I've never heard of Al Gore being Kerry's choice of Sec. of state. umm i was wondering where you got that idea

I admire the idea and I give you credit for guessing (I'd never be able to do this without really sitting down and thinking about it), but most of these picks are silly:

I think Nunn and Gephardt are the only possible picks that you listed, and I think those are very good picks and very probable.

Gore would never take the Sec of State job, nor would it be offered to him. Most in the Democratic Party still think he has political ambitions. All of his recent statements have pointed to him becoming more confrontational, not settling into a respectable elder statesman role a la Carter. Gore is also positioned for a turf war in the DNC if he prepares for another run at some point (or even throws his weight behind a candidate of his choice) and it would very likely pit him against Kerry's wing of the party. There's no question that Gore would want to remain politically influential in the direction of the party even if he doesn't run for office again.

Corzine and particularly Braun have too much political baggage. Braun's Presidential run made her seem more out of the political mainstream and more eccentric than before. There's no way Kerry would have her be one of his tokens since she's way too outspoken.

Richard Clarke turned on Bush and delighted Democrats, but he'd never, never get another job in an administration after his admissions to his own failings in preventing 9/11. Plus, he's become too polarizing a figure and he'd never do it again since he's taken such effort to point out how painful it was for him to be swamped in the gears of bureaucracy. His role has been served in the debate over Iraq.

Richardson and Larry Summers have had their Cabinet turns and wouldn't do it again, especially in lesser roles (as you've slotted them). Richardson has a larger political future ahead of him and Summers has done his public service for a lifetime. It's a lot easier (and more profitable) to have a cush job as the president of Harvard than it is to take the heat for test scores and failing public schools.

Vilsack would get a much, much larger position if he agreed to join the Cabinet. He'd be the equivalent of Tom Ridge for the Bush Administration, except much more respected and in the process of decision-making. And he'd get a bigger title, too, like Interior, Energy or HHS.

There's little precedent for a state Attorney General directly becoming the nation's Attorney General. More likely, it'll be someone influential in the legal world who has strong ties to the DNC. Perhaps one of the legal minds that proved their worth in the Clinton defense and the 2000 Florida case. Larry Tribe would never do it and he's too bookish and abstract to be a crime-fighter, but someone with solid legal credentials who'll appear tough in the war on terror.

Jesse Jackson Jr won't take the HUD position, since he's an established rising Congressman and doesn't want to be limited to urban housing policy.

Cleland wouldn't take the VA position since it's small beans. He's a friggin Senator.

I'll have to sit and think about who might be more likely to get these spots since it's much easier to pick apart someone else's conjectures than come up with your own.

Did RJ get banned? All hail the new glorious order of censorship.

That is all.

Oh, and Herman (who was in Clinton's second-term Cabinet) wouldn't be asked to return to the Kerry cabinet since Kerry will want to make his own mark.

Gore would never take the Sec of State job, nor would it be offered to him. Most in the Democratic Party still think he has political ambitions. All of his recent statements have pointed to him becoming more confrontational, not settling into a respectable elder statesman role a la Carter. Gore is also positioned for a turf war in the DNC if he prepares for another run at some point (or even throws his weight behind a candidate of his choice) and it would very likely pit him against Kerry's wing of the party. There's no question that Gore would want to remain politically influential in the direction of the party even if he doesn't run for office again.

Good points. But who else at SoS?

Corzine and particularly Braun have too much political baggage. Braun's Presidential run made her seem more out of the political mainstream and more eccentric than before. There's no way Kerry would have her be one of his tokens since she's way too outspoken.

Braun will get something. Corzine might not, since he's a Senator, and whoever his replacement would be could be vulnerable in 2006...

Richard Clarke turned on Bush and delighted Democrats, but he'd never, never get another job in an administration after his admissions to his own failings in preventing 9/11. Plus, he's become too polarizing a figure and he'd never do it again since he's taken such effort to point out how painful it was for him to be swamped in the gears of bureaucracy. His role has been served in the debate over Iraq.

Ok, good points.

Richardson and Larry Summers have had their Cabinet turns and wouldn't do it again, especially in lesser roles (as you've slotted them). Richardson has a larger political future ahead of him and Summers has done his public service for a lifetime. It's a lot easier (and more profitable) to have a cush job as the president of Harvard than it is to take the heat for test scores and failing public schools.

Richadson won't, because he's happy being Gov. of NM. Summers...I'm not so sure...

Vilsack would get a much, much larger position if he agreed to join the Cabinet. He'd be the equivalent of Tom Ridge for the Bush Administration, except much more respected and in the process of decision-making. And he'd get a bigger title, too, like Interior, Energy or HHS.

Vilsack is a rookie. He'll get a foot in the doorway in 2005, then move up later.

There's little precedent for a state Attorney General directly becoming the nation's Attorney General. More likely, it'll be someone influential in the legal world who has strong ties to the DNC. Perhaps one of the legal minds that proved their worth in the Clinton defense and the 2000 Florida case. Larry Tribe would never do it and he's too bookish and abstract to be a crime-fighter, but someone with solid legal credentials who'll appear tough in the war on terror.

Spitzer is popular. Popularity beats qualifications every time. Take a look at Kerry's VP pick...

Jesse Jackson Jr won't take the HUD position, since he's an established rising Congressman and doesn't want to be limited to urban housing policy.

JJ Jr. won't ever get a better opportunity than this. He's too polarizing to rise much above gerrymandered-House Rep. He'll dive at the chance to become a Cabinet Sec.

Cleland wouldn't take the VA position since it's small beans. He's a friggin Senator.

He's a FORMER Senator. I'm sure he'd prefer Sec. of Defense, but he won't be offered it. He'll settle for whatever he's offered, and run for Gov. of GA in the near future...

I'll have to sit and think about who might be more likely to get these spots since it's much easier to pick apart someone else's conjectures than come up with your own.

BINGO! ;-)

Did RJ get banned? All hail the new glorious order of censorship.

I'm only sorta-banned. I can still post semi-anonymous comments.

Joe Biden will be the Secretary of State- mark my words. He has a wealth of foreign policy experience and is a close personal friend of Kerry. (I must admit I have a little insider info on this one as well).

Oh boy!

Another entry where folks get to make ridiculous, later embarrassing predictions about meaningless shit.

Lakers in six!

Fantasia in five!

NY Post says: "Booey Wins!"

Hey, old man.

I didn't say Gephardt would be picked. I said the NY Post reported it. I actually said it'd be Edwards before it'd be Gephardt.

Everyone picked the Lakers, so that's not silly. You're silly for not knowing anything about sports or politics.

That is all.

Biden as SoS makes sense. The Gov. of Delaware is a Dem. She'll appoint another Dem to replace Sen. Biden.

Good call, Anthony. :)

Hey! What about Stephanie Tubbs Jones! She would be a good choice for Kerry's cabinet.
She is the first speaker at this years convention. I can also see Richard Clarke as
Secretary of Defense or National Security Advisor

An open letter to Christian communities

Monday, October 18, 2004


I respect the compassion that seems to drive many people's politics.

No amount of e-mail , no reasoning will change minds. I understand that. Too many have been programmed to think only one party "cares"--or is the only party that can bring about a better world.

However, what I do NOT understand is how informed, practicing Christians--in my case a Catholic Christian-- can side with the evil that the Democratic Party represents vis a vis the issue of "LIFE".

We know--because he said it-- if Kerry is elected, more unborn babies will die. We know he and his party embrace an official party platform that will engage in medical experiments through the killing of human life (stem cell research).

And what about the natural human condition vs. a disordered one. Has it taken a back seat? Even with justifiable compassion for homosexuality, how can one support same sex marriage? It seems MOST reasonable to reserve that distinction for those who cooperate in God's plan to create life.

Have we become so "PC" that we will not publicly speak about such things in opposition to liberal thought? Why must one accept a liberal view so as not to "offend"?

One can hold to and speak of a value--publicly-- without intending to offend.
.
And--forget the American bishops or the Pope --how can Kerry honestly and without hypocrisy call himself a Catholic?

Yes, the human leadership of my Church has much to answer for. Evil has fought with good for centuries, often with shameful outcomes. This age is no exception. Nonetheless, all the exceptions one might cite as reasons to no longer listen to teachings and pray about them and discern right from wrong (to form one's conscience) do not negate the facts present in what one might call the "higher order of things".

God's will governs our lives, not the will of men, clerics, or lay; not the vagaries of history, nor the scandal of the moment.

Are we not under a moral obligation to allow our faith to direct our public life; to avoid cooperating with evil?
(i.e., the killing of the innocent and unborn in this case)?

Where did this idea come from that faith is a private thing, which should not be discussed in polite company? Faith is, after all, not an irrational, blind phenomenon. It is an ascent of the mind based on reason. We have faith in God, because we can reason to his existence and some (not all) of what He is about.


Doesn't our faith motivate and provide the reason for good public works? How can it then be a private matter?

Would YOU take up a sign and march/demonstrate in front of an abortion clinic to show your SUPPORT of abortion?

If you wouldn't do that, isn't voting for Kerry the same thing under the disguise of a vote?

The old shibboleth was that abortion was a "civil" right, a woman's "choice" over her own body, because the "life" was not yet human--if at all.

Science, among other reasons has now put most of that argument to rest. It is no longer as viable. The argument that an unborn baby is not a human life has lost steam.

So, now, we turn to politics. Now, the charge is those "radical right wingers" are trying to deny a "right". Only those people would deny a woman her right. Surely, a tolerant, reasonable, compassionate, bi-partisan person would never tell a woman, doctor, or politician that abortions cannot be performed. After all, are not those who "choose abortion "suffering". Well, maybe, but if a woman has every right over her own body, she surely does not have a right over another life, including the one inside her body who is innocent and unprotected.

I am a practicing Catholic, and I honestly believe that the Democratic Party is such a threat to my faith, that we ought to pray for its conversion-- as we Catholics used to pray for the conversion of Russia after mass. (That seems to have worked!)

Isn't the issue of life for the innocent unborn the true issue in this election?

Isn't an innocent human life from embryo to "partial birth" worth more than caribou in the arctic or baby seals and whales, or trees in the northwest, or disputed numbers inherent in any discussion of the economy, or even the world-wide war on terrorism which happens to be concentrated for the moment in Iraq?

Would we be a better nation if we had a booming stock market, but kept killing innocent human life?

One can allow oneself to be distracted by other issues --the war, the economy, and so on, BUT in the higher order of things, isn't the acceptance of the licentious use of sex, the abandonment of God in our society, i.e, its growing secularization, or the killing of millions of unborn, more important than money or power or party affiliation?


Robert W. Hunter
Chatham, MA
508-945-4572

Don't look for Gore as Sec of State. Keep your eyes open for Richard Holbrooke.

Jimmy Carter for Secretary of State

my picks so far

Powell for Defense would be bold and unifying. I hope he'd take it.

Madeline Albright for State. She's brilliant.

Kennedy for HHS. This spot is going to take a lot of heat in any event; Kennedy might be able to take it.

Jimmy Carter for HUD (changed from my initial thought of SoS).

I agree with Gephart (Labor) and Spitzer (AG)

I predict Cheney-vp...Powell-Secstate...Rumsfield-Secdefense....

OK not Kennedy. He's needed as a senator.
McCain for Veterans.
Nader for Energy (not that fe'd take it)