A friend sent me a recent message from John Kerry’s email list, wherein Kerry shouts about the Republicans blocking a vote on Sen. Jim Webb’s proposal for a maximum deployment and minimum home leave time for troops in Iraq. I compared that message with Kerry’s vote against an earlier similar proposal. Another example of Kerry on both sides of the issue. Take a look:
FROM KERRY EMAIL:
From: info@johnkerry.cp20.com On Behalf Of
John Kerry
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:13 PM
To: …
Subject: Just Off the Senate Floor
My colleague Jim Webb from Virginia (Jim’s a Marine – and I say “is” because you’re a Marine until the day you die, and the Senate’s a hell of a lot better to have this Marine here) – Jim introduced an amendment that set 12 months as the maximum time soldiers could be deployed in Iraq, and also set a minimum time for them to be home in the States (so they couldn’t just get rotated back out).
Any one who has ever worn the uniform of our country knows what a difference that time at home makes. But of course the “operational tempo” has had to be upped so high to carry out President Bush’s escalation that the Army has had to extend tours and cut leave short. We’re trying to protect our soldiers by making sure that ends.
But the Republicans won’t even let it come to a vote. They’d rather side with the President and the President’s Iraq policy than give our soldiers the treatment they deserve. It’s outrageous.
===================
FROM CONGRESSIONAL VOTE:
October 17, 2003-Fiscal 2004 Supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan-Congressional Approval-S1689. Kerry voted to table an amendment that would have prohibited the use of funds in the supplemental bill for the involuntary deployment overseas for Operation Iraqi Freedom of members of the National Guard and reserves who had been involuntarily deployed for six months or more during the past six years. Agreed to 82-15, R 49-0, D 33-14, I 0-1.
====================
Yes, it’s outrageous.
Do we have to sit back and wait for it to become politically advantageous for Kerry to vote for what is intellectually, morally and intuitively the right thing? Seriously, how much do the troops have to endure from someone who supposedly is on their side? It’s got to be disheartening for them to know that their well being is in the hands of those who will not stand up and fight for them. When is this going to stop? It makes me sick to think about how hard it is on them and their families to be stuck in this endless, useless war.
and insistent voice in the Senate on behalf of both veterans and those serving currently in the military.
<
p>
It makes me sick as well to see the mistreatment and downright abuse the military has had to endure at the hands of this president and his revolting administration, but blaming it on Kerry is just wrong.
That’s why he voted against the Senior Senator of this state and his constituents’ wishes to allow this war to happen in the first place. I’ve got another ‘ent’ for you: politically convenient.
<
p>
And while we are at this, I don’t really give a shit about how you rate me. It reminds me that people who might really believe in the democratic process are consistently down rated by those who are insistent that we must tow the line and not consider challengers to the entrenched who fail us. It reminds me of a number of GOP politicos who don’t like dissent.
how I rated you.
<
p>
But for the record I rated you down because I believe what you wrote was a lie and a distortion of Kerry’s record, and not because I’m keeping some imaginary PC toteboard in my head.
<
p>
I believe in the democratic process. I’m still waiting for anyone to tell me what it is about O’Reilly – aside from his being NOT-JOHN-KERRY that makes you think he’s someone I ought to consider voting for.
Ed O’Reilly is a leader. The guy has guts. I don’t know, but I would guess he’s not listening to political consultants. If he was, they would be telling him to moderate his position to appeal to the middle (sound familiar?). He is speaking for many when he expresses dissatisfaction over John Kerry’s actions. The overwhelming majority of Dems in this state objected to the war. Under pressure, John Kerry caved in to his ambitions. That does not bode well for the next vote nor the next vote after that.
<
p>
I have not once seen the same lack of fear from John Kerry. Don’t even get me started on the Swift Boaters or the Shrums of this world. There’s a whole laundry list of lack of leadership, and we ended up with a continuing nightmare as a result.
but I, for one, think it takes at least some guts to volunteer to serve in a war. But that’s just me.
<
p>
Hey but Ed’s public service experience does include “over twenty years as the Master of Ceremonies in the bi-annual “roasting” of Gloucester political candidates.” Now that’s a leader right there.
<
p>
Coming to a bookstore near you in 2008— Guts, Glory, Lobsters & Laughter: The Ed O’Reilly Story
I think the fact that Ed O’Reilly has a history of community activity to be a huge positive. A real comedy would be John Kerry trying to be a master of ceremonies of a roasting in a local community. I would pay a huge contribution to his campaign if they would be willing to put him in his hunting fatigues and put him in front of an audience of that type. Maybe we should all request a roast off between Ed O’Reilly and John Kerry! ROTFLMAO!!!
so being a roastmaster makes the cut for “community activity” but being a Senator for 20+ years is, what, a hobby? A way to blow off steam during the week?
<
p>
So basically, lolorb, what passes for credentials for a US Senator are:
* roasting ability
* not being John Kerry
* lobstering
* knowing CPR
<
p>
You have some high standards.
the CPR part. Dr. Dean’s expertise came in handy on the campaign trail. It’s nice to have a candidate who knows how to save your life if necessary (and would be willing to do so).
<
p>
The loberstering experience reminds me of decades ago in Alaska. Half the members of the state house were in the fishing industry. They were elected because they could relate to the needs and lives of constituents!
George Bush is the guy who talks about his gut all the time. But now that it’s been mentioned here, I want to say that Kerry has not shown guts as a politician, no matter what he had back in Viet Nam. He pretty much ran away from his anti-war stance as soon as he got elected on it.
<
p>
As for Ed O’Reilly’s guts, he’s up there with all the other firefighters who risk their lives. He’s been there and done that. Big fires, house fires, CPR, water rescue, etc. My concern at this point is to have a senator who has political guts. Kerry doesn’t. O’Reilly does.
if you would ever post anything anywhere other than empty rebuttals to any criticism of john kerry’s record and ah-hem leadership.
<
p>
it’s like clockwork. point out kerrys sorry record of truly representing the citizens of the commonwealth, and here comes diane. and then here come her compatriots to chime in about what a saint john kerry is, and then score either others praises as across the board blazing 6’s.
<
p>
Per Fairdeal’s comment above:
<
p>
Diane, can you disclose any informal affiliation with Kerry, his office, or his campaign?
<
p>
I ask because I stumbled across a website called WeLoveJohnkerry.com
<
p>
Two authors, neither identifies himself, breathlessly lauding Kerry several times a week, for the last couple years.
<
p>
So I scrolled back to the very first entry, ever, and you’re the first commenter.
<
p>
Of course you may have no affiliation. It just seemed odd.
that’s it.
<
p>
No money changed hands, if that’s what you’re implying, nor will it ever.
<
p>
Is it so hard for you to believe Kerry still has supporters? I don’t see any fact-based criticism of Kerry at all here, except for that one vote. It’s fine to criticize actions taken or not taken. It’s not okay to pretend to know why he has done any of those things. The use of words such as “preening” doesn’t do much to bolster anyone’s argument.
<
p>
And yes, since the 2004 election some people who support Kerry have met and become friends on the web. Small wonder, considering the venom that has been spit his way, that we might have found each other. Is that illegal? Does that make my opinion worthless? I’ve followed the guy’s career since 1971. I’ve lived in Massachusetts pretty much my entire life. I think I have a right to a few opinions of my own.
…for the response.
<
p>
As for whether it’s actually illegal to support Kerry, certainly not in Massachusetts. Maybe in certain Southern states, consult an attorney.
<
p>
Personally, I don’t feel any venom towards Kerry. I suspect a number of BMGers main issue with Kerry is more of a sense of “what could have been” if this good man weren’t on the fence so much.
<
p>
Even after 04, having been stung by that criticism, he hasn’t changed his ways.
<
p>
Like with Cape Wind. “Huge advocate of wind power”, he says, unless there is a specific wind power project that constituents don’t want blocking their view.
<
p>
Which the Senator characterizes as “You can’t just have someone plunk something down wherever the hell they want.”
<
p>
C’mon.
<
p>
That’s why that totally unqualified dude who is running against Kerry scores some easy points when he blogs on BMG. At least we understand what the hell he’s saying.
<
p>
Which one vote? The big monster vote to invade Iraq? Or the vote that started this thread, about relieving the troops? If you add in votes on other topics, like single-payer health, gay marriage, fuel economy standards (to name a few), you’re going to find lots of “just one votes” to explain away.
to mention the new recruits suddenly joining BMG to come to the rescue. It’s like deja vu all over again. đŸ˜‰ I, for one, am not easily shouted down. Whatever.
and insistent voices in the Senate on behalf of both veterans and those serving currently in the military.
<
p>
It makes me sick as well to see the mistreatment and downright abuse the military has had to endure at the hands of this president and his revolting administration, but blaming it on Kerry is just wrong.
I think his voting may not be as insistent as you believe. He certainly doesn’t match Senator Kennedy’s efforts. Do you really believe he could not have been more outspoken on most occasions? I just read Howard’s message about this evening’s senate showdown on troop withdrawal legislation. Don’t see JK’s imprint on it at all. You would think someone INSISTENT would be INSISTENT.
honestly and sincerely, that Kerry is a man who votes as his conscience dictates.
<
p>
Aside from that one Iraq vote – which I loathed – and I told him so – his record is very consistent. He’s not a red-faced screamer, but he sticks by his principles. I wonder sometimes if it’s his dignified style that sticks so in the craw of some people, I really do.
<
p>
I believe in voting for the whole person – and that means ALL of their history. I would never vote for or against someone on the basis of one vote, no matter how misguided. I’ve met Kerry numerous times, and he has always struck me as warm, a good listener, and entirely unlike the crap that is usually spewed about him in the local media.
<
p>
And that’s the way it is. You have a perfect right to not like him, but please don’t lie about him.
<
p>
Oh, and if you don’t see Kerry’s imprint on this evening’s showdown you have not been paying attention. He’s been leading the charge on troop withdrawal for long time now: Washington Post, October 27, 2005
Please point out somewhere that I have lied? Otherwise, for the sake of having discussion, please take that back.
Do we have to sit back and wait for it to become politically advantageous for Kerry to vote for what is intellectually, morally and intuitively the right thing? Seriously, how much do the troops have to endure from someone who supposedly is on their side? It’s got to be disheartening for them to know that their well being is in the hands of those who will not stand up and fight for them.
<
p>
is not true – not one word of it.
not a lie. He voted for this mess.
To lie is not just to say something false; it is to say something false that you know is false and to say it as if it were true. It implies deceit.
<
p>
We’re all generally on the same side here. Could we make generous interpretations about where each of us is coming from and strive to convince rather than silence through questioning motives?
<
p>
When you say “lie”, you take the focus off the discussion of Senator Kerry and onto Loborb. But that’s not as interesting. There have been ongoing debates about Kerry and his role. They’re worth a full discussion. They remain unresolved.
<
p>
Quite likely, you wrote that in the heat of passion and possibly did not mean it with the full force it generally carries. Am I missing something?
that anyone who actually is aware of everything Kerry does in the senate could make such claims.
<
p>
I do find it interesting that I posted an article about Kerry’s work on getting the troops out of Iraq in 2005, and yet that piece of evidence has been entirely ignored.
<
p>
Whatever. A straw man argument over terminology is a waste of time.
Is that what you’re saying?
<
p>
Do you want to say that? Is that even effective for the position you are advocating?
It is for reasons like this that I plan on voting for Ed O’Reilly in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate next year.
<
p>
Check him out: http://www.edoreilly.com
I’m really curious what it is about Ed O’Reilly that makes him so attractive to you as a potential senator, apart from the fact that he’s not John Kerry? I’ve looked at his website. I’ve read his postings here. And I fail to see what it is that he has to offer the state of Massachusetts. Leaving Kerry out of it.
<
p>
As far as reviving that hackneyed and brainless Boston Herald/Boston Globe/GOP trick of calling Kerry a flip-flopper – well, there’s a story behind every senate vote, and if you don’t know the story (what other amendments were being offered at the time, and what was actually in the bill, for starters) you don’t understand the vote. For example, if you look at the votes for that amendment you picked out, you’ll see that Russ Feingold voted to table it as well. Cherry-picking the facts to suite your argument is another way of lying. At the end of the day, Kerry voted – yes, way back in 2003 – against the entire funding bill. So quoting this one procedural vote against him is disingenuous at best.
<
p>
Kerry and Russs Feingold have been the two leading voices on withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. They have both publicly come out in favor of the Feingold amendment that will cut the funding next April. There are no stronger voices against the war than these two. And yet, you want to replace Kerry as our senator. It makes no sense to me.
Kerry has spent four terms in the Senate. On most issues, I agree with him. However, I voted for the Green Party candidate David Cobb in 2004 because I could bring myself to vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket – who at that point wanted to increase the number of troops in Iraq by 40,000. His vote on Iraq was probably the most important vote in his Senate career – and he was on the wrong side. As the national leader of the Democratic Party in 2004, he was not effective in articulating a strategy to unite the country and his views on Iraq were shameful.
<
p>
Besides the issue of Iraq, I think that Kerry has just been there too long (same with Ted!). We need new leadership within our state Democratic Party, to continue the transformation started by Deval Patrick. Ed O’Reilly has been active in his community in Gloucester and been an active Democrat. Watching his videos from his website, he appears to be a down-to-earth kinda guy who can articulate his views in a plain, simple manner. As a UMass Amherst alum, I think it would be great to finally have a senator who attended one of our public colleges. O’Reilly has a progressive agenda, particularly when it comes to the environment and energy independence. Kerry represents the past, O’Reilly the future.
<
p>
once again, sorry to keep pointing this out to all the Ed acolytes out there…but have you actually read Ed’s energy/environment ideas? And if so, have you actually read Sen. Kerry’s energy/environment ideas? You’re right- Ed articulates his ideas in a simple manner because his ideas are downright simple.
<
p>
This an election for US Senator. MA gets just two so it’s sort of a big deal that they carry some weight among their colleagues in order to get things done in DC.
<
p>
Does anyone truly think that Ed is even close to being that type of person? Does anyone truly believe that Ed has the gravitas, the command of complex, global issues and the political savvy necessary to be an effective Senator?
Like all new senators, it would take time for O’Reilly to carry some weight with his colleagues. From what I’ve read about Kerry, he’s been depicted as a loner in the Senate. Clearly he can speak with intelligence on a wide range of issues though.
<
p>
Does John Kerry have gravitas? Political savvy? I’m not so sure. Let’s get one thing straight – I don’t hate Kerry. I just think twenty-four years in the U.S. Senate has been enough for him.
<
p>
Frankly, that’s a pretty good reason for me. Kerry supported authorizing Bush to go to war, supported No Child Left Behind, supported the Patriot Act, opposes marriage equality, ran a savage primary campaign attacking fellow Democrats followed by a general campaign that tried to beat George W Bush with a wet noodle.
<
p>
Senator Kerry has a strong record on reproductive rights and the environment. Of course, his military service is unimpeachable (though he let the Bush machine stain it in the minds of too many voters). So you’ll forgive me if any alternative has a head start in my book.
How are these two votes mutually exclusive? To vote to table and amendment “To prohibit the use of funds for the involuntary deployment overseas in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom of members of the National Guard and Reserves who have been involuntarily deployed for more than six months during the preceding six years.” in 2003 (when the general consensus still was that we needed to stabilize Iraq before the troops were to be pulled out) is entirely consistent with a vote 4 years later- when the situation in Iraq has devolved to the point where US troops and military solutions are not viable anymore- to stop the abuse of US troops by codifying into law that troops can’t be deployed for more than 12 months without an intervening 12 months at home, that the National Guard can’t be deployed for 36 months after a 12 month deployment and that US Troops be properly trained before they are deployed. Kerry co-sponsored these amendments.
<
p>
If you read his floor speech from 2003 http://kerry.senate…. and compare it to the floor speech from a few days ago http://www.kerryvisi… you can clearly see that Kerry is not inconsistent at all. He has called for timetables and deadlines from the beginning.
<
p>
Kerry and Feingold are now at the forefront of the effort to end the war in Iraq. Instead of cherry-picking and partially quoting votes to obscure and mislead for the single purpose of promoting Kerry’s primary challenger, how about some intellectual honesty? We want to end the war, right? So why are some working so hard at replacing one of the few senators who is trying to do so?
You’re right. These two votes show Kerry is consistent. Consistently a follower, not a leader. You explain his vote against relief for the National Guard by saying there was a “general consensus” not to let these troops have a break. Then you explain his recent vote to give the troops some relief by saying the situation “has devolved to the point….”
<
p>
Forget for a minute whether there really was a “general consensus” as you describe, and put aside for a minute that “military solutions” might never have been viable in Iraq. Just take a look at your own explanations. Kerry follows the consensus, no matter where it goes. He doesn’t speak out forcefully when it’s unpopular. That’s his mode of politics. For me, that’s not viable. Never was.
<
p>
The next Senate term (six years) will span 1-1/2 presidential terms, in a period that is going to be tumultuous, if not chaotic. Who knows what demands and dangers are going to face us? At the least, it will be one of the most difficult times in American history. I want (and I think we need) a senator who is not afraid of standing up to warmongers and neocons, who is not preening before national polls, who is rooted in Massachusetts and proud to stand up for our progressive traditions and principles, even (especially) when they run counter to reactionary trends. That’s the primary reason I want Kerry out of office.
that nobody NOBODY in america looks to john kerry for leadership on this issue?
It obvious that the post is less than truthful, I think we’re all sick of this kind of attack. What you are actually doing is the opposite of your intent. People are more apt to defend Kerry when you post items like this. This smelled like thinly disguised O’Rielly attack post, which is a turnoff by itself, now we see it come out in the comments. Com’on people, if you have a candidate that you want to push you might do better if you represent the candidate and what they are about not this crap.
the comments imply that the poster is being shouted down for pointing out something that is unpopular to Kerry acolytes. Brace yourself. There’s a long time to go before the primary. I’ve met Ed O’Reilly. I liked him and his ideas. I will continue to support him. So shoot me.
<
p>
I’m also thinking about posting in detail about why I think it is necessary to encourage primary challenges all over the spectrum. People make good decisions when there are choices.
It’s better than this kind of post. More useful to everyone here. I have to admit I’m skeptical but am interested and will read the post.
<
p>
From what I recall, Kerry’s vote was because of his disagreement with not defining a means to pay for the 87 million. It had 88 votes already, not 49, so he voted against because he didn’t agree with them. Biden and Kerry added a floor amendment to have this funded and not increase the debt, it was agreed upon but later voted down. Biden with Kerry as a cosponsor had previously written a similar bill for funding that include a repeal of the 1% richest tax break to pay for funding. That went nowhere and the Republicans created a similar bill and this is what is being posted as Kerry is against the military. It’s just poor, my feelings is that enough is enough, I am personally not interested in the George Bush 2004 campaign commercials. lolorb I would much rather see what you describe as a post.
you think bmg is a real hotbed for rabid republicans?
<
p>
look. on paper, we oughta be the ones who just adore john kerry. we are his base. if not us, then who is?
<
p>
and a lot of us have decided that 4 terms is enough.
<
p>
the writing in on the wall for senator kerry.
That would be of interest. No this crap.
What an empty concept. Some invisible golden apple in the pocket of your favorite candidate.
<
p>
I don’t want leadership.
<
p>
I want representation.
and when john kerry betrayed the wishes of (i’m guessing) 80% of his constituents and rubberstamped george bush’s war in the interest of his own personal political ambitions, he demonstrated what caliber of representative he is.
..is that you have nothing to say about O’Reilly.
i’m not endorsing ed o’reilly.
<
p>
here’s how it goes;
1. recognize that the present situation is unsatisfactory.
2. begin to consider alternatives.
3. choose the alternative.
<
p>
i’m not at #3. i’ve only started on #2. and i’ve already crossed #1 off my list.
<
p>
Qualify “authorization for use of force” as “rubberstamping Bush’s war”. Votes like this have been used as negotiating tools in the past (saner times). But he should have known what the future would hold like you did?
<
p>
I didn’t. I had no idea it was really coming. If we all had your talent to see into the future I think there would have been a bigger grass roots backlash in ’03. …just a hunch.
<
p>
But 80% of MA residents knew that GWB was such a nutbag — even back in ’03 — that 4 out 5 of us KNEW he was going to get us caught up in a disastrous quagmire? We KNEW he was lying. Because that was common knowledge in ’03, right?
<
p>
Boy, when you put it that way, maybe I should put more blame on Kerry. After all, his vote would have stopped the invasion before it started, tipping the scales to a massive landslide of 24 senators against. It never would have happened without his pivotal vote.
<
p>
What a fool I was.
<
p>
Sign me up for the JFK hate club.
<
p>
you mean 30,001 people marching down boylston st. asking their representatives to help stop the march to war, instead of only 30,000?
saturday november 3, 2002.
<
p>
you know, about the time that our representatives were individually weighing the plusses and minuses of rubberstamping the bush administrations’ march to war.
<
p>
So on 11/3/2002 there were 30,000 or so people that marched on Boylston St. to ask Kerry to represent them and NOT vote in favor of the IWR that was passed a month earlier?
<
p>
I thought “betrayal” had more of a cause / effect relationship that was more in tune with our laws of physics.
Never mind the millions that marched against this war all over the WORLD in the Spring of 2003! An unprecedented event in human history I think.
FairDeal is talking about events before the war…as am I.
The senate passed the authorization bill on October 11, 2002.
<
p>
…a mere 6 months after 9/11
<
p>
The nation was still pretty much in a frenzy.
<
p>
So which events are you talking about that happened prior to 10/11/2002?
i forgot that kerry had already met with bob shrum and other campaign advisors and decided that to look ‘tough’ for his presidential run that he would betray the wide and vocal will of his constituents and the rest of the massachusetts congressional delegation and rubberstamp the bush rush to war.
<
p>
sorry, about that. i was wrong.
<
p>
and on that note, i’ll be checking out this very empty argument.
<
p>
In 1971 when Kerry appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to speak about the war in Vietnam, he ended his testimony by asking two questions: ?How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake??
<
p>
It would be safe to say that John Kerry did not have those thoughts uppermost in his mind when he voted to authorize Bush to go to war. Kerry was thinking that the war would be over soon and Kerry wanted that win so that he could be a winner in a presidential campaign.
about pushing the ambivalent Bush supporters to give up their support and agree to a withdrawal date. Webb’s bill is more pressure on them—you must know that. When they are engaged in repeated debate about the occupation the closer they get to a veto-proof majority and/or the closer they get to getting the administration to change policy (even if they have to repackage it as their idea in September). Kerry has been one of the most consistent senators in opposing the administration’s war policy. Last year Kerry-Feingold got minimal support in the senate for a withdrawal proposal that is similar to Levin-Reid and to Murtha’s recommendations.
What does this mean? It keeps getting repeated in this blog, like a talking point or an ad for a product. Since Kerry is also an enabler of the administration’s war policy, exactly what conclusion are we supposed to draw?
Yes, he enabled it in 2002. In 2007, Kerry has been one of the most consistent senators in opposing the administration’s war policy. Do you think he’s not doing enough today? Do you think he should be doing something different? If there is something different he should be doing, convince us and yours won’t be the only call to his office.
<
p>
Perhaps you think an act of penance is in order?