AP/ February 11, 2009, 5:43 PM

Kerry Says He's Not Out Of The '08 Race

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry insisted on Sunday his "botched joke" about President George W. Bush's Iraq policy would not undermine a possible White House campaign in 2008.

"Not in the least," Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, said when asked if the furor over his comment had caused him to reconsider a 2008 race. "The parlor game of who's up, who's down, today or tomorrow, if I listened to that stuff, I would never have won the nomination."

One of the Republican politicians mentioned in a crowded field for the White House, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, said he would not make a decision until September — a relatively late date in the campaign cycle — to focus in the private sector on trade policies.

"We have lots of time for personal ambition," the Georgia Republican said. "And I think an awful lot of this early energy is wasted, and we ought to be focusing on, you know, how are you going to compete with China and India, how are you going to solve the problem in Iraq?"

Gingrich said Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, both of whom have set up presidential exploratory committees, were the likely front-runners of the Republican Party. But Gingrich said voters are yearning for a clearer conservative voice.

"I think Mitt Romney has an opportunity to fill that," Gingrich said, referring to the outgoing Massachusetts governor.

McCain said Giuliani was an "American hero" for his leadership in New York following the Sept. 11 attacks. But McCain called himself the best presidential candidate based on a "record of being a conservative Republican, of knowledge on national security and defense issues."

McCain, who supports a ban on abortion except in cases of rape, incest and to save a mother's life, said he doubted a constitutional amendment could pass but that one would not be needed because "it's very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could — overturn Roe v. Wade." He was referring to the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that established a woman's right to abortion.

The high court is deciding this term whether to uphold a 2003 federal law banning the procedure opponents call "partial-birth" abortion in a case conservatives hope could be used to reverse the landmark 1973 abortion-rights decision.

At least two conservatives, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, have called on Roe to be overturned. Legal analysts have said if the court issues an anti-abortion ruling, justices would be more likely to impose restrictions rather than abolish the right.

"I'm a federalist," McCain said. "Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don't believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade."

McCain called the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gays "very effective." He said he opposed gay marriage, but as to civil unions, "people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that people who have relationship can enter into."

Kerry said he would decide early next year whether to run for president.

Shortly before the Nov. 7 elections that brought Democrats back into power in the House and Senate, Kerry retreated from public view following his remark to a college audience that young people might get "stuck in Iraq" if they do not study hard and do their homework.

"This is over. This was a misstatement. All of us make them in life. You wish you could have it back, but you can't," the senator said Sunday.

Kerry said Sunday he had made the decision to keep a low profile after the White House attacked the joke as insulting to U.S. troops and several Democrats called the comment a needless distraction before the pivotal congressional elections.

"Since we had very close races, I made the decision to make certain that I didn't distract. The results speak for themselves," he said.

On running in 2008, Kerry said he had not yet made a decision whether to set up an exploratory committee.

"Right now, my focus will be what happened on election day," he said, citing a need to work toward solutions on Iraq, energy independence and health care. "The American people are waiting for us to lift up an enormous challenge."

Both Kerry and Gingrich appeared on "Fox News Sunday." McCain was on "This Week" on ABC.
© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
52 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
fleshmonger5 says:
I am ashamed to admit that I voted for Kerry in the last election. I feel ashamed because of the way he deserted the people who supported him and more importantly the democratic process by how he refused to fight the results of an election that he knew to be flawed. That is the proof of how he really feels about democracy. We should all take note...
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
ixoye_02 says:
It's too bad that there are people who can't see through the bull that the Liar in Chief has been spewing. Albeit a bold idea to establish democracy in the middle east. Bush's poor judgement and planning didn't plan on securing Iraq after the invasion. I don't think there is anything unpatriotic about criticizing the decision makers that send our troops into harms way without enough equipment or planning to secure victory. Certainly the soldier is the one who decides to serve his country. Let's hope that our leaders honor that commitment by thinking and planning before sending any soldier into battle. In the Iraq war, the battle was over oil and not establishing democracy. Bush didn't have to invade when he did. And his timing was carefully planned to maximize the political impact. And those who say that we shouldn't second guess the military commanders, I ask, "Why would you send in our forces without adequate preparation, equipment, and planning?"
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
bushrocks1 says:
Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to WW II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. As a hypothetical, I can say, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country who can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front, being a big one. But now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?... I'm waiting.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
grumpas says:
Your right huskerarmy on whatever Democrat runs! It will be a barage of lies and half-truths designed to win over the ignorant voting public! How intelligent people could listen to anything the GOP has to say leaves me to wonder about American's intelligence! They have grown to care more for their political party than they care about this country! I know just how patriotic most of them are! This is why we are fast becoming a "Banana Republic" full of corrupt politician's, hijacked elections and secretive government who doesn't feel obligated to answer to the people! Because of GOP dirty politic's that people buy into all the time! Things aren't going to change until people start rejecting such behavior and vote for someone else! Only then will they get the message it isn't profitable!
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
huskerarmy says:
"Yes, he went to Vietnam but did not serve a full tour."

This is nothing more than a dishonest, clumsy and political attempt to minimize the service of a decorated American veteran. Discraceful!
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
huskerarmy says:
"If you go back and listen to his comments about the military, you will find that he is no friend of the military."

IF you go back and look at his voting record, you will find that he has been a great friend to military veterans. The military is nothing without the men and women who serve in it.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
huskerarmy says:
"But now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?... I'm waiting."

That's like sticking a ball in my hand and then saying "Why are you holding that ball?" A bit childish don't you think? Nobody ever said "Bring them home this very second." Did they?

And calling anyone who doesn't support this phony war a "traitor" is no different than calling for one party rule. We still execute traitors don't we? I am old enough to remember when reactionaries called those who opposed the Viet Nam war, supported civil rights, or opposed the Joseph McCarthey witch hunt as "traitors." The very concept of democracy in your paradigm has been relegated to a religion of absolute truth and the all knowing state. What you espouse is in fact the antithesis of democracy. I fought for this country in war just so I could have the right to criticize it. When the day comes that I've lost that right, then I truely would have fought in vain. Nobody who is defending the occupation of Iraq as an act of "national defense" does so without considerable contortion of fact and reason. And when our country commits our young men and women to a war for an unjust purpose, it is by the desire of the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America our patriotic and indeed democratic duty to speak out against it.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
the74blaster says:
It%u2019s an interesting point of view to call anyone who does not agree with the president unpatriotic or a traitor, considering our constitution.

After all if our forefathers had not disagreed with King George in 1776 would our country even exist?

Why is it that disagreement then is considered patriotic and now it%u2019s unpatriotic to disagree with the Bush administration?

Does that make me unpatriotic for voting for democrats to voice my disapproval of the GOP?

The fact is that we live in a free country and expression of a position that the country is heading in the wrong direction does not make anyone unpatriotic or a traitor.

Apparently many others felt the same and voted the GOP majority out of congress. It%u2019s refreshing to see that Americans are starting to hold the politicians accountable for their record, regardless of what Rush Limbaugh says.

Hopefully, the Democrats will see the light and do something that%u2019s in our country%u2019s best interest.

The GOP got what it deserved with this mid-term election.


reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
joeshields56 says:
Kerry may say that "He's Not Out Of The '08 Race" but he is, just as Adlai Stevens was out of the '56 race but mistakenly ran again (and lost again). It is as obvious as a thing can be in politics.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
bushrocks1 says:
Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to WW II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. As a hypothetical, I can say, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed but maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country who can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front, being a big one. But now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?... I'm waiting.
reply
See all 52 Comments