Kerry For Minority Leader

I’m not shedding any tears for the loss of wimpy Tom Daschle. Now that the Dems are gonna start looking for a new senate minority leader, lemme fully endorse this idea :

However, let me second Mary’s suggestion that the best choice for minority leader is John Kerry. Complain as we will about the media, our problem the last time around is that we had no voice during the first half of the Bush Administration, meaning that the Republicans had complete control of the political and media agenda. If Kerry is made majority leader, we would have a European style opposition leader who the media would look to for the senate perspective on Bush’s policies. Unlike Reid and Daschle, Kerry has a safe seat that would allow him to take the positions he needs to take to be minority leader. Kerry has the stature to command more attention in that role than anyone, even Durbin. And he would be there constantly to remind people how much better he would be doing things.

It’s customary for people who lose elections to quietly fade into the background, but I can think of nothing better than for America to be regularly reminded of the choice they made yesterday. I want this election to be thrown in the faces of everyone who cared more about stopping gay marriage than catching bin Laden. When all the scandals start bubbling over, I want one of the most prominent voices of the opposition party to be from the guy who would be doing things better.


posted by greg on November 3, 2004 @ 3:52 pm

16 comments

  1. Holy Crap that’s a great idea!

    I like it.

    Comment by Gryn — November 3, 2004 @ 4:03 pm

  2. Kerry For Minority Leader

    This is a great idea….

    Trackback by Past Peak — November 3, 2004 @ 4:05 pm

  3. So your guy sucks so much that he can’t win against one of the worst presidents in memory, and you want to reward him? Don’t you think you ought to pick someone a little more politically viable to lead the party in the senate?

    Comment by Charlie — November 3, 2004 @ 4:07 pm

  4. Let’s do that then shift it to Obama at the midterm to get him ready for 08′ (He ‘d be better in ’12 but I’m not sure we can afford to wait that long, plus if he stays in the Snate he’ll get a record whihc can be manipulated)

    Comment by Socraticsilence — November 3, 2004 @ 4:20 pm

  5. Greg said: “It’s customary for people who lose elections to quietly fade into the background, but I can think of nothing better than for America to be regularly reminded of the choice they made yesterday.”

    I like it, too, for the same reason…but with different motives. I believe that the spotlight will be on Kerry, and that he will come down on the “wrong side” of most issues (at least in the view of most Americans). It will throw the Democrats into a very obstructionist light.

    Plus, he’s fun to kick around. ;-)
    -troll

    Comment by Keith "The Troll" — November 3, 2004 @ 4:28 pm

  6. Kerry: Minority leader?

    The body of John Kerry the presidential candidate isn’t even cold yet, but no matter. There are issues that won’t wait, and one of them is the naming of a new minority leader now that Tom Daschle has been shown…

    Trackback by Waveflux — November 3, 2004 @ 5:18 pm

  7. Why Obama in ’08? Why not Edwards/Clinton (or Clinton/Edwards)?

    Comment by E-Rock — November 3, 2004 @ 7:20 pm

  8. Kerry would be very good, as his senate record shows that he has conducted lots of investigations such as the BCCI one and he knows how to muckrake. Not because he just ran for president, but just because his record shows that he is not afraid of digging into unpleasant stuff for the truth. I think your idea’s a good one. Certainly I think he’d do a better job than Daschle — but then again so would my pet cat.

    Comment by Anna in Cairo — November 4, 2004 @ 12:53 am

  9. John Kerry for Senate Minority Leader, Part II

    [T]the best choice for minority leader is John Kerry…. UP

    Trackback by Stone Court — November 4, 2004 @ 4:21 am

  10. Why not Clinton/Edwards or the reverse? Perhaps because Hillary Clinton is such a polarizing figure she’ll bring out the wingnuts in droves, and Edwards, as bright and attractive as he is, brought NOTHING to the Kerry/Edwards ticket. What makes you think it’ll be different next time?

    From what I’m hearing, Rove’s first brilliant strategy was to fake out the Dem leadership by saying he hoped that Dean would be the nominee. What I’m hearing now is that Republicans were SCARED TO DEATH of running against Howard Dean. When Kerry became the nominee, they were relieved.

    I think making Kerry Senate minority leader is a really bad idea. Many of us feel that Kerry sold us out by letting losers like Bob Shrum run his campaign, refusing to fight back, refusing to go negative when the reality is that negativity works. Many others, and I’m NOT among them, feel betrayed because Kerry capitulated on Ohio too soon. People quit their jobs and left school to work for this guy, and they feel he caved too soon.

    Comment by Jill — November 4, 2004 @ 7:15 am

  11. I love the idea of having a constant reminder in their faces for four years. Sadly I think the election results show that America got what it wanted.

    Just because the people chose Bush doesn’t mean they are right. The rest of the world is marching forward and we’re stuck trying to recapture our glory days.

    Kerry should be front and center letting every Bush voter know that the trials to come are exactly what they voted for.

    Comment by Stephen — November 4, 2004 @ 10:21 am

  12. But “The People” didn’t choose Bush. Only 51% of the people who voted chose Bush. What about the people who didn’t vote? If you add together the people who didn’t vote and the people who voted for Kerry, then “The People” didn’t choose Bush. That’s the problem with less than 100% turnout. So at best all you can say is, a very slight majority of the people who cared enough to vote actually chose Bush. Is that really America getting what it asked for?

    Comment by Greg — November 4, 2004 @ 11:29 am

  13. “a very slight majority of the people who cared enough to vote actually chose Bush. Is that really America getting what it asked for?”

    Unfortunately…. yes, Greg. It is.

    Comment by Jonathan Halliwell — November 5, 2004 @ 2:18 pm

  14. Greg said: “If you add together the people who didn’t vote and the people who voted for Kerry, then “The People” didn’t choose Bush.”

    Using that logic, Greg, the majority of the people didn’t choose Kerry. Besides, exit polling shows that people voted overwhelmingly “for” Bush (including about 10% of Democrats), but hardly anyone voted “for” Kerry.

    Sorry.
    -Keith

    Comment by Keith — November 5, 2004 @ 2:26 pm

  15. Keith, you have to stop beating me to the post with your comments!!!! Honestly, I have enjoyed reading what you have been saying, boy.

    Greg would be saying the opposite if Kerry had won… It would have been, “THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN”. (Trumpets blast in background.)

    Truth of the matter is, the people HAVE spoken. Bush is the man. More than a 3 million majority feel that way. Anyone who thinks that is not significant lacks the ability to think.

    Funny how the saloon door only swings one way for liberals… their way or not at all. And then they have the balls (or boobs) to call conservatives “mean” and “intolerant”.

    Liberals presume they are always right about things, and when things don’t go as they wish, they presume that somehow the system failed. How childish and narrow-minded. Liberals are a constant reminder of why its better to be conservative.

    Comment by Keith Rocks — November 6, 2004 @ 11:51 am

  16. If you want Kerry to be Minority Leader, write your Senators.

    I just did.

    http://www.democrats.org/officials/index.html

    Comment by Jenny — November 13, 2004 @ 5:51 pm

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.