NE-Sen: Bob Kerrey

Convinced that Hagel will be stepping down, former Sen. Bob Kerrey looks set to run for the open seat.

Bob Kerrey stepped to the brink of a possible 2008 Senate bid Thursday.

Kerrey placed a conference call to New School University trustees in New York City to inform them he may be returning to Nebraska.

A decision on whether to return to his roots and attempt to once again represent Nebraska in the Senate is likely “within the next couple of weeks,” Kerrey said in a telephone interview.

“I wanted my board to know it’s possible I would say yes. I want them to be prepared.”

Kerrey said he has become convinced Sen. Chuck Hagel will not be a candidate for a third term next year.

“I am more and more certain Chuck is not going to seek re-election,” Kerrey said, “and my intention is to make my decision before he makes an announcement.”

Hagel is expected to reveal his decision next month.

Kerrey would be the favorite in this open seat race, a chance to give Democrats TWO Senate seats in a state Bush won 66-33 in 2004. Of course, Nelson gives us 50 percent of his votes, but that's 50 percent more than a Republican would, and he doesn't have that annoying habit of some Red state Democrats of running against his party. Nelson simply knows when to quietly vote against it. He doesn't make a spectacle out of trashing Democrats as former Democrat Joe Lieberman used to do.

So we can't expect any electable Democrat from Nebraska to be solid with us on all issues. But we can hope to get someone who doesn't systematically undermine our party brand. So where is Kerrey on the issues, and is he a Liberdem?

Right off the bat, Kerrey is horrible on Iraq. Lieberman horrible. This horrible:

The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) was set up in late 2002 by Bruce Jackson, a director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and former Lockheed Martin vice president. Shortly after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, CLI closed shop, announcing on its website: “Following the successful liberation of Iraq, the committee has ceased its operations." [...]

Although the CLI's advisory panel included several hardline Democrats such as former Rep. Stephen Solarz and former Sen. Robert Kerrey, it was dominated by neoconservatives and Republican Party stalwarts like Jeane Kirkpatrick, Robert Kagan, Newt Gingrich, Richard Perle, William Kristol, and James Woolsey. Serving as honorary co-chairs were Senators Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ).

Quite the lineup, huh? Kerrey, in fact, was instrumental in building "bipartisan" support for the disaster in Iraq, essentially one of the "architects" of the war. And he's still at it, even today.

American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.

With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.

The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes."

Ironically, a Kerrey victory would replace a nominally anti-war voice in Hagel with a virulently pro-war one. And even though Kerrey goes on to say in that op-ed above that Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11, he continues to equate the two, just like he did when first started promoting Bush's war.

What about FISA? Well, Kerrey has criticized those who claim a looser FISA regime would've prevented 9/11.

General Hayden, who as the head of the N.S.A. supervised the intercept program, is seen by many as a competent professional who was too quick to follow orders without asking enough questions. As one senior congressional staff aide said, “The concern is that the Administration says, ‘We’re going to do this,’ and he does it—even if he knows better.” Former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey, who was a member of the 9/11 Commission, had a harsher assessment. Kerrey criticized Hayden for his suggestion, after the Times exposé, that the N.S.A.’s wiretap program could have prevented the attacks of 9/11. “That’s patently false and an indication that he’s willing to politicize intelligence and use false information to help the President,” Kerrey said.

Of course, that doesn't shed much light on whether he would've supported the latest affront to our Constitution, but at least he doesn't seem to buy the nonsense that the only thing that got in the way to preventing 9-11 was a complete shredding of our Constitution.

What about other issues? He's surprisingly strong on gay rights, voting against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 and consistently voting to extend hate crimes and job discrimination protections to matters of sexual orientation. He voted against the flag burning amendment. Voted to support affirmative action. He's been solid on Choice, even voting against the partial-birth nonsense. He's voted against money for abstinence education. He's good on the environment with some exceptions (ANWAR).

He's been one of the chief proponents of privatizing social security. Back in 1996, he was gung-ho as all hell on the issue:

You might think Kerrey, a prominent Democrat, would want a re-elected President Clinton to go to the mat to protect Social Security, the crown jewel of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. But in fact, Kerrey is the chief sponsor of legislation that would begin to "privatize" Social Security, and he wants Clinton's support. Asked whether he's worried about progressive Democrats mobilizing to defend Social Security, Kerrey bristles, "I'll kick the shit out of any liberal who tries that."

Below I have Kerrey's 1998 interest group ratings. In parenthesis, I'm including Ben Nelson's 2004 numbers for comparison purposes. (Nelson replaced Kerrey in the Senate.)

Americans for Democratic Action (liberal group)
95 (65)

ACLU
86 (33)

AFSCME (labor union)
100 (86)

League of Conservation Voters
100 (67)

Concord Coalition (fiscal conservatives, pro-balanced budget)
86 (81)

National Taxpayers Union (conservative anti-tax group)
22 (34)

Chamber of Commerce (conservative pro-big business group)
56 (81)

American Conservative Union
0 (52)

Christian Coalition
0 (83)

In other words, Kerrey is significantly to the Left of Ben Nelson.

But then again, so is Lieberman. Yet Lieberman has been far more damaging to the Democratic Party than Ben Nelson.

Kerrey was one of Lieberman's biggest supporters in 2006, past the primary. But that could be more a function of their shared delusions over Iraq than an endorsement of Lieberman's "undermine from within" approach toward his party. He does, however, like to rail against "liberals". You see it in some of the passages I have excerpted above, on Iraq and social security. In both, "liberals" are the boogeymen that he's trying to kick the shit out of.

So bottom line is that a Kerrey candidacy would give us a top-tier Senate race in Nebraska. If victorious -- and the chances of that would be excellent -- we'd have a relatively liberal Democrat on most issues except for social security and Iraq, where he is on polar opposite sides of not just the Democratic Party, but popular opinion. He'd be a net gain on the issues, but a potential internal critic of the party, and you know how the press loves those. They are sort of lost right now without Lieberman to do the honors.

The alternative would be a Republican whose support we'd have on absolutely nothing, but who wouldn't make a habit of undermining our party from within.

Quite the dilemma.

Update: As noted in the comments, Kerrey voted to confirm David Souter and voted against Clarence Thomas. You've got to give him that at least on Supreme Court justices, Kerrey showed excellent judgment.

Race tracker wiki: NE-Sen