetts. Kerry has had half the time Kennedy has but has likely made maybe a sixth of the achievements. No massive pieces of legislation he has signed that are effective, hell even lame old Sarbanes had the Sarbanes-Oxly Act. No pork for Massachusetts which is due more to windbags incompetence than his opposition to the bacon. And very little federal funds where we needed them. He should have been right there asking for Big Dig funding and accountability, instead windbag was silent. We need more than a windbag, we need a Senator.

      • … most National Journal, Hotline, and Charlie Cook articles point to potential Dem gains in AK, AZ, CO, NH, maybe even TX and that unlike in 2006 where we had to defend a lot of close seats, in 2008 the GOP will be playing major defense and if enough Dems turnout for an exciting candidate and enough GOPers turn away from voting due to one of the three frontrunners not satisfying them or what have you, GOP stands to lose more seats and we stand to lose no seats.  And this is from non partisan sources.

        If that happens, then Arlen Spector and Lindsey Graham might join Collins, Snowe, and Hagel and improve their behavior, too. Lieberman might even begin pretending to be a Democrat again.

        <

        p>
        Can’t have enough good behavior, I say.

  12. a snide subtext about Kerry’s decision.  I believe that most of the big media is pushing for a Hillary Clinton vs McCain race and no one  really stands a chance of more than transient support from them.  The Globe and Herald would of course prefer a Hillary – Romney race. 

    <

    p>
    Even The Washington Post’s wonky Chris Cillizza had more class than our own hometown papers

    <

    p>
    http://www.washingto…

    <

    p>
    Kerry Rules Out 2008 Run for President
    By Chris Cillizza
    washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
    Thursday, January 25, 2007; Page A04

    <

    p>
    Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts ruled out a second presidential bid yesterday, asserting that he could do more to change the course of Iraq policy in the Senate than by campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire.

    <

    p>

    • Big media is pushing for Hillary Clinton.  It’s a line I read over and over and I don’t buy it.  I see it as a phrase used by people who are for other candidates.  She’s not being pushed, it’s the opposite.  Hillary is leading in the polls but there are articles that she is unelectable.  If we see articles about Hillary it’s probably because of that very same reason … she’s leading in the polls.  If she was getting 3%, the coverage wouldn’t be there.

      • they have the motivation.  Hillary Clinton as a candidate would be a gold mine for struggling news corporations.  I don’t like it. I don’t think it is essentially evil, but it is just the way it is.  There are plenty of clues-I’ll only mention the most recent local one.  The Globe was blatant when Richardson announced for president.  The story was accompanied by a big picture of Hillary surrounded by young people and a little teeny picture not of Richardson in the lower left hand corner. 

      • I agree that the media is overfocused on Clinton vis-a-vis Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and others.  I don’t think this is an agenda as much as vanilla journalistic laziness.  For Hillary, the profiles, storylines, and even books are already written by, about, and against her.  Outlets have a working relationship with their Hillary experts, and clips of interviews and all that stuff.  They’ve already programmed their speed dials.

        <

        p>
        Whereas for the other top 3, you’d have to do journamilism (because heaven knows they didn’t much look at Edwards in 2004).  They’d have to find people who knew these guys way back when, do location shots at the mill or learn Spanish or find Africa on a map.  Worse still, to do any decent reporting on Obama or Richardson, you’d have to go to the Sudan or Kenya, and there are no nice hotels there.  So far better to get your introductory package from a manila folder then actually, you know, do journalism.

Archives