December 8, 2006

Pass the squash.

Page 6 (via The Corner):
[John] Kerry, who desperately wants to run again for president, had a dozen big-bucks Democrats to his Georgetown townhouse for pot roast and butternut squash.

According to a source who knows one of the attendees, Kerry started off by asking guests if he should run or not: "When no one answered, he launched into a speech about why he was the best candidate."
More squash, please?

10 comments:

Gerry said...

Pass on the squash.

knoxgirl said...

Maybe he and Perot oughta team up.

AllenS said...

Please run, John.

drew said...

One might presume that the people at Sen. Kerry's dinner party were trying to be polite by not speaking up - else they might have been obliged to say something along the lines of "...What are you, crazy?"

Nonetheless, when confronted with this situation, Kerry merely plowed forward into what he wanted to say anyway.

There's nothing worse than politicians whose minds are already made up, irrespective of the facts on the ground.

MadisonMan said...

From Page 6: Most of the people in the room believe he is not only the best candidate for 2008, but was also the best candidate in 2004

What denialists! Wouldn't the best candidate in 2004 do something like, oh, I don't know, win?

Theo Boehm said...

And the rest is silence....

Robert said...

No, MadisonMall, that distinction is reserved, not for the _best_ candidate, but the one who received the most electoral votes.

The relationship of the two factors is tangential, at best.

Unless you're indicating that, by definition, the 'best' candidate also won in '92 and '96.

Revenant said...

No, MadisonMall, that distinction is reserved, not for the _best_ candidate, but the one who received the most electoral votes

I guess that depends on whether you think the purpose of nominating a candidate is to feel good about yourself or to actually get somebody elected who will support the policies you do.

Robert said...

Revenant,
I was addressing MadisonMan's post

"What denialists! Wouldn't the best candidate in 2004 do something like, oh, I don't know, win?"

I was contesting the apparent assumption that there's a connection of some sort between 'best candidate' and 'candidate who wins'. If you assume that appealing to a section of the populace such that you gain a majority of electoral vote is, in some sense, congruent with 'best', then yes, that connection is apparent.

If you engage in counterfactual speculation and consider that, for example, the country might have been better off as a whole if Nixon had won in '60 (or, conversely, lost in '68) then you could, and probably would, argue otherwise.

I don't see any necessary connection between 'Candidate X won' and 'Candidate X was the best candidate'.

Rowena Hullfire said...

Proven loser!