Some Dems to run away from Kerry

[NewJerseyDem]

http://www.thehill.com/news/031704/kerry.aspx

A handful of House Democrats who look vulnerable in November’s election, plan to run away from their party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), and will not endorse him.

The holdouts are a minority of the 17 “frontliners” selected by the party leadership for member-to-member cash infusions, but their attitude reflects varying levels of comfort with how the New England senator will play in their districts.

A majority of frontliners, including those who are from conservative districts carried by President Bush in 2000, and have slim majorities, plan to campaign with and for Kerry.

But, regardless of their formal position on Kerry, most vow to run “independent campaigns.”

Several lawmakers, including Reps. Rodney Alexander (D-La.), Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Dennis Moore (D-Kan.) have told The Hill they do not currently plan to endorse Kerry.

[Simard]

1. Bad news

This is serious. To win the election Kerry is going to need to attract the centerists.

[revcarol]

4. Centrists?

They're about as far right as you can be and still claim the Dem label.

[lancdem]

6. And you're only talking about less than 4 percent of the Dems

in the House.

[lancdem]

5. You must not have read the article

Please do. The headline is misleading. Only four of the 200-some Dems don't plan to endorse Kerry, and one of them could change his mind.

[Catch22Dem]

2. LANGUAGE WARNING

Those fuckin' pussies. I wouldn't vote for them now if my life depended on it. In other words, they're looking out for themselves, and their own jobs FIRST, and the rest of the country SECOND.

[WilliamPitt]

12. Um...

Yeah, they are looking out for their own jobs first, because holding onto their jobs = helping the Dems to take back the House = at least, if not way way way way more important, than taking back the White House.

All Politics is local.

[Art_from_Ark]

13. What good would taking back the House do

if there were enough "boll weevil" Dems to side with the repukes, as there were during Reagan's misadministration?

Screw these "fair weather friends". I'd rather have Kerry in the White House, than these 5 goobers keeping their Congressional seats. At least with Kerry in the White House, he can sweep out the cockroaches that are currently holding Cabinet positions.

[formernaderite]

19. Well said...thank you.

eom

[Guaranteed]

16. They're not even doing that.

They're stupid as hell. They've got the (D) next to their names. They can either defend it, or be ashamed of it.

They're much better off fighting. They're all going to be voted out, acting the way that they are.

[lancdem]

3. The headline is a bit misleading

Only a handful of Dems don't currently plan on endorsing Kerry, and their comments aren't bad at all. And a significant number of Dems from conservative districts have endorsed him.

[revcarol]

8. Mary Landrieu ran her own "independent" campaign for a while

and had to spark it up for the runoff.

Hope they don't wait too late to take some shots at the repugs.She almost waited too late.

[NewJerseyDem]

7. At least Rodney Alexander says he won't endorse Bush

I had posted earlier that Congressman Rodney Alexander (D-LA) had endorsed Bush because an article said he would support Bush's reelection. But, now Alexander says he isn't endorsing anyone which is better. Alexander was seriously considering switching parties last week but didn't.

[LiberalBushFan]

17. How is that better? The reason we want to win the house is so that

we'll have more voting power. Democrats who vote with Repubs serve no purpose for us. It'd be better if he switched because then we could at least run another Democrat against him. Of course, I'd prefer if the Democratic party leadership threatened them into submission by dirty means a la Karl Rove, but if not then at least kick em out.

[bluestateguy]

9. They will likley lose

Newsflash: The Kerry-haters in their districts will vote for Republicans anyway. Trying to appease white male conservatives should not be a strategy for the party.

[NewJerseyDem]

10. I don't know if that is true

These are some pretty conservative votes who are winning in districts where Gore got only about 47% in FL-2, 42% in KS-3, 40% in LA-5, 47% in GA-3, and only 31% in UT-2. For Matheson, Moore and Alexander in particular they have required a hell of a lot of Bush voters to get into office and they will need them again in 2004. For Marshall and Boyd, I don't know if keeping away from Kerry helps that much because their districts were pretty close in 2000. They may be waiting to see if Kerry is competitive in November or if he turns out to be portrayed as a Dukakis, as they may fear.

[TomSeaverr]

11. You can't blame them

this is a serious problem in the south. They act like they can't vote for someone who doesn't talk like them.

[madfloridian]

14. Here Boyd's district.

Pretty conservative, I understand. I may be wrong as I live nearer the central part of the state.
http://www.house.gov/boyd/pages/main/districtmap.html

On edit, I think the Tally area may not be so bad, but not sure.

[DaveSZ]

15. .

This is why I was for John Edwards.

[NewJerseyDem]

18. It really isn't that conservative

It voted 51.8% for Bush, 46.7% for Gore and 1.5% for Nader in 2000. That is a competitive district but a moderate like Boyd should win easily there. But, he does have a strong challenge this year.

[Darkamber]

20. If it saves their house seats...

I say you can't go against them. They might be in very heavy Republican areas and are holding their seats just barely.

I would rather have Kerry with more backing from Congress then facing the democrats losing more seats in Congress just because they endorsed Kerry now.