Who is Kerry's best choice for VP?

If Kerry does pull in the nomination, who do you think he should pick for vp, and why ? If you do not like any of these choices, write your own in.

Kerry owes a lot of favors to his special interests.

The Repugs are going to give us enough crap, we don't need to deal with our own.

Note: Lieberman is excluded from this, obviously.

if you guys want the opposite of bush don't go supporting the candidate who took more special interest money than any other senator in the last 15 years.

this is such crap and its going to be the same corrupt disaster that the bush admin was- except the only difference ist hat republicans have enough balls to impeach him.

Basically we're going to have another corrupt washington insider administration except this time it will be cowardly, and impotent.

Great, can't wait.

P.S. that's not even talking about Kerry's inability to motivate and inspire the people....

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0203.html

John Kerry Ranks 92nd out of the 100 Senators in Contributions from Special Interest PACS and Lobbyists
Bush Raised More Lobbyist Funds in 2003 than Kerry Raised in Career


February  03,  2004

For Immediate Release
Spokane, WA–

While Senator John Kerry has run and won four Senate races over the past 20 years, he ranks about the bottom of the list of current Senators in contributions from PACs and lobbyists.

“George Bush accepted more money last year from lobbyists than John Kerry has in his career,” said Kerry campaign Senior Advisor Michael Meehan.  “John Kerry’s vote is not for sale, period.  He is the only current Senator to run four campaigns without taking a dime of special interest PAC money.”

“John Kerry is one of the most successful Democrats over the past two decades and one of the party’s top fundraisers,” Meehan added.  “Therefore it is understandable that Kerry, who has raised over $45 million from individuals in 20 years, would lead any particular sub-grouping of individual contributors.

“What is stunning is that despite his successful long service in the Senate, 91 other Senators beat Kerry in contributions from PACs and Lobbyists.”


Facts on John Kerry and Special Interests

JOHN KERRY'S MONEY: NO ONE BUYS JOHN KERRY’S VOTE

PAC FREE: John Kerry has not taken a dime of PAC money during his four Senate elections or during his presidential race.  PACs contribute a huge chunk of the money given to politics. Corporate PACs have given $1.2 billion to campaigns and parties since 1990.  Not one dime has gone to John Kerry.

RANKS 92nd IN SENATE: Because Kerry does not take PAC money, he has actually taken LESS special interest money than practically every member of Congress.  In fact when contributions from PACs and lobbyists are combined, Kerry ranks 92nd of 100 sitting Senators.

BANS LOBBYISTS: John Kerry has proposed a ban on anyone leaving government office from becoming a lobbyist for five years and would require that every meeting between a federal official and a lobbyist be a matter of public record.  He’s sponsored the strongest campaign finance reform measures ever to come before the Senate and gone above and beyond public disclosure requirements every year he has been in the Senate.

FACTS ON OPPONENTS CHARGES
BY 3 to 1, GEORGE BUSH the presidential candidates who has received the most lobbyist funds.  To be clear, John Kerry has NOT taken the most money from lobbyists.  In fact, George Bush has taken more than three times as much money from lobbyists in the past year alone as Kerry has, and managed to reward them handsomely for it too -- at the expense of the environment, our economy and the middle class. 

BUSH took more money from lobbyists in 2003, than John Kerry has in his entire career. If you add up all the money John Kerry’s opponents say he has taken from lobbyists over his career, it amounts to just barely more than one percent of his total contributions.

OPPONENTS
Kerry’s record also stacks up well against his rivals.  Howard Dean’s campaign is being run by three lobbyists and he was close to special interests like insurance companies and sided with his most important donor over consumer interests—utility companies.  Wes Clark was a lobbyist himself. 


According to the Center for Responsive Politics: 

Howard Dean has taken more money from Health Care Special interests in this campaign than has John Kerry.  Dean has taken more money from computers and high tech interests than John Kerry.  Dean’s second largest contributor was media giant Time Warner.  Dean’s third largest contributor is Bill Gates’ Microsoft, and Dean’s eighth largest contributor was Citigroup. One-fifth of Dean’s initial contributions for his PAC came from people with ties to Vermont's electric utilities . 

Dean has said he provides access to people who give the most money, and he was right.  His key industry, utility companies, held secret meetings to design the state’s energy plan, and Dean sided with them on a variety of issues, including forcing consumers, rather than the companies absorb 90% of the excess costs for an expensive contract with an out-of-state source.  Vermonters paid electric bills that were 50% higher than the national average-- $2 billion over ten years.

Dean has convened a regular meeting of Washington insiders and lobbyists, who “meet every other week in the downtown law offices of Hogan & Hartson to plot strategy with key Dean advisers. The group is getting bigger by the week.” 


JOHN KERRY HAS FOUGHT SPECIAL INTERESTS IN THE SENATE
John Kerry has taken aim at the mutual fund scandals and developed a plan to restore ethics, integrity, and honesty to business and government by holding corporate America accountable.  His plan will stop unfair trading practices, protect shareholders, and assure that all investors get a fair deal.  John Kerry has stood up for corporate responsibility, proposing a three-point plan that would ensure that investors are no longer exploited to benefit a powerful few by the mutual fund industry, by helping individual investors recover losses with new RICO penalties. 

John Kerry will continue to stand up to prescription drug companies by reducing drug prices by ending loopholes that prevent generics from coming to the market, ensuring that seniors without prescription drug coverage don’t pay more, saving money by reducing prescription drug errors, and giving seniors a real prescription drug benefit that doesn’t reward big drug companies.

John Kerry stood up to corporate polluters when Newt Gingrich tried to roll back our nations clean air and water laws.  He’s proposed new protections that would ensure that all communities have clean air and water and would force big corporations to clean up the messes they have made.

MORE EXAMPLES OF JOHN KERRY STANDING UP TO SPECIAL INTERESTS

Banks and credit card companies:
John Kerry voted against the Bankruptcy bill that was a major priority for banks and credit card companies.  He also helped protect redlining rules that banks would like to weaken.  Banks have also lobbied hard against money laundering laws that John Kerry has written and worked to pass.

Media companies and broadcasters:
John Kerry opposes Bush’s attempt to weaken the media ownership rules that would help large media conglomerates.  He also insisted on strong consumer friendly conditions on the AOL-Time Warner merger.

Computers and High Tech:
John Kerry supported strong consumer friendly Internet Privacy legislation that high tech and Internet companies opposed.  He has also resisted calls to block rules that would require the expensing of stock options, a top priority of donors in the high-tech community

Oil companies:
John Kerry has fought to implement higher fuel economy standards and blocked plans to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve

Telecommunications and wireless:
John Kerry supported Do Not Call legislation, which phone companies and marketers worked against.  He opposed a 1999 amendment that would change FCC accounting policies in a way that would allow Baby Bells to raise rates.  And last year, Kerry wrote a letter to Verizon opposing the position that the company was taking in a labor dispute.
 

So would Bob Graham.

If not Edwards, that is.

She's still pissed that bush supported her nazi opponent in the senate runoff two years ago, even though Landrieu was a fairly harmless dem in bush's first two years. She will rip cheney's heart out and expose it to America. ( edit, cheney does not have a heart.)

Hell hath no fury like a daughter of a former Mayor Of New Orleans.

and she's help us pick up a few southern states that otherwise would go to Bush

A John Kerry - Dick Gephardt ticket would sweep the coasts and the industrial heartland. Gep would destroy Bush on trade and employment issues throughout states we have lost recently. Gephardt also has the stature that would make this a very solid and winning ticket.

Oh, I guess it's better to have a moderate Democrat/moderate Republican(D) ticket.

The NYTimes, amply cheered on here, doesn't want liberal voices in the debates. You think that a member of that caste should be on the ticket!?

Hoo boy!

Kerry may not be a progressive firebrand, but I think that Kerry is certainly a liberal. Let's not kill our own with hyperbole.

Oops. I suppose I shouldn't mention that very "liberal" vote.

I doubt that the Dems will take this time to put a woman or a african-american on the ticket.

who should be in your poll.

but Clark should be in the poll.

Who really SHOULD be in your poll.

He would be a good pick too.

He ran against a good liberal, Nancy Pelosi, to replace a moderate.

:)

totally suck by suggesting Richardson. That's right Richardson.....A wolf in sheep's clothing.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

where's Clark?

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

then it might just as well be Edwards for VP.

(The important thing is that it must NOT be * and whomever.):crazy:

He has said so many times he wouldn't take the #2 slot, guess I was trying to be realistic. As far as liberal goes, Ann Richards is liberal, so's Hillary. I was trying to find out whether name recognition held any sway, and I think it does. thanx.

NT

How about Kucinich for Secretary of State.
How about Clark for Secretary of Defense.

We can fit all of the candidates into a slot. Then we'd have a composition of the best of the best.

Think about it. Bush and Cheney wouldn't stand a chance against a Kerry-T ticket.

:dem:

from party sources. His union credentials could help in MO and the midwest, they say.

But I still hold that Richardson is the best choice no matter who wins the nomination.

Edwards - who I voted for on Tuesday, after months of agonizing - would be the ideal VP if our candidate were an experienced Governor from a large midwestern state. But you don't put two Senators on the ticket. The only time that ever worked was Kennedy-Johnson in 1960, which was also the only time a sitting Senator ever won. Balance between youth and experience, Washington insider and outsider works best.

Richardson - who would have been a great candidate for the top spot with a little more charisma, his background and judgement are strong - is Hispanic, the fastest growing demographic group in the country. He would lock up NM (which we won by only 500 votes last time), lock up CA (Ahnald or not), and improve our competitive chances in Colorado, Arizona, Louisiana, and Florida.

would sure give the chimp a battle. :thumbsup: