If Ed O’Reilly has a chance to debate John Kerry, we’ll learn that Kerry is not a Massachusetts Democrat! That’s what’s motivating Kerry’s avoidance of debates.
On every major issue, John Kerry fails to uphold MA Democratic platform and principles. Here’s a quick summary:
1) Single-Payer Health Care: The Democratic Party gave the country the original single payer systems: Medicaid, Medicare, and the Veterans Health Administration. Massachusetts Democrats continue to advocate for a single payer health system for all citizens. Party Platform
Ed O’Reilly supports single-payer and would sponsor a Senate companion bill to John Conyers’ House bill. John Kerry does not support single-payer and calls for building up the current public/private system (A Call to Service, by John Kerry, p.125-9, Oct 1, 2003).
2) Withdrawal from Iraq: The Massachusetts Democratic Party supports the withdrawal of all U.S. Armed Forces, contractors and sub-contractors; closing of bases; reorganization of reconstruction activities; promotion of a United Nations-led peacekeeping mission; and limiting of U.S. funding to withdrawal and consultations with the Iraqi Government and other governments. Party Resolution
Ed O’Reilly supports the MA Dem position. John Kerry enabled the Iraq invasion.
3) Marriage Equality: MA Dems affirm a commitment to the Massachusetts constitutional guarantee to same-sex marriage; and all of its rights, privileges and obligations; and reject any attempt to weaken or revoke those rights. Platform
Ed O’Reilly is a firm supporter of marriage equality. John Kerry said the MA Dem commitment to marriage equality was a mistake.
4) Fair Taxes: The MA Dem Platform supports tax equity. Platform
Ed O’Reilly strongly criticized the Democratic failure to close the hedge fund tax loophole in 2007. John Kerry refused to support closing the hedge fund tax loophole, suggesting the hedge funds be given a ten-year grace period before the loophole is closed.
Discuss
14 Comments . Leave a comment below.2 to something like "Authorization of Iraq War". Absolutely John Kerry helped us get into Iraq when he was trying to seem tough on national defense and voted to Authorize the War in Iraq. You do state that "Kerry enabled the Iraq invasion", but some may read the title and think you are trying to imply that Kerry is opposed to Iraq withdrawal now when he's actually changed his stance on that.
Nice post and these are some big issues. They are in our Massachusetts Democratic Party platform and they are at odds with many of John Kerry's positions as you have pointed out.
Oh, and not only does John Kerry not support marriage equality (even though he has no constitutional or logical arguments against it), he actually supported a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality just a few year ago. And this opposition softened recently when O'Reilly challenged him, but the Senator still does not support marriage equality.
... is, first of all, Kerry's vote to authorize the invasion; second, his various wafflings thereafter as he tried to catch up to the polls against the war; third, his ongoing wafflings on related issues: for example -- troop leave-time and maximum deployment; Iran policy.
Your added info on marriage equality emphasizes similar behavior: straddling every issue, afraid to take a stand, always following poll changes.
Kerry does not represent Massachusetts Democrats. He is embarrassed to be from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He won't be able to camouflage this in a face-to-face debate with Ed O'Reilly.
You cite Kerry's 2004 platform in his opposition to single-payer health care.
Has he since "updated" his views?
His campaign site seems to suggest that he supports universal healthcare for children, but does not mention healthcare for all.
Seems like a honest question to ask at a debate.
... and 2007 in a statement entitled "Health care for all Americans":
The URL for this statement http://www.johnkerry.com/2006/7/31/health-care-for-all-americans is now redirected to the Kerry home page. This change happened shortly after O'Reilly's website criticized Kerry's opposition to single-payer last year.
BTW, notice that "health care for all" is not the same as "single-payer health care." Several schemes that protect the insurance industry masquerade under the "for all" label.
The real thing is what real Dems have fought for since Harry Truman proposed it 60 years ago (!) as a continuation of the New Deal.
It's an honest question and a vital one.
Very interesting about the url change! A lot of changes seemed to have happened right when O'Reilly challenged him.
When Kerry was running against Weld, didn't they have something like eight or nine debates? And I certainly remember Kerry calling for weekly (and then monthly) debates with Bush in 2004. What has changed now?
John Kerry is laughing at us all - we should return the favor on September 16th by voting for O'Reilly.
And Bill Weld was a siting Governor, elected by the voters of Massachusetts. By that standard he earned the debates.
Debates against a creditable candidate seem reasonable, challenges from a candidate who has never received a vote statewide only make great campaign theater.
John Kery is making town hall and other campaign stops talking to voters. Given the choice I'd rather have John Kerry talking with and listening to voters then helping his opponent get TV face time.
John Kerry has a responsibility to talk with and even debate voters not his opponent.
Disclaimer - my union has endorsed JK and is working hard for his re-election
to a forum? And he simply doesn't reply.
The guy earned a spot on the ballot. The people have 2 choices, not one. Kerry owes it to the people to debate his opponent so they can see the differences between the two of them. And that stonewalling is exactly why Kerry is being called out by the media.
And what do you have to say to forums? John Kerry is ignoring those calls too. Town hall style forums are there so that the people can get involved and air their concerns with the candidates running.
Take a moment and read this quote from a book that focused on the Kerry-Weld election:
From: Negative Campaigning: An Analysis of U.S. Senate Elections, by Richard R. Lau & Gerald M. Pomper (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004) , p. 100. Google Books excerpt
In comparison to the machine tactics at the Convention that allowed Kerry and his people over 1 hour (!) past the supposed 15 minute time limit, here's what the authors say about debates:
The authors add that debates
Your union might be working for Kerry, but my guess is it was a decision by the cozy leadership and not by the rank and file. Everywhere Ed O'Reilly talks to union members, they like him and his message. If you want to reject a real union man in favor of a pretender, that's your choice. But your pretender doesn't support MA Dem principles. If he wins again, you won't have to wonder when he forgets about you for another six years.
is what JFK is. Whether he thinks O'Reilly is credible or not...he should have a debate instead of having his surrogates come up with lame ass excuses for him.
First we heard how busy he was, and that he couldn't possibly think about debates until the budget was settled...
then we heard that the ball was actually in O'Reilly's court, and that it was O'Reilly's unwillingness to work with Kerry's people that delayed the debate.
Now you're telling us that Mr. O'Reilly is not a "credible" candidate allegedly because he hasn't received a vote statewide before and that Senator Kerry's time is better spent meeting with voters...except as it has been pointed out, he's not making it out to a scheduled candidate's night.
Hmmmmmmm. So let's be clear. Only constitutional office holders are "credible?" You're suggesting that only - the Governor, Lt. Governor, Treasurer, Secretary and the Auditor are considered credible? What if....a Congressman challenged Kerry? Would that be credible? How about a state rep?
My disclaimer: I am a Democrat and a voter in this state who actually believes that all incumbents should be regularly challenged to keep them honest. I also believe that all candidates for office should engage the public through debates, candidate nights, coffee hours, etc.
From Wikipedia - United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 1996:
From The New York Times 14 March 2004 - Kerry Asks Bush for Monthly Debates Until Election Day:
I say it again: what's at stake in this election is the soul of MA Democratic principles. Will MA Dems vote for their own principles?
It's obvious to me, this time around Kerry does not want voters to know where he and Ed O'reilly stand and what they would do.
Yes - would be a good question to ask in a debate if Kerry would agree to debate O'Reilly. What world is Kerry living in? Get back to Massachusetts and debate!
Lots of stories about him in town at events.
... in what Magic Darts wrote:
"stories about him in town at events" is not debate. They are scripted friendly events that don't provide anything like a debate, as quoted from the book about another Kerry campaign:
Voters deserve and need debate, especially when serious issues and a significant political seat are at stake.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Sun 19 May 7:47 PM