The stat I mentioned that you post shows Kerry beating Bush. My point was that even a straightforward stat like that might not mean much.
As much as I want it I don't think that Kerry would beat Bush. Despite what that stat would imply.
Anywho, I think that when the Bush campaign starts Kerry would have the least weaknesses. I think weathering Rove's campaign will be a big issue.
Anywho, it might not.
AP Exclusive: Three times, Kerry nominations and donations coincided
JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writers
Thursday, February 5, 2004
©2004 Associated Press
URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/02/05/politics0226EST0429.DTL
(02-05) 23:26 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --
At least three times in his Senate career, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry has recommended individuals for positions at federal home loan banks just before or after receiving political contributions from the nominees, records show.
In one case, Kerry wrote to the Federal Housing Finance Board to urge the reappointment of a candidate just one day before a Kerry campaign committee received $1,000 from the nominee, the records show.
"One has nothing to do with the other," said Marvin Siflinger, who contributed around the time of Kerry's Oct. 1, 1996, recommendation that he be reappointed for another term to the board.
Kerry's office, like the nominees, insists the timing of the donations and the nominations was a coincidence.
"Sen. Kerry recommends dozens of very qualified individuals each year without regard to their politics or contributions. In this case each of the individuals were highly qualified for the jobs they were appointed to and served with distinction," spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said.
"John Kerry is grateful for their support, and we should be thanking them for their service, not questioning it," she added. "The timing of the contributions was completely circumstantial."
But a longtime government watchdog says it is common for Washington appointees to donate just before or after they are nominated.
"This is just business as usual in Washington," said Larry Noble, the former chief lawyer for the Federal Election Commission who now heads the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. "Kerry is out there saying he is not being part of that game, yet he is the product of the same money system."
With Kerry more vocally portraying himself on the presidential campaign trail as an opponent of special interest money in Washington, scrutiny of his dealings with donors and special interests has increased among his rivals and the news media.
Noble said while Kerry long has advocated campaign finance reform, he also has benefited from the big money system he now distances himself from on the campaign trail. "It's like a game where you say the people who support me just want good government, but the people who support my opponent are special interests," he said.
When he first ran for the Senate, Kerry promised voters he would carefully choose nominees on merit.
"I will act as a persistent watchdog over presidential appointments to ensure that only people of integrity, ability and commitment hold positions of power in our national government," Kerry wrote in a June 1984 fund-raising appeal.
All three of the people Kerry recommended got the positions they sought on various boards of Federal Home Loan Banks in Boston and New York that provide money for home mortgages.
Kerry's recommendations went to the five-member Federal Housing Finance Board, the regulatory body that votes on the final selections. Recommendations come from members of Congress, the White House and trade associations.
Siflinger, who was a state housing finance official when Kerry was Massachusetts lieutenant governor, was first appointed to the bank board in Boston during President George H.W. Bush's presidency and in 1996 sought Kerry's help to get reappointed.
"You normally seek the support of prominent people who are respected. Certainly in this instance I sought the support of Senator Kerry and I sought support of other members of the congressional delegation," Siflinger said in an interview Thursday.
Siflinger made his first donation to Kerry's Senate campaign committee in 1995 more than a year before his reappointment, according to Federal Election Commission records. His most recent donation to Kerry was several weeks ago, Siflinger said.
Investment banker Derek Bryson Park says it's "pure happenstance" that he made a pair of $1,000 donations to Kerry a month before the senator's Dec. 29, 1998, letter recommending Park for a position at the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York.
"I got assistance from both ... Democrats and Republicans" in attaining the bank board post, Park said.
The only political donations Park made to federal candidates around the period of his appointment were to Kerry, according to FEC records.
"I've been fortunate to be invited to Senator Kerry's home and we've had a number of meals together and get-togethers," said Park, who got to know Kerry through a longtime supporter of the senator.
Former congressional staffer Patrick Dober said that "there's absolutely no relationship" between his $408 donation nearly three months after Kerry's Oct. 9, 1998, recommendation to the federal bank board. Kerry's letter praised Dober for having "worked closely with my office" on "the banking crisis in the early 1990s."
At the time, Dober worked for Boston Capital, a real estate financing and investment firm co-founded by Kerry supporter Jack Manning. Manning, who has donated more than $800,000 to the Democratic causes over the past 14 years, gave $65,000 in 2001 and 2002 to a tax-exempt political group Kerry set up.
Dober says he thinks his $408 for tickets to a Kerry fund-raiser is the only contribution he's ever made to Kerry.
"There was a fund-raiser for Kerry and they had James Taylor and Robin Williams playing," Dober recalled. "My wife and I said this looks like fun. The tickets were a hundred bucks and a $2 service charge, so my wife and I went with another couple and I wrote the check."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press writer Pete Yost contributed to this report.
©2004 Associated Press
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real .."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
Quote:One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
[..]
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real .."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
Bush had better have some rabbits in the hat -- his rating has slumped below 50%.
DAILY EXPRESS
Workable
by Jonathan Cohn
Only at TNR Online | Post date 02.09.04
Warren, Michigan
John Kerry's campaign swing through Michigan on Friday showcases the support of almost every big-name Democrat in the state, from Governor Jennifer Granholm to Congressman John Dingell. But at a late morning rally in Warren, the person who makes me most optimistic about Kerry's political potential is a guy in the audience wearing a black biker t-shirt.
His name is Chuck Kulikowski, and his shirt bears the emblem of American Bikers Aiming Toward Education, a group that crusades against helmet laws and other "motorcycle-unfriendly" legislation. (Motto: "Let Those Who Ride Decide.") Yet while Kerry is a well-known Harley Davidson enthusiast, Kulikowski says it wasn't the senator's interest in motorcycles that drew him to the Friday event. Instead, he says, it was Kerry's desire to drive President Bush from the White House--a desire Kulikowski shares fervently. "He's too rich, too arrogant, and he thinks he's running the world," Kulikowski says of the president. "He does what he wants, and doesn't care what other people think."
You expect to hear those sorts of things at a Democratic campaign rally, but not from a guy like Kulikowski and certainly not in a place like Warren, smack in the middle of Macomb County. A northern suburb of Detroit, Macomb is legendary for its large population of "Reagan Democrats"--white working-class voters who abandoned the Democratic Party in the 1980s because it had veered too far to the left. And Kulikowski is an almost perfect Reagan Democrat specimen: Having voted for Reagan during the 1980s, he tends to agree with Republicans on hot-button issues like abortion and gun control. But even after I point out all the issues on which he seems to disagree with Kerry, Kulikowski says he likes what he sees. "What good is a gun if you don't have a job?" says Kulikowski, a 57-year-old unemployed toolmaker. "You can't buy the bullets."
It's no great secret that white working-class voters in heavily industrialized states like Michigan, Ohio, and Missouri could propel a Democrat to the White House in 2004--just as they did in 1992, when Bill Clinton won back Reagan Democrats with a campaign based around the catchphrase, "It's the Economy, Stupid." The problem for Democrats is that Kerry, whose 35-point victory in the Michigan caucuses makes his nomination appear ever closer to inevitable, seems so conspicuously ill-suited for the task. Unlike Clinton, who regularly broke with his party's leadership over issues like affirmative action and welfare, Kerry has an impeccably liberal voting record, one that Republicans are already starting to mock. And unlike his current chief rival, John Edwards, Kerry has about as much rapport with the average American as fellow Yalie William F. Buckley.
Kerry's delivery during this quick romp through Michigan doesn't exactly dispel these notions. When Kerry runs through his stump speech, he comes off just like he does on television, prone to bland Senate-speak (he promises firefighters "action and resources") and mangled one-liners ("If you're a real American," he says, "it's not only not 'Mission Accomplished.' It's 'Mission Abandoned.'"). Kerry talks a lot about his war record--a fact nearly everybody I meet cites with approval. But Friday's visit also includes appearances by a special "mystery guest": former rival Richard Gephardt, whose years of devotion to the labor movement has earned him real affection among Michigan union members. Gephardt is here to endorse Kerry, but his mere presence on the stump--and comparatively natural rapport with union voters--serves primarily to magnify the distance between Kerry and working class Democrats. By the time Kerry finishes his speech with his signature line, "Bring It On," it sounds no more authentic than when Al Gore trotted out his stilted "people versus the powerful" construction in 2000.
Then again, working-class authenticity doesn't seem to matter to the Macomb voters I meet. They are so annoyed at President Bush--for his failure to save their manufacturing jobs and preoccupation with foreign affairs--that they'll embrace even a mechanical New England liberal like Kerry. "I like anybody but George Bush," says Jeff Terry, 33, who works at the nearby Ford axle plant and describes himself as an independent. Just as I did with Kulikowski, I start running through the standard lines of attack against Kerry--he voted against the federal defense of marriage act, against the partial-birth abortion ban, for NAFTA, and so on. Terry shrugs. "Me, personally, I'm more concerned with my job. And I hope that people don't get sidetracked with the other issues." But what about the war with Iraq, supposedly President Bush's trump card with blue-collar voters? "I wouldn't want to give up on the troops," Terry says, "but to think that we were led there under such false pretenses...."
Sandy Levin, the Democratic congressman who represents Warren, says that's pretty much what he hears when he meets with constituents: "The older ones are worried about Medicare, the younger ones are worried about jobs." And to prove his point, he suggests I drive down Van Dyke Avenue (Warren's main commercial thoroughfare) and start putting the same questions to random Macomb voters. Sure enough, at Vern Haney's family restaurant, Christian Hurley tells me that business is down 12 percent since 2001. He voted for Bush in 2000, but will probably vote Democratic this time around because he believes the president is "focused too much on foreign policy and not enough on domestic policy."
Down the street, at the smoke-filled bar of the Seven Star Bowling Alley, Harold Braun, a 56-year-old unemployed dye-setter lets loose a volley of Bush hatred intense enough to make Howard Dean flinch. "If we don't get Bush out of there, we're not going to have a country left." Braun knows only a little about Kerry, but likes his Vietnam record. And while he doesn't have terribly high expectations about any of the candidates--"Everybody makes promises they don't follow"--he knows what he's doing come November: "My shop is gone, most of my friends are out of work. I'll vote for any Democrat before Bush."
Kerry's last stop of the day is in Flint--the city whose unhappy economic fate Michael Moore documented in Roger and Me--and it brings more of the same: another relatively wooden speech, another set of interviews with voters who say they'd vote for Kerry over Bush in a nanosecond. After a while, I start asking the voters why they don't prefer Edwards, whose feel for average Americans seems much more genuine, or Dean, who was serving up virulent Bush hatred long before Kerry discovered it. The answer: They like those candidates, too. But neither Edwards nor Dean is the front-runner now. Kerry is. And at this point, they'll make do with any Democrat just to get on with the business of ousting Bush. "I'm all for the other guys, but we need to pull together to beat Bush," says Les Zane, a retired truck driver. "Dean got it started, now Kerry is keeping it going. It worked out great." Particularly if you're John Kerry.
THE KIND OF PERSON I AM: From ace Kerry reporter David Halbfinger's piece in Saturday's New York Times:
In the morning, [John Kerry] stood at Second Ebenezer Baptist Church in Detroit with more than 50 black clergymen behind him. There, before giving a standard stump speech, Mr. Kerry apologized for missing an N.A.A.C.P. candidates' forum on Thursday night that only the Rev. Al Sharpton attended. Mr. Kerry said he had to campaign instead in Maine, which holds its caucuses on Sunday, "to pay them the same kind of respect I pay you by being here today."
"I just want to tell you head-on, because that's the kind of president you deserve, and that's the kind of person I am," Mr. Kerry said.
In fact, Mr. Kerry had left Maine in early afternoon and spent the evening raising money in New York.
The Wisconsin Debate
Kerry waffles, Edwards wallops, Dean wanes.
By William Saletan
Posted Monday, Feb. 16, 2004, at 12:00 AM PT
Ten thoughts on Sunday night's Democratic presidential debate in Milwaukee:
1. Kerry waffle watch. John Kerry lost his lead in 2003 because he couldn't give straight answers to simple questions. Then the guy with the straight answers, Howard Dean, started giving answers so brutally straight (your taxes will go up, sit down and let me finish) that people decided a bit more diplomacy was in order. But Kerry has to watch his bad habits in this area. He never walks into a sentence without leaving himself a way out. His evasiveness smells fishy.
First, panelist Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel asked Kerry whether he would change his votes on NAFTA and other trade agreements in light of the jobs lost since then. Kerry gave a lawyerly answer blaming President Bush for failing to enforce "side agreements" that supposedly would have protected the jobs. Then he changed the subject to job creation and ended up talking, incredibly, about stem cell research. When Kerry finally came up for air, Gilbert asked, "But no regrets about those votes?" Kerry dodged again: "I regret the way that they haven't been enforced, sure."
The pattern went on. Panelist Lester Holt asked Kerry to explain why he had voted for—but then criticized--the Patriot Act and the No Child Left Behind law. Kerry gave another lawyerly answer, blaming Bush for implementing both laws improperly. Gilbert asked Kerry, "Would you see yourself as a war president?" Kerry replied with a ridiculous litany: "I'd see myself first of all as a jobs president, as a health care president, as an education president, and also an environmental president." Later, Holt asked, "If it were to come before you today for a vote--the issue of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as that between a man and a woman-- would you vote yes or would you vote no?" Kerry replied, "Well, it depends on the terminology …"
In case you've forgotten why so many people soured on Kerry in 2003: This is why.
Let me turn to you, Senator Kerry, because you said your vote wasn't a vote for what the president ultimately did. But you did vote to give him the authority, so do you feel any degree, any degree of responsibility for the war and its costs and casualties?
This is one of the reasons why I am so intent on beating George Bush and why I believe I will beat George Bush, because one of the lessons that I learned -- when I was an instrument of American foreign policy, I was that cutting-edge instrument. I carried that M- 16.
I know what it's like to try to choose between friend and foe in a foreign country when you're carrying out the policy of your nation.
And I know what it's like when you lose the consent and the legitimacy of that war. And that is why I said specifically on the floor of the Senate that what I was voting for was the process the president promised.
There was a right way to do this and there was a wrong way to do it. And the president chose the wrong way because he turned his back on his own pledge to build a legitimate international coalition, to exhaust the remedies of the United Nations in the inspections and to go to war as a matter of last resort.
Last resort means something to me. Obviously, it doesn't mean something to this president. I think it means something to the American people.
And the great burden of the commander in chief is to be able to look into the eyes of any parent or loved one and say to them, "I did everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter, but we had to do what we had to do because of the imminency of the threat and the nature of our security. "
I don't think the president passes that test.
But what about you? I mean, let me repeat the question. Do you have any degree of responsibility having voted to give him the authority to go to war?
The president had the authority to do what he was going to do without the vote of the United States Congress. President Clinton went to Kosovo without the Congress. President Clinton went to Haiti without the Congress.
That's why we have a War Powers Act. What we did was vote with one voice of the United States Congress for a process.
And remember, until the Congress asserted itself, this president wasn't intending to go to the United Nations. In fact, it was Jim Baker and Brent Scowcroft and others and the Congress who got him to agree to a specific process. The process was to build a legitimate international coalition, go through the inspections process and go to war as a last resort.
He didn't do it. My regret is not the vote. It was appropriate to stand up to Saddam Hussein. There was a right way to do it, a wrong way to do it.
My regret is this president chose the wrong way, rushed to war, is now spending billions of American taxpayers' dollars that we didn't need to spend this way had he built a legitimate coalition, and has put our troops at greater risk.
Senator Kerry, President Bush a week ago on "Meet the Press " described himself as a war president. He said he's got war on his mind as he considers these policies and decisions he has to make. If you were elected, would you see yourself as a war president?
I'd see myself first of all as a jobs president, as a health care president, as an education president and also an environmental president. And add them all together, you can't be safe at home today unless you are also safe abroad.
So I would see myself as a very different kind of global leader than George Bush.
Let me be precise.
He has ignored North Korea for almost two years. I would never have cut off the negotiations of bilateral discussion with North Korea. I think he's made the world less safe because of it.
He has ignored AIDS on a global basis until finally, this year, for political reasons, they're starting to move. They still haven't adopted the bill that we wrote three years which could've done something.
He's ignored the cooperative threat reduction that Howard just referred to. We didn't buy up the nuclear material we could have to make the world safer.
He walked away from the global warming treaty. He abandoned the work of 160 nations that worked for 10 years to try to make the world safer.
He didn't continue the efforts in the Middle East with an envoy who stayed there and helped to push that process forward.
I think there is an enormous agenda for us in fighting an effective war on terror. And part of it is by building a stronger intelligence organization, law enforcement, but most importantly, the war on terror is not going to be completely won until we have the greatest level of cooperation we've ever had globally.
The worst thing this president does is his lack of cooperation with other countries.
So I will lead in a different way, and I will not just sit there and talk about the war. I'll talk about all of the issues and provide solutions for America.
You say you oppose gay marriage. As you know, the highest court in the state of Massachusetts has ruled against civil unions, which you support. If it were to come before you today for a vote, the issue of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as that between a man and a woman, would you vote yes or would you vote no?
Well, it depends on the terminology, because it depends on what it does with respect to civil unions and partnership rights.
About the rights, I believe that it is important in America not to discriminate with respect to rights. I, personally, believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But I also believe that we ought to be able to not let marriage and the concept get in the way of respecting the rights of people to be able to visit a partner in a hospital, to be able to pass on property, to be able to live under the equal protection clause of the United States.
And the question is whether or not that can be put in the Constitution. We will see what will happen. But my personal opinion has been -- is today that marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm for civil union. I'm for partnership rights and the full measure of nondiscrimination within those rights.
So on a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman, your vote would be?
Well, it depends. Not a federal one. You're talking about federal or state? I mean, there's a difference between the two.
I believe the states have a right to make up their own mind, and it ought to be left up to each state individually, period.
