October 11, 2005
The $17 Million Solution
Speaking of Kerry ’08, here’s one bitter thought …
The mad professors over at Daily Kos are right that the Democrats need to target a large number of congressional seats in 2006. The premise is that giving 100 candidates $250,000 would yield more seats than the current shortsighted DCCC strategy of giving 25 candidates $1 million. The math and common sense say yes to spreading the wealth; that's because you never know where a surprisingly competitive seat is going to crop up. For a more sophisticated treatment, see here.
The question is, where do we get the money?
The answer to me is crystal clear, and should occur to any of us who tapped home equity lines of credit to get rid of the Weakener-in-Chief (a/k/a, “W”) in 2004 – and then woke up the week after the election to find out that John Kerry had betrayed us by hoarding $17 million of our dollars. (To me, this $17 million came to Kerry with serious moral strings attached; this was not fat-cat money given by lobbyists and business interests who wanted entrée; this was money from people scraping by who made room in their monthly budgets to save the country they loved; some of us literally paid on a monthly installment plan.)
John Kerry should kick all of this money — money essentially stolen from you and me; we didn’t scrape the bottom of our poor barrels to build him a kitty for 2008 — into retaking the House in 2006. That’s a healthy quarter-million for 68 House candidates.
If, and only if, John Kerry does this, I’ll consider supporting him again in 2008. It’s a perfect solution: it gets us the House in ’06, and is the only way Kerry gets even a remote shot (stress on “remote”) of becoming credible for ’08.
Posted by Wayne Uff at October 11, 2005 07:06 AM
If Kerry has an viability as a candidate in 2008, let him run on his own merits, not on the money we gave him in a good faith effort to get him into the White House we made in 2004.
He blew it! That 17 million could have been spent in Ohio.
Let it be spent on a good faith effort to prepare for 2008.
That's faithfulness, there. I hope the party appreciates it.
Personally, I can't imagine anything Kerry could do to be credible. I can imagine a credible Gore candidacy, or Edwards. I can even imagine voting for such. But I wouldn't vote for anyone who voted for the Iraq war unless they said explicitly that they regretted that vote, that the vote was wrong morally and politically, that it was stupid. Kerry's never gonna do that. He's pro-war.
But that's just me ;-).
One of Kerry's problems is that he is perceived as an arrogant, elitist snob. Unfortunately, he did very little in the last campaign to dispel that notion. You won't see him on the front lines building homes for habitat for humanity. She will see him sipping champagne at one of his many mansions and preaching about global warming while he drives his wife's Suburban around. He was supported for one reason and one reason only, because the thought of 4 more years with Bush was so abhorrent.
And where the hell has he been since the election?
It's gonna be difficult to get it up for the likes of Hillary. Edwards, for that matter, has many good qualities, but his position on the war is not one of them.
Who will be more disaffected during the next election, the Democrats or the Republicans? Perhaps the degree of disaffection, not the enthusiasm, will swing the election.
Hey, guys, SHHH! I'm trying to get him to take the bait here, don't mess it up. Ix-nay on the on't-way upport-say in 8-OHay.