I’m challenging John Kerry in the Democratic primary because I think Massachusetts deserves real leadership in the U.S. Senate. I also think the people of Massachusetts deserve someone who talks straight and whose policies come from the heart and not from a political playbook. We now know that John Kerry’s vote on Iraq exemplified that kind of calculation, aimed not at what was in the interest of the nation, but on his own personal political ambition in running for President. Mr. Kerry currently criticizes some of the very policies he voted for–now that it’s safe to do so.
John Kerry has also been vocal on the environment and the issue of global climate change. Let me be clear. He’s had a decent record on environmental issues and he’s said a lot of the right things. We in Massachusetts would expect no less from our representative. Words are great and he’s said a lot of them. He’s even got a book. But, rhetoric is no match for true leadership.
So, let’s look at where he stands on global climate change. He’s filed legislation together with a Maine Republican Senator which is called the Kerry-Snowe bill. It’s not a bad bill. But, it is far from the best bill. The best bill, which I support, is the Boxer-Sanders Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act. This bill would start reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 and, by 2050 would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level 80 percent below the 1990 levels. Environmentalists embrace the Boxer-Sanders bill as the “gold standard”. Why is that? Here’s what the Union of Concerned Scientists had to say:
“This bill lays out a positive vision for the deep reductions needed to leave our children and grandchildren a safe climate.”
Human activity-burning fossil fuels and the cutting down of forests releases CO2 that blankets the earth and traps heat. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased greatly over the last century and global temperatures are rising as a result. Scientific evidence suggests if atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases stabilize at or below 450 parts per million (ppm CO2 equivalent), we have a good chance of holding global average temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) and averting the most severe impacts of global warming.
Counting on people not to understand the difference between his own bill and the “gold standard”, John Kerry recently described his legislation as more “realistic” than the Boxer-Sanders bill. If so, then Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Christopher Dodd and twelve other members of the Senate (and all the other Democratic candidates for President) must be unrealistic, since they support the Boxer-Sanders bill. It’s hard to call yourself a leader when one-third of your Democratic colleagues in the Senate are in line ahead of you.
The goal of stopping global warming will be one of the greatest challenges ever to face our nation and the world. Without question, we need to work hard to make sure that in protecting our children, their children and all future generations, we do everything possible to minimize the impact on our economy. I believe we can and will achieve both goals. How? We can do it with broad investments in new technology, in retraining our workforce to operate new energy sources and with the most aggressive energy efficiency programs which save both money and the environment at the same time.
I’ve been studying how other countries and states are leading on the climate change issue. California, for example, has kept per capita electricity consumption flat over the past 30 years, even while its population has gone up 60% and at a time when per-capita energy use has skyrocketed in the rest of the U.S., as well as the rest of the world. How did they do this? California has strong energy efficiency standards for buildings and appliances and other innovative efficiency programs. Their economy has not suffered and, in fact, it has flourished. Actually, California has whole new industries based upon energy efficiency and renewable energy. Massachusetts, with our intellectual and technological resources, can not only meet such a goal, but we also have the potential to lead the country and the world. This is where true leaders must call upon the ingenuity and the spirit of the American people.
We need representatives who aren’t afraid to lead. I can tell you right now that I won’t be worried about making people angry in Iowa or in Michigan or in the coal producing states when tackling the issue of global warming.
Finally, if John Kerry decides after reading this that it’s safe now to be the 18th member of the Senate to embrace the “gold standard” of environmental leadership, I won’t mind one bit. Our children and their children will be better for it.
Ed O?Reilly
Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate from, and for, Massachusetts
lolorb says
Leadership
<
p>
Vision
<
p>
Mission
<
p>
Goals
<
p>
Change is not going to happen with the same old play-it-safe attitudes. People need to see someone leading the charge, and that definitely includes challenging the existing mentality. Let’s make it happen, time is wasting.
ed-oreilly says
Thank you for your endorsement. We are not alone here. As I have traveled across this great Commonwealth the last several months, one theme that stands out is that the people are ahead of most politicians. It seems that special interests have taken the place of reason and the voice of the people has been muffled. This is going to change and I am ready to do my part.
<
p>
Let’s keep it simple. We need to get our troops out of Iraq immediately. We need a single payer health insurance program, we need the Boxer-Sanders climate change bill, we need de-centralized renewable energy, and we need politicians that are listening and working with the spirit of the American people. It is time to take our country back.
<
p>
Leadership
Vision
Mission
Goals
Change
<
p>
Thank you.
<
p>
Ed O’Reilly
Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate from, and for, Massachusetts
petr says
<
p>
I’m sorry… must’ve missed it… what part of “John Kerry isn’t perfect” provides, as you say, vision, mission and goals?
<
p>
<
p>
It’s worth noting, then, that building a campaign based solely on the perception of your opponents weaknesses is the existing mentality when it comes to campaigning.
<
p>
Now I’m not saying that’s what’s being done here… but it’s a start in that direction.
hlpeary says
Thanks for the information on the two bills. I must say you make some good points. If all the Democratic candidates and leading Democrats on the environmental issue are supporting the Boxer Bill, why wouldn’t Senator Kerry help get it passed rather than support a weaker bill?
<
p>
Political ambition can eat you alive…trying to please too many people, trying not to offend, trying to be what you are not too many times…it’s sad to see this happen.
<
p>
richardhowe.com blogged that Senator Kerry had to chronically get reacquainted with people in the Commonwealth every six years to get re-elected. That’s sad, too.
ed-oreilly says
Calculating–The reason Senator Kerry is supporting a weaker bill is that it has a better chance at passage and if it does, his name will be on it. This is important to John Kerry. There is no other reason. The 17 Senators who support the Boxer-Sanders Bill believe it is the only bill to support. In any bargaining, it is best to start at a point one really believes in rather than making oneself look good. Politics should be all about conviction and not about being re-elected or advancing to another political office.
Another point you mention brings up what I have found to be the mood of the people of Massachusetts. People are ready for action and Senator Kerry, like many politicians in Washington, still just doesn’t get it. Instead of posturing, people want an end to the war in Iraq, affordable and effective health care, a clean environment and a solution to global warming.
<
p>
People also want someone to be straight with them.
<
p>
As for your last comment, we should see Mr. Kerry a whole lot more in Massachusetts since he has competition. Unfortunately, Senator Kerry is a bit late trying to connect to the people of Massachusetts just as he has been late with the health care and global warming issues.
<
p>
I really appreciate your comments and let’s do this together.
<
p>
Thank you.
<
p>
Ed O’Reilly
Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate from, and for, Massachusetts
ed-oreilly says
Oh, yes–there’s an O’ before the Reilly.
<
p>
Thanks,
<
p>
Ed
stomv says
The Boxer-Sanders bill is stronger [more aggressive] than the Kerry-Snowe bill. If I had my druthers, the Boxer-Sanders bill would pass, and I’d even add some amendments to go further.
<
p>
But, the Senate just isn’t there yet. The Boxer-Sanders bill won’t pass. The Kerry-Snowe bill just might — it’s pegged “middle of the road” as far as the bills go, and it’s got at least one moderate GOP senator on board. Don’t forget that the energy bill may end up needing 60 supporters in the senate to pass — the GOP is slowing everything down.
<
p>
So, I’m glad Kerry is working with Snowe on this. It’s not as aggressive as I’d like, but we could make some progress now and make more progress later. If we move “normal” leftward to Kerry-Snowe, then we could see a bill even more aggressive than Boxer-Sanders, and get Boxer-Sanders passed after 2008.
<
p>
I’m an incrementalist. I’d rather get something than nothing, and the Kerry-Snowe bill is in my opinion the best chance we have of getting something.
petr says
It’s not enough to tell us why you think John Kerry isn’t perfect. You need to tell us why you think you are…
<
p>
Suppose I do vote for you? Will you promise never to disappoint me? Will you always be righteous and pleasing to the senses? Will you never stumble?
<
p>
Cause if you do, I have every right to stop voting for you and vote for the next guy who promises me sunshine and roses simply because you disappoint. And you have no right to complain because that’s your platform.
<
p>
I have a Christ, so I never expected John Kerry to be one, nor do I look to you for that…
kbusch says
If I understand it, you are saying Kerry only does good to promote Kerry. When Kerry does bad, it reveals how Kerry bad Kerry is. So no matter what Kerry does it reflects badly on him. I get it. Kerry is thoroughly icky; you’re not; we should support you.
<
p>
On the bills in question: Don’t we really need three things?
All three require leadership, not just the first two. If we just stop at the second item, we indeed only have words not actions.
mcrd says
It’s time for a change and it is time for Mr. Kerry to get a job in the DPS.
<
p>
Politicians now are of the opinion that after one term that they are entitled to tenure. They can’t grasp the fact that they should only serve one or two or possible a third and then it’s time for fresh idea. Now we have the likes of Byrd, Kennedy, and a few Rebublicans encumbered with senile dementia as well.
<
p>
It’s time for change. I welcome a fresh face and new ideas.
<
p>
Speaking of which. Would you please digress on the possible laws of unintended consequence should this abominable illegal amnesty bill ever see the light of day?
I know what the party line is on how it will make me a safer, richer, more productive , and happier American. Tell me how this bill may screw me. Let’s see some diversity in thought and testicular fortitude.
<
p>
America is traversing into very deep and very dangerous waters with increasing speed each day. The electorate needs to hear how we will be protected when the house of cards starts to fall not how we should feel good about ourselves for allowing six thousand terrorists slip into our country as “temporary guest workers”.
stomv says
without citation. And yes, I know about Bunning (KY) and Domenici (NM) for the GOP. But I’ve not heard any legitimate speculation about the mental health of Kennedy nor Byrd.
<
p>
Got facts?
mcrd says
Kennedy —the same guy who was best friends with Mary Joe,
The same Ted Kennedy that was the wonderful father per his drug addled son Patrick, The same Ted Kennedy who spent hours and days with his wife Joan, the same Ted Kennedy providing alibi’s for Dr. Smith.
<
p>
Ever see Sen Byrd in his Ku Klux Klan Regalia?
Ever listen to the senile demented octgenarian babble endlessly and periodically lapse into confabulation (like Teddy) on C-SPAN.
<
p>
I’ve been watching these two fools decline for forty years.
Decline in their cognitive process and moral depravity. Nothing like having a cross burner and lyncher of young black males in your party. He’s about one step ahead of Trent Lott. Strom Thurmond’s coat holder.
ryepower12 says
In running this campaign, maybe you should run a little bit more Pro-Ed O’Reilly than Anti-John Kerry.
<
p>
I was interested in reading a blog about the environment. Instead, I was bombarded with anti-John Kerry this, anti-John Kerry that. I KNOW what improvements John Kerry could make on his environmental policy, but I also know he has a better record there than a number of other Democratic Senators. You need to convince me WHY you would have a better record, what your expertise is, instead of ‘John Kerry is bad.’
<
p>
Instead of telling me how bad John Kerry is, why don’t you tell me what sort of knowledge and expertise you could offer that would actually make you more deserving of office – right up front. That should be your thesis. Then, finish off the blog, in your conclusion, with milder versions of those rants.
<
p>
Then again, that’s my .03 cents. If you want someone’s advice who actually won office, I’d suggest you look at Deval Patrick’s campaign. Notice how, for example, his campaign’s attitude wasn’t Anti-Mitt, or Anti-Kerry or Anti-Reilly, etc. etc. etc. It was Pro-Deval Patrick. That’s why he won. That’s why, with this current attitude and campaign philosophy, you don’t really have a chance.
jeremys says
You will go down in flames. Seriously, Mr. O’Reilly needs to define what his candidacy is about, what his campaigns vision is, and where he expects to guide Massachusetts over the course of the next six years.
<
p>
Running as an Anti-Kerry candidate won’t cut it Mr. O’Reilly. Defining who you are, and why you can do a better job than Senator Kerry is what your campaign should be about. It’s best to convey positives and what you can offer to the people of this great Commonwealth, than to bash away at Senator Kerry’s record as the central theme for your campaign.
shawnh says
I thought the post raised some very good points about John Kerry and the global warming issue, as well as stated what Mr. O’Reilly would have done differently. I also like giving credit where credit is due: “John Kerry has also been vocal on the environment and the issue of global climate change. Let me be clear. He’s had a decent record on environmental issues and he’s said a lot of the right things”
<
p>
I can understand some of the other posts wanting to see more of a positive message, but it is a good thing to point out differences with your opponent. It is especially good to do so in a straightforward way, without a surrogate or a sensational, distorted media campaign.
<
p>
Mr. O’Reilly- I like the ideas in your post and hope to hear more of them during the campaign.
diane says
I’ve been following Kerry’s career for some 35 years now, and I believe I have a decent handle on who he is. And who he is just doesn’t match what you say he is.
<
p>
Progress in Congress, as is obvious to anyone who pays the remotest attention to c-span, is incremental. It ain’t always pretty, but that’s the way it goes.
<
p>
Kerry has been an environmental champion for all those 35 years, no matter how you try to twist the meaning of his various votes.
<
p>
In this case the perfect is the enemy of the good. That Kerry has the pragmatism to try to cede the perfect in order to achieve the good is to his credit. And by the way, no matter how many times the charge of cowardice is leveled at Kerry it still is nonsense. It’s worse than nonsense; it’s utter crap. You insult my intelligence by repeating it.
fairdeal says
as in, kerry’s craven vote to carte blanche the cheney/bush rush to war so that he wouldn’t be called ‘soft on terror’? thus possibly hurting his own political future.
<
p>
or his craven decision to take a powder during the fight against bush’s tax giveaway to the top 1% of the super rich, so that he wouldn’t be called a ‘tax and spend liberal’? thus possibly hurting his own political future.
<
p>
what good on these issues has been achieved by his noble pragmatism ceding the perfect?
diane says
there’s a contingent here that refuses to believe anything but the worst about Kerry, and I’m well aware that my approval of him won’t win me any popularity points.
<
p>
But words like “craven” are not going to win you any points with me either. I strongly object to the assumptions made about his motives. No one knows anything about the intricacies of anyone else’s thoughts, and it’s flat out wrong to make value judgments based on what you think someone else is thinking.
<
p>
In my limited personal experience Kerry is not that guy. I see him as an honest and moral man who does what he needs to do to effect incremental change. Getting his name on bills has never been of any importance to him, and I have seen him take his name off bills in order to help their passage. You can’t have it both ways.
<
p>
IMHO, there’s entirely too much hating here, and not enough paying attention to what he actually does. People screamed that there was no filibuster of Scalia, but when Kerry heeded the call of his constituency and came racing back to start one (after his colleagues on the Judiciary Committee failed to do so), people screamed that he was just looking for cheap attention. He can’t catch a break from you people.
<
p>
I rarely comment here, though I read posts, because of the kinds of blind hatred I often see expressed, especially towards Kerry. And that is a plain fact. He ain’t perfect, but from what I see – and I watch pretty carefully – he’s one of the top 10 liberal senators. I get inundated every day with pleas to email my senators about this or that outrage, and I just smile because I know I don’t have to do it – they nearly always vote the way I’d want them to. I have no reason whatsoever to remove him from his job.
gettowork says
It’s hard to know where to start with all the misinformation in this post and in most of the commentary here, but here’s my stab at it.
<
p>
First, if there’s any sitting senator who has consistently walked the walk on environmental (as well as many other) issues, from 1970 onward, it’s John Kerry. Issue after issue, ANWR, climate change, alternate energy, clean air and water, on and on. He thoroughly earned the early (in Dec 2003), strong, and continuing endorsement of the League of Conservation Voters in both the primaries and general election in the 2004 presidential race. In recent hearings on global warming (when, incidentally, Barbara Boxer praised Kerry to the skies for his environmental activism), Kerry gave authoritative, eloquent testimony, and also took apart the Bush-appointed global-warming-deniers in NOAA and elsewhere in withering, devastating fashion. Most recently, he’s co-authored, with his wife, a book , This Moment on Earth, which not only outlines the many environmental problems that face us, but also holds up as examples and inspiration real people who are making a difference, and includes lots of specific, constructive suggestions on how individuals and communities can help us out of our environmental problems. Constructive, useful, consistently committed to the environment: that’s what I want, and I feel so lucky that Kerry has done so much in this area, often even decades ahead of the curve.
<
p>
Second, more specifically, and more recently, he’s consistently held to the goal of raising CAFE standards. In the last big fight, he co-wrote the actual billl (Kerry-McCain bill). Also, he’s fighting against the Detroit-inspired Levin-Stabenow bill, as too weak. In the 2004 election, W. attacked John Kerry for fighting for a rise in CAFE standards, but Kerry stood his ground then, and he’s standing his ground now.
<
p>
Thirdly, not only in the past, but especially since the 2004 election, Kerry has shown real courage, bold leadership, and just plain guts in the Senate and elsewhere, on almost every front. He’s been out there on the front lines fighting for us in MA, and for the country as a whole: fighting for veterans (as he has his entire career), fighting for small business (another theme of his career), fighting to improve health care, fighting to end the war in Iraq, despite the foot-dragging on the part of most of the Senators in his own party(remember the Kerry-Feingold bill, June 2006, to end the war in Iraq, that NONE of the current crop of presidential candidates in the Senate voted for?remember his trip to Syria, with Dodd, that incurred the wrath of Bush?), fighting to stop the confirmation of Alito in the Supreme Court (another issue on which several of the presidential candidates showed less than a courageous stand) , and, as always, fighting for the environment (most recently, he’s planning to filibuster a planned Republican effort to open up drilling in ANWR.
<
p>
John Kerry is a senator of courage and integrity. MA is very very lucky to have a leader of this caliber representing the, on the environment and many other issues, in the Senate. Not to give him credit (and thanks) for he’s done, and not to appreciate he’s doing is just plain nuts. And trying to distort his record with misinformation and personal slander seems to me beyond the pale.
fairdeal says
kinda makes gandhi seem like chump change by comparison.
<
p>
lolorb says
John Kerry slandered his own reputation long ago with his political machinations. I can only thank him for giving us four additional years of the Bush administration. How’s that for giving credit where credit is due?