John Breaux Should Be Vice President for the Nominee

[Demo Gog]

Alright, I know there is bound to be many who disagree. But hear me out. Breaux would carry Louisiana. 100% gurantee. No doubt about it. And not only Louisiana; probably Arkansas and West Virginia. Maybe an 80% chance.

He's got a solid centrist record. This would be a nice balance if the nominee were one of the more liberal candidates like Clark or Dean. He's also got a fine populist streak that would appeal to many independents and Republicans.

Also, and I know this sounds shallow but it's true, he's extremely likable. He has a southern charm similar to his predecessors, Russell Long and Huey Long.

Edwards/Breaux?
Kerry/Breaux?
Dean/Breaux?
Clark/Breaux?

I'll now put on my teflon, but at least consider it.

[librechik]

1. Why not put Frist on? He could get us lots of Southern votes

Makes = sense.

[aquart]

2. Never. What a disgusting idea.

It's always so smart to reward the turncoat. So maybe next time the knife in your back won't be in so deep?

[BayCityProgressive]

3. Sick!

I pine for the days when he and Zell Miller will be gone from the senate!

[Demo Gog]

4. He's no Zell Miller!

That's unfair. Miller is a turncoat. Breaux's moderate but for chrissakes he's not pure evil. Some people overreact waaaay too much.
He would carry southern states. I cannot emphasize this enough. And he would be VP not President.

So the question is:

How bad do you want to get rid of Bush?

[krkaufman]

5. No go on Breaux

I'd be against it.

It's moot, anyway; I believe Bush has already asked him to stand in for Cheney.

[Demo Gog]

6. Just a general question for those who disagree with this idea...

Does ideology come before party?
Or does part come before ideology?

I'm not being a smartass either.
I'm just wondering, because this IS DEMOCRATIC Underground, right?
For me, party comes first.
Always.
Democrat till the day I die.

[Tinoire]

7. Yeah but where's the underground part?

:shrug:

Breaux is out.

Let me save you some trouble... So is Mary Landrieu.

[Demo Gog]

9. Oh,

I've gotta try to convince someone :)

Landrieu's more liberal, but she wouldn't carry Lousisiana, Arkansas, etc. Breaux would. It's a sacrifice, I know. But it worked for JFK. Politics is all about perception, no matter what anyone tells you. LBJ was "perceived" as conservative. Therefore it was a nice balance to JFK's "perceived" liberalism and they were able to barely defeat Nixon.

And when Johnson ran on his own, he CRUSHED Goldwater and had the most liberal social policy since Wilson. Granted he screwed up royally in Vietnam.

I think Breax would mellow out under one of the aforementioned candidates and really strengthen the ticket.

My $.02

But, alas, it doesn't seem like a very popular idea.

[krkaufman]

41. Marry a man, and expect to change him

> I think Breax would mellow out under one
> of the aforementioned candidates and really
> strengthen the ticket.

This would work about as well as marrying just any old guy, with the expectation that you'll be able to "fix" his flaws once married.

[krkaufman]

40. Ideology or party?

Ummm... ideology. Just as patriotism doesn't equate to nationalism.

To go to a ridiculous extreme, if Hitler were a Democrat should he be the VP? His ideology may be OK within the region that elected him to office, but the Democratic Party needs to have a core set of values for which we're fighting -- otherwise, it's just a label. (see: Zell Miller)

[countmyvote4real]

8. Interesting choice and not unprecedented...

Get some old koot to add some moderation/authenticity to the untested nominee.

Dukakis/Bentsen
Gore/Lieberman
Bush/Cheney

In the latter case, I think it was a bait and switch tactic.

I don't think we need to resort to that. All (or most) of our candidates are strong and would be terrific on their own at the top of the ticket. And when the right combination is finally sorted out, it gets even better. We've already got great possibilities without having to do the old koot thing.

[kclown]

10. Dems' best choice: Charlie Rangel

Our only hope in the south is to maximize black votes.  I
can't see how we could lose with Clark/Rangel.  Kerry/Rangel
is ok but lacks geographic balance.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

11. Congressman Sanford Bishop of Georgia would be a good....

geographical balance!

[Demo Gog]

12. Actually,

That's not a bad idea. Bishop's more moderate and would give a nice balance to the ticket. Same for Georgia's AG, Thubert Baker, who I think is definitely going places, and someday might be able to carry some southern states. He SHOULD run for that open Senate seat. I think he would have the best shot of any Democrat in the state.

But for now, I still think John Breaux should at least be a legitimate option.

[flaminbats]

20. What about Michael Thurmond?

appointed by Republican Zell Miller, he has now endorsed a Democrat for President...

[ButterflyBlood]

33. no, worst possible choice

if he didn't start talking about reinstating the draft maybe, but now any ticket with him is going to be anathema to young people and soccer moms. more proof he made a huge screw up there.

[peaceandjustice]

43. No, Andrew Young

I've been pushing for Andrew Young for a while and will continue, he'd, maximize black turnout, offer Kerry or Dean geographical balance but more important, as a former UN ambassador would further provide opportunity to attack the diplomatic failures of Bush/Cheney.

[mndemocrat_29]

13. All right

I actually think that Breaux would make a pretty fair addition to the ticket, but only under certain candidates. He would not work well with Dean, where they would be too much of extremes (I doubt that Breaux would even run with Dean). However, I could definitely see him running with either of his colleagues in the Senate (Kerry or Edwards), as well as Wesley Clark. While I'd much rather have a different candidate on the bottom of the ticket (that'd be you Sen. Mary Landrieu), I still think that Breaux is definitely a plausible option. Sen. Breaux couldn't ever win the presidential nomination, but as a VP candidate he would shore up Louisiana, Arkansas, and West Virginia (all Bush states in 2000 that could go our way in 2004). I also don't think that the New England base (which did go for Clinton/Gore) would switch to Bush over this (especially if Kerry is the top of the ticket). I do have two questions however:

1. How are his stances on agriculture and where would they sit among Midwestern states, particularly the swing states of Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin?

2. Do you also believe that For. Sen. Sam Nunn (whose name has been floated around as a potential VP) would also make a good candidate?

[Demo Gog]

15. Thank you mndemocrat_29,

for the thoughtful analysis. And you raise good points. Dean/Breaux would probably be highly unlikely, but the other three are, indeed, plausible. Kerry/Breaux would not cost us New England, but I don't think Edwards/Breaux or Clark/Breaux would either. An all southern ticket was effective in getting rid of the first Bush. I think it could work now, too. Clark/Breaux would add Arkansas to the "Guarantee" column, and I think Edwards/Breaux would do the same for North Carolina.

I know it's tough. Most of us are liberals. But Breaux has experience, reaches across party lines (for better or worse), and would help pick-up some valuable southern states. Desperate times call for desperate measures, as they say. I'd rather have a "moderate liberal/moderate conservative" ticket than a "far right conservative/far right conservative ticket."

Priority one, for me anyway, is chimp removal.

Now for your questions (to the best of my ability):
1) One of the areas where Breaux IS liberal is agriculture.
This is taken from his official website:
"Senator John Breaux has always been an active supporter of federal programs because they are critical to farmers producing for the domestic market and competing on a fair trade basis in international markets."

2) Nunn I like alright, but Georgia seems to be drifting farther and farther away from us, and I don't know if he could carry other southern states. But, I could be wrong.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. Not Sam Nunn, no, no, no!

One of the worst Reagan enablers of the 1980s.

[genius]

14. John Breaux is a Bush patsy. Why would we want him?

We have enough Republicrats in our party without picking one for VP.

[NewJerseyDem]

16. I don't think you can be so sure

I don't think that Breaux would guarantee a victory in any of those states including Louisiana. There are no certainties in politics and I'm not so sure how much people care about who is going to be the vice president.

I just think that Breaux is too conservative to work. There would be constant questioning by the media about does he agree with the nominee on certain issues and he would have to say that he doesn't when it comes to abortion, gay rights, the environment, taxes, medicare and much more. Then the republicans would use these disagreements to benefit them.

I have nothing against John Breaux. He is a fine senator from a fairly conservative state and I was hoping that he would run for reelection. But, I just don't see it as being practical. What happens if he has to break a tie in the Senate? If he votes against the president's wishes it would be VERY embarrasing and would be used by the republicans as well.

Also, I doubt that Breaux would run. If he wanted to remain so active in national politics he would have run for reelection.

[kwolf68]

17. SCREW THE DAMN SOUTH

Does ANY-freaking-ONE think the Dems will (or can) do anything much in the South?

The South? Resident to Georgia the same state with a "Democratic" Senator endorsing Chimp...Georgia, the same state with numerous "Democratic" state representatives endorsing Chimp.

Or how about Mississippi? Yep, the same state who brought us the fun-time sport of setting black churches on fire have elected 2 men to leadership positions with connections to racist organizations.

The South? Maybe Texas? Home of King Chimp himself?

Or how about "Segregation Now, Segregation Forever" Alabama?

Of course we always can count on the votes of South Carolina-home of the right-wing racist Bob Jones University.

How do you suppose we win these type of states? HOW? Run so far to the right we fall off into a pile of pig shit. Talk about "God", "Guns" and "Guts", whatever the hell that pablum means? The same SOUTH who would vote for David Duke if allowed to run?

Instead of even landing a plane in any of the aforementioned states the Dems need to go to Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Mizzou, Wisconson, Iowa, Indiana, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida (only SOUTH geographically) and a few more "in play" states and invest everything we have in those 10 or so "decider" states. Hold serve in our Liberal strongholds (New York, Cali, Mass, Illinois, Hawaii, New Jersey, etc) and nab some of those mid-western states and we can win this thing without bending over for the Bob Jones Crowd.

I am sorry, but instead of kowtowing to rednecks, I'd like to win over the folks who actually use their head for something other than storing fleas.

[flaminbats]

18. Breaux is a compassionate conservative, in the true meaning of the word!

Democrats like Bill Nelson, Chaffee, Jeffords, Jim Cooper, or Mark Pryor are closer to what I define as centrists.

There are several problems with having Breaux on the ticket...first is that he voted for Shrub's tax cuts, this would undermine any Presidential candidate making a case for the complete or even partial repeal of these tax-cuts. He has a mixed record on Roe vs. Wade and was a solid supporter of the U.S. Patriot Act along with the creation of the department of homeland defense..an issue which I think has created a backlash among libertarians and moderates against shrub.

I agree John Breaux would bring some benefits to the ticket, he introduced a health care plan..which has become a model for the Kerry, Dean, Clark, and Lieberman proposals. He would provide a boost for candidates like Dean or Kerry in states like Louisiana and Arkansas, but I think it would be a mistake to put him on the same ticket as Edwards, Clark, or Lieberman. Finally..I think having John Breaux in the next administration would be better than losing this intelligent voice in our party, although populist isn't a word I use to describe him!

[Demo Gog]

19. Except he's quitting the Senate,

which isn't good.

[flaminbats]

21. I agree...

especially since his replacement..whether a Democrat or Republican, may be even more rightwing! :smoke:

[Demo Gog]

22. Still

myself, being a DEMOCRAT, I hope it's a DEMOCRAT, because again, I am a DEMOCRAT.

[flaminbats]

23. what????

I think we need a translator...:shrug:

[Demo Gog]

Sorry

It's just that because I'm a Democrat, I think a Democrat would be better in office than a Republican, no matter how conservative they are. I know this is new thinking to most of you at DU.

I'm not attacking you personally, flaminbats, it's just been a frustrating night.

[flaminbats]

26. Interesting...this was the logic used by Billy Tauzin in Congress..

Sonny Perdue, Phil Gramm, and people like Richard Shelby...they were Democrats In Name Only.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

[Demo Gog]

27. ....sigh.....

[flaminbats]

28. Another example of bible thumping morality...

others call them hell-burning values. O8)

[Demo Gog]

29. I'll admit it

You lost me. I'm the least religious person you'll ever meet. What did I say that conjured up the phrase, "bible thumping morality?"

[flaminbats]

31. I'm merely pointing out that we create our own hell...

Talk to any so-called yellow dog who backed Phil Gramm, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, or Zell Miller! And don't get me wrong...I know Richard Shelby is only a rat in comparison to John Breaux. But there is a difference, and any voter who can't see this is blind.

[OHdem10]

24. )00h NOOO

I am so sorry but after the votes he has cast and the deals he has worked with Bush. I am Southern--Let the south secede. Go WVA Ohio and across Arkansas--this is south. then go on. We pmly won La on race last time. I give you Bobby Jyndahl.

[Demo Gog]

25. Well, put and coherent argument!

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[carpetbagger]

30. Senator, D-LA, but the wrong one.

Mary Landrieu is far stronger for the following reasons:

1. Hasn't been in bed with Bush
2. Has a track record of winning elections against surrogates for Bush.
3. Better VP-slot pit bull for the ticket.
4. Better at firing up the base, especially w/ black voters, based on past elections
5. Female, especially when our front-runners seem to be the candidates who do weakest among women who intend to vote in the democratic primary.
6. Better on the issues, and manages to peg the duality that we need to peg to win, i.e. populist and centrist.

P.S. I think the strongest tickets for each of the remaining viable candidates are these:

Clark/Landrieu
Dean/Gephardt
Edwards/Richardson
Kerry/Clark

[flaminbats]

32. I disagree...

Landrieu is just as mixed on the issue of choice as is John Breaux. Landrieu has cosponsered legislation to ban stem cell research, legislation which has created corporate loopholes so large..they could rocket a Saturn V through, and Landrieu has done little work on healthcare reform...as has John Breaux. Although I am not a huge fan of Breaux, at least I can think of a few redeeming qualities.

[davidinalameda]

35. amen to that!

first of all, I would love to see a racial minority on the ticket.

I'm sick to death of seeing all white tickets in this day and age. Get some freaking diversity up there--we have some great candidates--Harold Ford comes to mind.

if not that, why not a Mary Landrieau?

she has faced the Bush/Rove machine head on and won. Could you imagine her and VP Dick in a debate? She'd kick his ass all the way back to Wyoming!

and that seat would stay safely Democratic

[peaceandjustice]

44. Harold Ford's not eligible, too young (n/t)

[White Mountain]

42. Baloney

Landrieu was barely re-elected in Lousiana whereas Breaux is a giant there. She is a mediocre campaigner/debater whereas Breaux has a lot of poise and gravitas.

There is always Edwin Edwards!

[ButterflyBlood]

34. wouldn't work

it'd piss of NARAL and the base too much. also it'd be too easy to attack the nominee due to his conservative stances, just say "well your running mate agrees with you, why can't you be more sensible?"

plus it seems like he wants to quit politics for good anyway.

[NewJerseyDem]

37. NARAL would be upset

I think that back in 2000 Evan Bayh was on the short list to be Gore's running mate but he was taken off by NARAL and others for his support of the partial-birth abortion ban. I'm sure that would be a lot angrier to have Breaux who is 100% anti-abortion as the running mate. Remember when people didn't want Bob Casey to speak at the national convention. Well, the vice presidential nominee would certainly be more controversial than that.

[SoCalDem]

36. He's Georgie's little pal.. No thanks..He'd have to dislodge his lips

from Chimpie's ASS..:eyes:

Mr Breaux needs to leave....and tuck ole Zell and a few others under his arms when he goes..

[nator311]

39. too boring

well, at least from what I've seen of him on tv. Mary Landrieu, Evan Bayh, or even Mark Pryor, would make stronger nominees from the south or midwestern region

[WI_DEM]

45. Not only No, but Hell, No

I'd take Lieberman again over him.

[cosmicdot]

46. Yikes

and/or Yipes!

hypothetically considering the match-ups
you went with:

Edwards/Breaux?
Kerry/Breaux?
Dean/Breaux?
Clark/Breaux?

assuming Dean and Clark are out

leaving
Edwards
Kerry

honestly? I'd go with the Edwards
no to Breaux
add Kucinich

Breaux has integrity issues imo