Gephardt may offer broader base for Kerry

[Nicholas_J]

Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON--Five months ago, a crushing loss in the Iowa caucuses caused Rep. Dick Gephardt to bow out tearfully from the Democratic presidential race and announce he would retire from Congress and return to private life at year's end.

But now the Missouri congressman finds himself back in the public spotlight as Sen. John F. Kerry nears his selection of a running mate.

Although no one save Kerry and a few top advisers to the presumed Democratic presidential nominee know where Gephardt ranks among the contenders, his name almost always appears on the shortest of short lists.

Former rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination Sen. John Kerry (left) and Rep. Richard Gephardt have discussed running together in November.

His assets as a vice presidential candidate -- extensive experience, reassuring steadiness, a strong pro-labor record -- could lead to his political rebirth. Yet for some, those very qualities are his drawbacks.

http://www.charleston.net/stories/062004/wor_20gephardt.shtml

[Doosh]

1. Gep is my #2

Kinda sad to see it come down to Gephardt vs. Edwards, 1 of them has to lose.

[Nicholas_J]

3. Some other factors are making it a hard decision for Kerry

Bush is starting to get leads in staes that Kerry has run close in, or has been ahead Gephardt stands a better chance of increasing Kerry's chances in. Like Michigan, a firm union state where Kerry has been ahead, but Bush is getting pulling close in, which Gephardts union base could turn around, the same goes in Ohio, where polls show Gephardt giving Kerry giving Kerry just enough popints to turn that state around. The electoral college votes are firming up, with Kerry about 20 point ahead of Bush, 72 Electoral votes in states too close to call, and 30 electoral votes in staes where no polls have been done.

Kerry is still ahead in Electoral votes even if you look at his positioning in states that are too clsoe to tell, but by and large, the the staets that Edwards could add point to Kerry in are too far ahead for Edwards to make enough of a differnce to win those states, while Gephardt could make enough of a differnce to put Kerry just over the top in a few states.

Still no way of telling who will get the nod. I do not prefer either, just that Gephardt seem the strategically more sound choice, while Edwards is more popular, butdoes not seem to have the ability to bring states in (which is a rare enough event, in opposition to popular wisdom, most running mates do not bring in states at all)

[Skwmom]

8. Edwards is popular like Dean was popular.

And we all know how that ended up.

[chimpymustgo]

15. Please read this article about Gephardt. It's tough, but true, IMO.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7885

-snip-

The choice of Gephardt would reinforce every negative stereotype about Kerry in current circulation while muddying the picture of what he actually stands for. Put Gephardt on the ticket and suddenly, instead of an experienced moderate leader with a progressive bent, you have a pair that can be caricatured as two aging, pro-tax creatures of Washington, both of whom backed the president's war in Iraq for purely opportunistic reasons and both of whom want to transform the American healthcare system with a massive government give-away instead of balancing the budget. Or so some will say, and be able to argue with newfound plausibility.

Nor does Gephardt bring those benefits to the ticket that one might typically want. It's not entirely clear that he can deliver his home state of Missouri, and there's even less polling data suggesting he would bring an electoral bump to the Kerry campaign nationwide. Indeed, the latest data point -- the latest six data points -- we have say that Dick Gephardt is an electoral loser. Under his leadership, the Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994, and then failed to regain it in four successive elections. Undeterred by party losses in 1996, 1998, and 2000, he took them to defeat again in 2002 -- the first mid-term election in which a first-term president's party gained seats since 1934 -- and then left his leadership post to run in the 2004 presidential primary, which he once again, inevitably, lost.

Gephardt didn't just lose the Democratic primary. He was trounced. In Iowa. He came in fourth in a state he had won 16 years earlier and in which he'd maintained a polling lead or strong second for most of the year. His collapse was more spectacular than Howard Dean's -- and more total, revealing that not only did he have no base in Iowa, he had no base of support outside that state that could buoy him when he lost it.

-snip-

In the final days of the Iowa contest, Gephardt was a lackluster campaigner, incapable of drawing an audience and equally incapable of inspiring one. His union friends were loyal to the very end, but he was a one-trick pony. In the end most of his allies in Iowa seemed to be union members who'd come in from out of state. The working-class energy was all with Edwards; when the exit polls came in, Kerry had won the union households tally, while Edwards and Gephardt ran even. The difference was that both Edwards and Kerry also did well with non-union households, while Gephardt drew only about a third as much support from non-union caucus-goers as he did from the house of labor. Nor were all unions his supporters during the primary season; the most rapidly growing and powerful national unions, AFSCME and SEIU, did not back Gephardt. In the end it was the man who had fewer formal ties to labor who beat the two labor-backed candidates, Gephardt and Dean.

-snip-

Most importantly, Gephardt is the single Democrat most associated with enabling President Bush's intervention in Iraq. With the Democratic base and independent voters increasingly turning against that war and seeing the intervention's costs as having outweighed its benefits, and with the entire national-security justification for the war having collapsed, choosing the Democrat who did the most to get us into this mess seems like a bad move. If Nader were not in the race, it might be a different story. But so far, it seems that Nader is already drawing more support than he did in 2000.

Furthermore, Gephardt and Dean may have made up by the end of the primaries, but during his campaign to destroy Dean, Gephardt was responsible for the only unforgivable act of the entire primary season. Gephardt's cronies put together a 527 committee that hid its donors and ran a TV advertisement in South Carolina effectively comparing Howard Dean to Osama bin Laden. There are few lines any longer in politics, but Gephardt's allies crossed a pretty big one. Most people have probably forgotten this ad, but -- trust me here -- many Dean supporters have not. Rather than bringing the leftmost wing of the party back into the fold, a Gephardt candidacy would drive anti-war voters and not a few former Deaniacs right into the waiting arms of Ralph Nader. That he'd be able to do this while simultaneously turning off moderates and failing to rouse anyone outside of the unions would be a neat trick, indeed.

-snip-
*************
Make him Secretary of Labor. Much much more at:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7885

[Rowdyboy]

2. I still take bets it'll be someone other

than Gephart, Edwards or Vilsack

[Nicholas_J]

4. Depends.

There is still a possiblity of a dark horse nomination, and there is a lot of precedent for that historically. SInce Lyndon Johnson, no presidential candidate has ever selected the running mate that either the political pundits OR the public thought or wanted to be selected, but then again, Kerry has a history of defying the expected, so its really anyones guess.

I really dont have a precendent, but post this stuff in respomse to all of the Pro Edwards stuff, which I find is simply based on the image his handlers designed for him to project, and the antipathy to Gephardt who is one of the most respoected men in Congress, and who has served the Democratic party most admirably for decades. He has run and won re-elections 14 times, and has led many fights against very conservative congresses for the same decades. All in all, he has done far more for the democratic party, and has been involved in more far reaching battles for liberal causes than Edwards has.Factual information, actual fights, actual successes, not mere political posturing.

[Gman]

5. Gephardt would be a good VP

I would be happy to see Gephardt as VP.

[Nicholas_J]

6. I do too.

I find it odd that Gephardt is so freqently attacked for going along with Bush, yet the voting record bears out the fact that John Edwards voted along with what Bush wanted far more frequently than Gephardt, and one of the years that he did so far more frequently than Gephardt did was 2001, with Edwards voting with the presidents position more than 4.5 times as often as Gephardt did.

[AP]

10. Where did you get that? CQ reported last winter Edwards voted against Bush

more than anyone running.

[Nicholas_J]

17. The report I put up came from

Project Vote Smart, and it also does a more in depth breakdoown of voting record by actual legislation and areas of political interest.


The percentages are based on actual votes. and as you can see, between 1999 and 2003, Edwards does not have a record of voting against the legislation that Bush wanted passed:

Roll Call Vote Analysis
Year Voting Participation Party Support Presidential Support
2003 61% 97% 41%
2002 100% 84% 76%
2001 99% 91% 67%
2000 100% 94% 92%
1999 99% 92% 87%


Source: Congressional Quarterly

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=CNC68243&PHPSESSID=055dc9ec36e77581372e31b6e44186b6

The source that as used by vote smart, as you see, was Cngressional Quarterly, bases its data on the actual voting records in the Federal Register. Having worked as a librarian for nearly 25 years, as anyone working in the field can testify, Congressional Quarterly is considered the "Gold Standard" for research on topics regarding voting record, as they have no particular political ax to grind, simply being a reference source prepared by the Superintendent of Documents, just as the Statistical Abstracts of the United States is.

The in depth look at Edwards voting record exists on the same site and breaks down the voting record and Key Votes by the following topic for the years noted:

Senator John Reid Edwards (NC)


Current Office: U.S. Senator
Current District: Senior Seat
First Elected: 11/03/98
Last Elected: 11/03/98
Next Election: 2004
Party: Democrat
Biographical
Issue Positions(NPAT)
Campaign Finances
Interest Group Ratings
Voting Record
Speeches and Public Statements







Category Year
Abortion Issues 2004 2003 2000 1999
Agriculture Issues 2002 2001 1999
Appropriations 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999
Arts and Humanities 1999
Budget, Spending and Taxes 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999
Business and Consumers 2004 2002 2001 2000 1999
Campaign Finance and Election Issues 2002 2001 2000 1999
Civil Liberties 2000 1999
Civil Rights 2000
Congressional Affairs 2003 2001 2000 1999
Crime Issues 2004 2003 2000 1999
Defense 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999
Drug Issues 2000 1999
Education 2004 2001 2000 1999
Employment and Affirmative Action 2004
Energy Issues 2003 2002 2000 1999
Environmental Issues 2003 2002 2000 1999
Executive Branch 2003 2001 2000 1999
Family and Children Issues 2003 2000 1999
Foreign Aid and Policy Issues 2002 2001 2000 1999
Government Reform 2002 2001 2000 1999
Gun Issues 2004 2000 1999
Health Issues 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999
Housing and Property Issues 1999
Immigration 2000
Labor 2001 2000 1999
Legal Issues 2004 2003 1999
Military Issues 2004 2002 2000 1999
National Security Issues 2002 2001
Regulatory Issues 2003 2002 1999
Senior and Social Security Issues 2003 2001 2000 1999
Social Issues 2002 1999
Technology and Communication 2003 2000 1999
Trade Issues 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999
Transportation Issues 2004 2003 2001 1999
Veterans Issues 2001 1999

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=CNC68243

The fact is that Edwards does not have the record of most frequently voting against legislation that George Bush desired to have pssed and that in fact, Gephardt has record of voting against the president to a greater degree than Edwards has.

GQ did report that Edwards voted against Bush more often than anyone else did. LAST WINTER. A number of articles pointed out Edwards change in the last quarter of 2003 around the time when the public was gearing up for the primaries. The media did note the change in voting stance that quarter. somewhat cynically.

In fact, Gephardt probably has the record of voting agianst the Bush Administration more often than pretty much any other candidate who is sitting in Congress except Kucinich, and Gephart comes very close to matching Kucinich's opposition to the Bush Adminstration. vote-wise, at least:

Roll Call Vote Analysis
Year Voting Participation Party Support Presidential Support
2003 91% 96% 22%
2002 99% 96% 26%
2001 98% 89% 23%
2000 98% 89% 76%
1999 99% 83% 63%
1998 99% 83% 78%
1997 99% 80% 65%

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=BC032003


Out of all of the candidates sitting in Congress, Gephardt and Kucinich's voting records are records that display the clearest differnce from the Bush Adminstration.

If you go back and look at Kucinich as well, his change in

[AP]

18. I responded to this in other thread. Not fair to compare Rep to Sen.

Especially a first term NC Sen trying to win reelection to a 14 term Congressperson who could probably by Rep. for life from a district that is, no dout, carved out just for him.

How does Edwards compare to other senators?

How does Gep compare to other representatives?

I bet he beats all the Reps in NC, but I doubt that means there aren't good Reps in NC who'd make great VPs.

[AP]

11. From archives:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=73039

Well, today I have found the best factual evidence against Dean's statement that those Democrats in Congress have been "co-opted" and don't "stand up to Bush". The well-respected Congressional Quarterly publication company did a study for this week's CQ Weekly - their "Presidential Support Vote Study". One very outstanding part of that study proves that Senator John Edwards does indeed stand up to Bush and hasn't been co-opted by his agenda. CQ proved that Edwards has the highest rating of senators in opposition to Bush's agenda, with a score of 58.7%. In the study, opposition stood for those who voted most often against his position. Here is the list of the top 11 democratic senators opposed to President Bush's legislative agenda:

Democrats
Edwards, N.C. 58.7%
Graham, Fla. 58.3
Corzine, N.J. 56.8
Lautenberg, N.J. 56.3
Mikulski, Md. 56.0
Boxer, Calif. 55.6
Reed, R.I. 55.2
Durbin, Ill. 54.5
Biden, Del. 54.1
Harkin, Iowa 54.1
Sarbanes, Md. 53.9
...

And, re that 76% number:

 Really misleading - Harkin at 69, Kerry at 72

And Edwards voted with the party 84% of the time. How is that possible? It is possible because there are a lot of votes where the party and the administration do not disagree -- as is often the case on issues we ought to agree on. And Edwards was much lower the year before, so it is clearly not an election year thing.

[dsc]

13. note the word Senator

House members have way better scores in that regard due to the polarization of the House.

[AP]

16. House members don't represent entire states either. It's easier

to find a really liberal house district that isn't going to punish its elected rep for being a left winger than it is to find a really liberal state. Ask Barbara Lee.

There's also that advantage of being a house incumb in a district gerrymandered to guarantee your election.

For almost all congresspeople, if you don't face a challenge in the primary, you have a job for life and can do whatever you please and vote any way you want.

[cosmokramer]

9. Agree.

[Zomby Woof]

7. I sure hope not

Sorry, but I can't handle Gephardt. He and Dean were the bottom of the barrel from the entire lot.

I won't speculate on what will happen if he is chosen, because I am counting on Kerry not to pick him.

[lojasmo]

12. Gep will NEVER be V.P.

Whether he's chosen by Kerry or not....Mark my words!

[dusty64]

14. Unfortunately he is

also boring, wishy washy, and offered VERY ineffective leadership when in a position of power. Can anyone even imagine the debate between him and crashcart?