Bob Kerrey will not run to replace Hagel in the Senate

[cali]

http://www.action3news.com/Global/story.asp?S=7257953&nav=menu550_2

[TwilightZone]

1. Damn. That's disappointing.

That had the makings of one hell of a race.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Goddamnit. Shit. There goes that. Chuck, would you PLEASE change your mind?

I don't want Johanns or Bruning!

[Taverner]

3. The Democrats do not want to win

It would upset their Republican Overlords

[WI_DEM]

4. oh yeah, right that is why we are doing so much better overall in candidate recruitment

Bob Kerrey served as Governor and in the Senate, maybe he just doesn't want to run. Sometimes people get tired of elective office and have other things they want to concentrate on.

[SteppingRazor]

6. I gotta agree. Dude's got a sweet gig right now.

I don't know that, after having served in the Senate and as a governor already, I'd give up president of a university to do it again.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Thank God! Regardless of "the D" after his name ole' Bob Kerrey is a world class war-monger.

<sigh of relief> Yes, IMO, that is a true blessing for the good people of Nebraska as well as for our nation. :patriot:

[SteppingRazor]

7. Handing the state to the GOP is a blessing? n/t

[ShortnFiery]

10. No, you are inappropriately extrapolating. Anyone who listened to Kerrey's warmongering

rhetoric during the debates at "The New School" can appreciate, how DANGEROUSLY Neo-Liberal his perspective is ... that has NOTHING to do with his party standing which, IMO, he wears like a shield. The man promotes endless war in the Middle East. Nebraska farm kids (I used to be one) also bleed and die when they are sent to wars fought for the ruling elite.

Again, one has to look deeper, and seriously consider what's truly important. IMO, ending these war for empire is ALL IMPORTANT. :shrug:

[SteppingRazor]

15. Even assuming Kerrey has the same view as the GOP in regards to the war...

that just makes that one issue (while, admittedly, an incredibly important one) a wash. You can either have Johanns in there, who's wrong on everything, or you can have Kerrey, who may be wrong on the war, but in his former Senate career, was one of the strongest opponents of the Defense of Marriage Act, the flag-burning amendment, and a whole host of other issues. There's just no comparison.

[ShortnFiery]

17. That ONE issue is a "deal breaker." There's no half stepping on WAR debate. n/t

[TwilightZone]

19. But, but, but...they're exactly the same!

I am simply amazed that people still insist that there's no difference between putting a Democrat in a Senate seat vs. a Republican, especially when the differences, as you noted, are quite clear.

[ShortnFiery]

22. I'm sorry, WAR is The One Issue where I put my values in front of party loyalties.

:shrug:

[TwilightZone]

45. That makes zero sense.

The choice in NE is a moderate Democrat or a conservative Republican.

Even assuming that their positions on "war" are identical (which they aren't), with Johanns, you'll get a full 100% support of the Republican agenda.

Kerrey, however, is pretty liberal on a lot of issues.

Pick one.

[TwilightZone]

8. You'd prefer a Republican?

Curious.

That is, after all, the most likely alternative. Kerrey was one of the few Democrats in NE who could legitimately give Johanns a challenge.

[TwilightGardener]

11. NOT a blessing! I wasn't crazy about Kerrey's war position, but

the war's gonna end--and we would have gotten his Dem votes on everything else. Now we get either a guy who mindlessly licked Chimpy's ass as a cabinet member, or a guy who is to the RIGHT of both Chimpy AND Hagel (Bruning). Not a blessing at all.

[ShortnFiery]

13. So, a person who promotes "endless war" has a positive side JUST because he chooses

to label himself "a democrat?" Now, IMO, that's way "too trusting" for any Party loyalist to even consider asking other party members to believe. :(

[TwilightGardener]

16. He stuck up for the war, it's true, but not to the extent of Lieberman--

he was NOT that nuts about it. Why in God's earth would you seek party purity in NEBRASKA? Jesus, I have to put up with Ben Nelson to get a little Dem representation here. Except on the war, Kerrey is to the LEFT of Nelson. I like HAGEL more than Nelson, truth be told. But Nelson's a necessary evil. I'm not seeking to oust him for a more "pure" version of a Dem, because we'll end losing that seat.

[ShortnFiery]

20. With respect, it's like being "a little bit pregnant" - either you believe ...

or don't believe in "war for empire." If you're a believer, you're dangerous. I'm not disrespecting Democrats but this man is dangerous for not only the party but also the nation. He's every bit a koolaid drinking as Joe Lieberman. During the run up to the invasion there were several meetings and dust up with "his students" at The New School. The man is a neo-liberal and that is a "deal breaker" and one dangerous man who will always default to vote for more war. :(

[TwilightGardener]

25. You're overestimating how much damage he would've been able

to do--one additional vote (assuming that he would even vote that way) for war is NOT going to make or break our foreign policy. The situation might look quite different by next year, and even if he's a cheerleader, if we have a Dem President, it won't fucking matter. And if we have a Repub President, it won't fucking matter either--because we'll be sliding into hell.

[cali]

32. don't bother

some posters simply make shit up without blinking an eye.

[ShortnFiery]

39. Here ya go!

The Left's Iraq Muddle
Wall Street Journal
Yes, it is central to the fight against Islamic radicalism.

BY BOB KERREY
Tuesday, May 22, 2007

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010107

"Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores." :puke: :scared: :nuke:

[cali]

47. I strongly disagree with his pov on Iraq and terrorism in general

but it's surely better and more nuanced than either of the wingnuts running for the puke nomination.

From the same article:

This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.


Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq. If our purpose had been to substitute a dictator who was more cooperative and supportive of the West, these groups wouldn't have lasted a week.
Finally, Jim Webb said something during his campaign for the Senate that should be emblazoned on the desks of all 535 members of Congress: You do not have to occupy a country in order to fight the terrorists who are inside it. Upon that truth I believe it is possible to build what doesn't exist today in Washington: a bipartisan strategy to deal with the long-term threat of terrorism.

As I said, I think he's dead wrong on this, but he's better than the alternative. And he's a liberal on issues outside of this.

And how about what Webb said?

[SteppingRazor]

21. As I mentioned on a post above, on many issues, Kerrey's more liberal than most of the Senate.

Pity that's not good enough.

[ShortnFiery]

23. Yeah, too bad those "vast majority" of issues don't include *catalyzing* the onset of Armageddon?

:shrug:

[SteppingRazor]

24. Too bad rational debate's gone out the window.

I mean, "Armageddon?" Seriously?

[ShortnFiery]

28. Yes, the M$M doesn't allow us to see, but the rest of the world ain't afraid of Iran.

They're afraid of the Imperial Designs of the USA. :shrug:

No, we must make every effort to stop the killing and maiming of innocents through our continued invasions and occupations of SOVEREIGN countries.

Believe it or not, John le Carré, Gore Vidal et. al., and I :blush: concur that "America Has Gone Mad." :scared:

On edit: Here's an excellent reference: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0115-01.htm

[SteppingRazor]

46. Please believe that I'm just as well-read as you are, and I page through Common Dreams regularly.

There's not a lot you can post that I haven't already seen, and I'm sure as shit not just another sheep who gets his news strictly from cable.

Now, please forgive my somewhat snarky previous post. It was uncalled for, and I'm sorry. But lemme put this another way. We must have a debate about Iraq, and about the war on terror in general. It's not enough to simply yell "warmonger." Our side has to win on the ability of our ideas to stand up to scrutiny. One place that debate will happen is in Congress.

So, we know that there has to be a give and take between people who want a more-peaceful, better world, and those who are so terrified of people with brown skin that they're willing to forgo peace. I, personally, would rather that the debate take place within our own party, which is completely in control of Congress. I would much rather that the people with the right ideas approach their colleagues who are misguided but rational and convince them of the righteousness of their vision for a better world. That is a debate in which we have a chance to succeed. The alternative is to try to reach compromise with a group of greedhead gangsters who have no concern with peace if it doesn't positively affect profitability (read: the GOP). That's a fool's errand.

I noticed you used "neo-liberal" to describe Kerrey, and the dude's views on free trade are certainly pretty distressing, much like his views on the war. But unlike GOP politicians, Kerrey is a rational, thoughtful human being. He can be reached out to. I would rather have a man like that as the senator from Nebraska than a guy like Mike Johanns, who dropped out of the Bush cabinet to run for this seat. I mean, that pretty much says all you need to know about Johanns, no?

[ShortnFiery]

48. You state his views on war and free trade are "distressing" but Kerrey's still *RATIONAL*

War is terrorism. He's pro-Empire. No, there's nothing rational in considering Kerrey "liberal" for Nebraska. I lived in Nebraska - Kerrey ain't liberal. Also, IMO there's ZERO rationality in claiming Kerrey's liberal EXCEPT for his views on war and free trade. Talk about nonsensical! :crazy:

[SteppingRazor]

49. Mmkay, I'm done.

Can't say I didn't try.

[ShortnFiery]

50. I want to vote for democrats, if Kerrey was just pro free trade, yes, I'd suck it up.

and vote for him. But again, he's also pro-empire (see article cited above) and that goes against everything I believe in ... it goes against everything my father served in combat during WWII to defend.

Thank you for parting with me on a polite basis.

Again, I want to support Democrats, but endless warmongering is a deal breaker for me. :shrug:

[TwilightGardener]

29. OK, head to head matchup, to test your theory:

Anti-war Hagel, or Pro-war Kerrey: whom would you vote for? Honest answer. And saying "I would stay home" is a forbidden copout.

[TwilightGardener]

38. Hellooo... ShortnFiery.... hellooo... (crickets)

[ShortnFiery]

43. Sorry, this is my last response to you and I just choose not to respond to cali.

Why should I when all thoughtful discussion is out the window when you and I seemingly get "on a tear" after an impasse? Thoughtful discussion is over. :shrug:

[TwilightGardener]

44. I'm not "in a tear", I just want to know who you'd vote for: Hagel or Kerrey? Simple question.

[cali]

27. Evidence please

that Kerrey "promotes endless war". I've got at least one piece of evidence against it, and I'd be happy to show you more. He voted against the Gulf war. Just how does that fit in with your depiction of him as a neo-liberal proponent of endless war?

[mmonk]

9. Good.

[cali]

12. Is that because you prefer to see a Senate seat

stay in repuke hands rather than have NE elect a moderate dem?

[mmonk]

14. No.

It's because he's wrapped up with the same ideology as the neoconservative movement is. He would be a no gain to truth, the constitution, or peace.

[cali]

18. Actually, he has some very liberal positions

and his record bears that out. He is not ideologically akin to the neocons, despite his sometimes odd statements on Iraq. Did you know he voted against the Gulf War?

He'd be magnitudes better than either of the two pukes who are running for the nomination, one of whom will be the next Senator.

[mmonk]

26. I prefer another dem run for it

and not someone connected to the boards of the military industrial complex or has ties to the 9/11 whitewash committee.

[cali]

30. It's not gonna happen

have fun with that fantasy.

[mmonk]

31. Don't know exactly what you mean by your comment.

No other dems in the state capable of running?

[TwilightGardener]

33. Maybe Mike Fahey, but he would be a long-shot compared to Johanns.

He's not a spring chicken either--mid-60's I think.

[mmonk]

34. Maybe the party needs to look around.

[cali]

36. It's not aout candidates. It's about the

electorate.

[cali]

35. I mean a liberal dem will not win or even come close

to winning a senate seat in NE, and Kerrey who is liberal in most areas is the exception. It's just like in VT. No conservative is going to elected to the Senate or House.

[mmonk]

37. Why not a moderate

who isn't tied up with MIC boards?

[cali]

41. Because to beat someone like

Johanes you need a candidate with as high a profile and approval rating, and in order to get a candidate of either party elected, you need to grow a farm team within the state.

[TwilightGardener]

42. There's simply no one else of Kerrey's stature out here--that's just a fact.

Other (bigger, bluer) states are Democratic "farms", with lots of potential candidates and a strong county/state party organization. Chuck Schumer had to go to NYC to try to drag Kerrey back to Nebraska--that tells you about the state of the Nebraska Democratic Party.

[TwilightZone]

40. You're right - he was pretty liberal by NE standards.

Somehow, he still managed to do well there. He's an excellent speaker, for one, and I think that his military background certainly didn't hurt him with the conservatives.

Elsewhere, I joked that he won because he was dating Debra Winger during one of his campaigns.

[paulk]

51. I spent some time living in NE

and I knew more than one Republican who had voted for Kerrey strictly because of his military bkgrnd.

We could have picked up that seat with him, now it doesn't look so good.

[TwilightZone]

52. I think that the NE Democratic Party was probably counting on Kerrey to run.

So, it'll be interesting to see what they do now.

[mmonk]

55. I am sure he would pick up republican votes.

No reason for him to be in the senate though.

[cali]

56. I hate to break something this basic to you

but dems can't win in Nebraska without republican votes. Period. That means no dem can do it.

[mmonk]

57. I hate to break something to you but I don't like him.

[cali]

58. I don't care.

I just don't like arguments that stray so far from the facts.

[mmonk]

59. I haven't strayed away from facts. I'm being up front and honest

with you. That's why I wish they could come up with someone viable. I'm sorry they haven't. If Kerrey made it into the senate now, they might put him in some position affecting foreign policy. With his past positions and behavior, I wouldn't want that.

[paulk]

61. compared to who?

the Republican who is most likely to be elected instead?

Have you ever been to Nebraska? There was a time when only 3 states had Bush with a positive rating... NE was one of them.

Kerrey would have been an improvement over any (R) that state would elect.

[mmonk]

62. There is nothing wrong with saying he would, is there?

I don't like Kerrey. I regret that fact may bother you. I wish a democrat could win there and give dems there something to cheer about and still hold hope one will somehow. But this pre-emptive war doctrine and this unnecessary bloodshed in Iraq that Kerrey worked for is something I have no more stomach for.

[DrunkenMaster]

53. so sad!

He's an admitted mass torturer & killer under the Operation Pheonix in Vietnam -- he would fit right in! Please reconsider Bob, we need more sociopathic leaders!

[mmonk]

54. Committee for the Liberation of Iraq

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Committee_for_the_Liberation_of_Iraq

The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) bills itself as a nongovernmental organization comprised of a "distinguished group of Americans" who want to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein. In a news release announcing its formation, the groups said it wants to "promote regional peace, political freedom and international security through replacement of the Saddam Hussein regime with a democratic government that respects the rights of the Iraqi people and ceases to threaten the community of nations." It has close links to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), important shapers of the Bush administration's foreign policy.

Many CLI, PNAC and AEI members were previously involved with the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG), a hard-right group created in 1990 prior to Operation Desert Storm.

The Washington Post reported in November 2002 that "the organization is modeled on a successful lobbying campaign to expand the NATO alliance. Members include former secretary of state George P. Shultz, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former senator Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.). ... While the Iraq committee is an independent entity, committee officers said they expect to work closely with the administration. They already have met with Hadley and Bush political adviser Karl Rove. Committee officers and a White House spokesman said Rice, Hadley and Cheney will soon meet with the group." <1>

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. Good news for a change.

We need more war supporters in the senate like we need a dose of clap.