Re #1 - nice touch of self- deprecation. And as noted yesterday stories like these will make Kerry's eventual resignation seem like responding to pressure rather than a principaled move
Re #2 - what's the connection to Liddy?

AWW: I believe the connection to Dole is her husband, who was Senate minority leader in 1992. In the run-up to the 1992 election, Senate majority leader George Mitchell orchestrated passage of a series of feel-good bills that Dems didn't truly support, but knew President Bush would veto. Which he did. And those vetoes were used in campaign spots for Clinton. Bob Dole had a front row seat from which to observe those machinations, and their effectiveness.

Boy if they have such a hard time dodging a bullet when all he had to do was, just, vote (since he supported the issue); imagine the angst if he actually had to vote on any one of those issues where he has flipped, or where he continues to hold "nuanced" views.

MG, good point, regarding the vote, there's another troop funding issue coming for a vote, it'll be interesting to see how Kerry handles that one, considering that the last one gave the GOP the goldmine of "I voted for it before I voted against it"

I'd really like to see Bush make another run at getting drilling in ANWR now that Kerry's made such noise about high gas prices. The environmental thing is easily dispelled and the people care more about their pocketbook than Caribou anyway.

Really, though, Kerry doesn't really have a choice. Sure they can kill him with votes if he stays, but if he leaves, they can do to him what Clinton did to Bob Dole and talk about how he quit the Senate "leaving behind the gridlock he created" to pursue personal glory. Plus if he loses he'll need the Senate job, and Mitt Romney would appoint a Republican to his seat. He was between a rock and a hard place from day one. That's why Senators don't win Presidential elections without a lot of dead people voting in Chicago.

I'm a staunch conservative, and am thus quite happy to applaud Kerry for achieving this particular outcome. I don't mean this facetiously. Viewed from a strictly logical perspective, it's certainly within the realm of possibility that his abstaining from this vote means that he does not support benefits extensions.

A question: If Kerry were to come out and vow real cuts in government spending, abolishment of social programs, tax cuts and staunch support for the war ... would any of you consider voting for him? Or is that unthinkable simply because he has a "D" next to his name and Bush has an "R"?

I know Orrin Judd has been chastised here frequently for adhering to partisanship and horse-race politics over principle. I'm curious if those criticisms are valid.

(No, I'm not planning to vote for Kerry under present circumstances.)

My apologies for using the word "staunch" twice within two paragraphs. Sloppy writing. Sometimes I think the anti-blog crowd is right -- let's leave the commentary and writing to the Big Media. For all its faults, it certainly maintains a higher standard when it comes to precision of prose and grammar. Guess that's why those professionals get paid, and the rest of us sit here on obscure comment threads scribbling off the cuff and using words like "staunch" twice in a row.