Charley and I chatted yesterday for about half an hour with our junior Senator about war, wind, the web, marriage, and Alberto the Insult Comic Attorney General. Kerry rose to a passionate pitch on Iraq and the environment, but was unfortunately elusive when it came to specifics about Cape Wind, marriage, the impeachment of Gonzales, and the possible acquisition of The Wall Street Journal by Fox News. The call was arranged by new Online Communications Director Brian Young (thanks, Brian!).
“There is a pent up demand for almost every thing that matters in politics,” Kerry began. He ticked off his four main priorities: end the war in Iraq (he voted No on the most recent appropriations bill, to his enormous credit, and promised another fight in a few weeks on its successor); make America more fair (he cited the increasing disparity of wealth and the cost of tuition); health care; and environmental issues (he cited climate change, depleted fisheries, and water pollution).
So far, so good, but let’s see what happened when the rubber hit the road.
What’s your view of the internet? “This is an incredibly powerful liberating force for political accountability. It can connect the dots for a lot of people who don’t trust the system and for whom politicians have actually become suspect validators.” Kerry said a Boston-based team is building a system that will, “Partner with MoveOn, VoteVets and others in a collaborative to way to try to reach out to bloggers across the country.” I look forward to seeing it.
On balance, I was impressed by Kerry as I have been for years. I am proud to have worked for his 2004 campaign. I wish, however, that he would be more aggressive. What does he have to lose? He has one of the safest seats in the country, an enormous personal fortune, and a lifetime of honor and achievement. He should put his environmental pronouncements into action by supporting Cape Wind precisely because it is in Nantucket sound; support marriage in Massachusetts precisely because it is such a fraught national issue; advocate the impeachment of Gonzales because he is such an insult; and do whatever he can to block Murdoch’s expansion in this country precisely because Fox News is a platform for racists and a Republican hate machine. You love challenges, Senator: rise to those of this moment.
laurel says
Wow, I’m sorry, but that is the most pathetic excuse for not removing a criminal from the head of our justice department. Is he saying that “the media” is somehow wise? Then he should indeed work to impeach Alberto and replace him forthwith with Sanjaya.
charley-on-the-mta says
He mentioned that as evidence of the Bush administration’s stonewalling, and how it actually seems to work. I didn’t take that as an excuses for inaction on his part. I was struck by his reticence to even consider impeachment right now — he stuck to the next step ahead, which is the no confidence vote. Obviously, we pushed to the next step, but he wasn’t willing to go there.
laurel says
the way it is reported above, it does indeed look like he is saying that congress is slow going on Gonzales because there is no hew & cry from the media.
charley-on-the-mta says
I was on the call, and that’s not what he was saying. Again, he wasn’t using that as an excuse. It was an expression of frustration.
laurel says
and that being the case, you have accidentally misrepresented his meaning by the way the post is written. to my reading at least.
david says
I wasn’t on the call either. But regardless, who the f&*# cares whether “the media” is pushing for impeachment? The Congress should be doing so because it’s the right thing to do. They should be leading. For heaven’s sake, the media wasn’t exactly beating down the door for Clinton to be impeached — didn’t stop the Republicans from doing it.
bob-neer says
His point was that Congress wasn’t doing more because no one — at least as measured by media outrage (and I guess the NYT editorial page doesn’t count) — seemed to care that much that Gonzales was still in office. Thus, there wasn’t much action. What is that if not an excuse. Moreover, as Laurel and David point out, if he wanted to do more — like for example, call for his impeachment — he could … and should!
charley-on-the-mta says
But Bob, you have transposed the order of Kerry’s quotes. He mentioned the lack of media outcry in relation to, and right after mentioning BushCo’s “stonewalling” — not necessarily in direct relation to Congress’ actions or lack thereof.
<
p>
This is from my notes — paraphrases — which are incomplete but in order:
<
p>
bob-neer says
No media outcry, no pressure on Congress, no move to impeach. I think he also meant that was evidence of effective stonewalling. They are not mutually exclusive.
<
p>
The broader point, however, is that he was saying that the reason Congress isn’t moving more aggressively to impeach Gonzales is because there is no national outcry that they must do so. I think he is exactly right — both about the lack of an outcry, and about the reason for lack of action by Congress. Do you disagree?
<
p>
There is a separate question about what he personally should be doing. In my opinion, he should press aggressively for impeachment. He obviously does not think so — no doubt why he is the Senator and I am the blogger …
fairdeal says
after all, there was no hue and cry to hand george w.bush a blank check to start a war, but he went ahead and did it anyway.
charley-on-the-mta says
No hue and cry? Were you awake in 2002?
<
p>
And yes, I was so angry at Kerry for that vote that I actually voted for some protest candidate.
fairdeal says
or at least i was when i was marching down boylston st. along with about 30,000 strangers who were imploring their representatives to stop the rush to war.
<
p>
and what did my representatives do?
<
p>
well, mike capuano spoke out forcefullly and unequivocally in favor of his constituents obvious will. and ted kennedy spoke out forcefully and unequivocally in favor of his constituents obvious will. and john kerry consulted his campaign advisors, measured how the media’s reaction might adversely his own career goals, and then chose to betray the people who sent him to washington to represent them. all for personal political gain.
<
p>
oh yeah, john kerry is a fine man.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
peter-porcupine says
bob-neer says
That’s his pet name for you, anyway. But I didn’t want to blow your cover by discussing it in the body of the post.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
raj says
So, speaking of the lapdog media, should the federal government investigate the planned purchase of the Wall Street Journal by Murdoch/Fox News?
<
p>
Most if not all of the relevant (i.e., financial) information available from the WSJ is available pretty much for free over the Internet. The WSJ’s cachet lapsed over a dozen years ago. If it were not used for coffee tables in business offices while people are waiting for their meetings, it’s probable that the newspaper would have died out long ago. Its only continuing claim to fame is its idiotorial page, something that is pretty much available at opinionjournal.com. I stopped reading it when it became obvious that the idiotorial page was populated by a bunch of idiots.
<
p>
As to the purchase by Murdoch, recall that he bought the London Times a number of years ago. After a bit of controversy, things seem to have settled out. As far as I can tell, Murdoch is more interested in money than ideology. He started Faux News as a counterpart to CNN, probably because if Faux News came in as CNN-lite, nobody would pay attention to Faux News. They’re all stupid, and that’s one reason that I get more than a bit of my news coverage from foreign sources.
charley-on-the-mta says
is one of the few media companies that’s doing quite well on the internet, because it charges for its content. And people are still willing to pay. So I’m not aware that their business is cratering, and it still enjoys a terrific reputation for its reporting, which is indeed “reality based” — unlike the loony op-ed page. The joke goes that the op-ed page doesn’t read the rest of the paper.
raj says
cannoneo says
Among non-U.S. news sources, The Times (London) ranks very low on my go-to list; it has become a mediocre paper across the board. The WSJ’s editorialists are insane, but its long-form reporting, in substance and writing quality, is practically unmatched in a daily.
raj says
…for English language press, I go to the London Guardian. For foreign language (German) press I go to Der Spiegel, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, sometimes the FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) Deutsche Welle, N-TV, Euro News….
karen says
At the Saturday, June 16th Community Forum on Iraq with Sen. Kerry (hosted by the Natick Democratic Town Committee, the senator will hold a lengthy Q&A session with the audience, and the questions don’t have to focus only on Iraq.
<
p>
I saw the senator speak at the recent Democratic Convention in Amherst, and it was eye opening. He was eloquent, concise, funny, and passionate. Where was he in 2004? And he had just come back from a 96-mile bike-a-thon.
<
p>
So come and ask questions!
<
p>
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Walnut Hill School
Keiter Performing Arts Center
12 Highland St.
Natick
<
p>
Doors open at 3:30; program starts promptly at 4:00pm (forum is scheduled through 5:30pm).
<
p>
Please RSVP, and feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions.
<
p>
karen
jwinthrop says
hey Bob – wake up. Look yeah it’s fun to get on a phone with a Senator and it shows someone in his office told him to talk to a blogger but seriously.
<
p>
this is a guy who ran for office, lost, kept 15 million so he can run again – losers don’t get to keep other’s people’s money
<
p>
He VOTED for the war because he WANTED TO BE PRESIDENT. He didn’t read the intelligence report because he knew he was going to vote for it get it?
<
p>
Now, he’s NOT FOR GAY MARRIAGE BECAUSE HE WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT.
<
p>
He goes on FOX all the time.
<
p>
He’ll run for President in 2008 – just watch.
<
p>
I read this interview and I was like – this is pathetic – shouldn’t our Senator know something or talk about something about Massachusetts?
bob-neer says
What? You don’t think we should have interviewed him? You want to run for Senator? You gave Kerry $500 and now you want it back?
justobserving says
Kerry says “You’ve gotta vote and let the chips fall where they may.” (We’ll get back to that.) Then he says “we” lost 300,000 votes in Ohio on the gay marriage issue — presumably because an anti-gay marriage amendment was on the ballot.
<
p>
So, it sounds like Kerry has joined the “Let the People Vote” mob while at the same time claiming he lost because of just such an amendment. Thanks Senator, but that’s not the kind of leadership we were hoping for.
<
p>
Wouldn’t it make more sense to finally take a tough stand on gay marriage and show some leadership by saying it’s wrong to put someone else’s rights on the ballot? That it’s wrong to expose the children of LGBT couples to the hateful media campaign that such a ballot amendment will produce. That we don’t want more anti-gay hate crimes such as the one in Lowell last Saturday –http://www.takemassa…
<
p>
Shouldn’t he say that he hopes the legislature will defeat the amendment by whatever means necessary and save our state from millions pouring in from Focus on the Family, Concerned Women of America, Family Research Council, Pat Robertson and spirits of Jerry Falwell?
<
p>
And how cavalier can he get about risking someone else’s fundamental right to marriage by saying “let the chips fall where they may.” He gets several marriages but he’s willing to let other people’s right to marry be taken away?
<
p>
Just maybe, Senator, “we” didn’t lose 300,000 in Ohio because of gay marriage. Maybe you lost 300,000 votes because you wouldn’t stand up and take a tough stand. The voters sensed your wishy-washy “positions” on gay marriage, abortion rights and other fundamental issues and they rejected you.
<
p>
If you keep doing what you’ve been doing, you can expect to keep getting what you’ve been getting – defeat.