July 25, 2004

NO, I'M NOT A DEMOCRAT:

Senate Hopefuls Are Convention No-Shows: Some Fear Being Tied to Democratic Ticket (Charles Babington, July 26, 2004, Washington Post)

In the eight Senate races seen as virtual tossups, the Democratic nominees or front-runners from North Carolina, Oklahoma and Alaska are skipping Boston altogether. Inez Tenenbaum, the Senate nominee in South Carolina, mingled with her state's delegation Sunday night but goes home Monday, when the four-day convention begins.

Rep. Chris John, the Democrat's top contender for a Senate seat in Louisiana -- and a "super delegate" by virtue of being a House member -- will be here Monday and Tuesday. Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle of South Dakota and Senate candidate Betty Castor of Florida will attend Monday through Wednesday, but not Thursday.

The only Democrat in a tossup Senate race who plans to be at the convention Thursday is Ken Salazar of Colorado, who will arrive Wednesday.

The story is similar among House candidates. Of the "Texas Five" -- five House Democrats seriously threatened by their state's redistricting -- only Rep. Charles W. Stenholm will appear in Boston. He is jetting in for a dinner Tuesday that will honor him and other prominent players in agriculture -- Stenholm is the ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee -- and then he is going right back to his west Texas district.


That their Senate Leader can't afford to be seen there is especially telling. They could lose both him and their #2 in the Senate, Harry Reid (NV), in November.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 25, 2004 11:56 PM
Comments

What a bunch of cowards. I've never seen anything so pathetic.

I guess when the word went out that they needed to send a positive message instead of just Bush bashing, they realized they have nothing else to say and so changed their plans.

Losers.

Posted by: NKR at July 26, 2004 12:21 AM

So why are we getting reports like this one by Ramesh Ponnuru which says that the Dems are united and happy and ready to take on Bush because no matter what happens, they will be in the lead and on the offensive against a guy with no defenses? Do we believe the all-knowling pundit(s), or the guys who are actually running for election.

I'm gonna have to go with the candidates.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at July 26, 2004 12:27 AM

This is truly astonishing. I am really curious whether this number of Senate candidates (in either party) has ever skipped their party's nominating convention. Does anyone have any historical data on this?

Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at July 26, 2004 1:27 AM

Raoul: Isn't that an odd piece from Ponnuru?

One need only look at the speakers lined up for the conventions to determine which candidate has issues with his base, and which one does not.

Yet even conservative Ponnuru is getting it wrong.

Maybe he's consciously trying to ward off overconfidence from the GOP? Beats me.

Posted by: kevin whited at July 26, 2004 8:14 AM

Kevin:

National Review went loopy a while ago. Half of them never recovered from the steel tariffs and the other half from the immigration proposal.

Posted by: oj at July 26, 2004 8:23 AM

Raoul, OJ, Kevin - I am also puzzled by NRO's stances lately. Lowry also has a positive piece on the Dems today. Perhaps they drank the same Kool Aid as Andrew Sullivan and are looking for a way to not stand with Bush based on 1 issue but wrap it up in "principles" somehow.
It will be interesting to see what NROs predictions are for the election - if they are calling for a close race/Kerry win in late October and Bush romps their credibility will be shot.

Posted by: AWW at July 26, 2004 10:18 AM

AWW:

They are unprincipled.

Posted by: oj at July 26, 2004 10:23 AM

News from Nevada: Harry Reid, although far from popular or beloved here, will win big because there will be no credible Republican opponent.

Posted by: ed at July 26, 2004 11:42 AM

ed:

That has nothing to do with it. Dan Quayle wasn't credible, but Reagan was.

Posted by: oj at July 26, 2004 11:46 AM

OJ believes the Bush coattails will sweep marginal GOP candidates into office. Perhaps, but will NV want to get rid of the #2 guy for an unknown GOP Senator? Also NV polls currently show Bush hardly ahead of Kerry (3-5pts) and given the Yucca mountain issue NV may not be a blowout win for Bush, reducing his coattails there.

Posted by: AWW at July 26, 2004 12:41 PM

I see Corzine has been out laying down heavy cover for his Senatoral coleagues.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 26, 2004 1:53 PM

Um. Is it just me, or is "Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle of South Dakota" actually MINORITY Leader Thomas A. Daschle of South Dakota?

Not to nitpick or anything, but that's really kinda basic. You think the WaPo was letting their dream world intrude on reality again?

Posted by: ubu at July 26, 2004 5:49 PM
« ISOLATED, NUANCED, DULL, AND ANTI-AMERICAN: | Main | THE VIEW IS BLURRY FROM THE MARGINS: »