Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

My Friend, the Former Dem

By

John Kerry, our esteemed junior senator, did not vote.  I don’t know why he didn’t, but Senator Kennedy proudly voted no. Thank you, Senator Kennedy, for always being there for us. 

If anyone has any idea why John Kerry failed to vote for his constituency, I’d like to know.  I hope not to hear yet another excuse for failure to lead, but I think that’s about what I can expect.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Sen. Kerry was in MA for the Pan-Mass Challenge which raises money for cancer research. From the Washington Times:

    <

    p>
    A Kerry staffer said the senator was back in Massachusetts for a long-scheduled charity bike ride to raise money for cancer research, adding he: “was prepared to return to the Senate if he was able to affect final outcome of the FISA vote. Kerry strongly opposes the changes to the FISA legislation that expanded Bush’s eavesdropping authority.”

    • he was too busy participating in an effort that raises money for cancer research.  That’s why his private jet couldn’t have got him there after yet another critical vote to represent his constituents.  Thanks so much for carrying that Kerry torch.  It must be getting REALLY heavy at this point.

      • that the margin wasn’t one.

        <

        p>
        But I’m sure that if Ed O’Reilly was there, he would have wielded the political clout that comes from serving one term on the Gloucester City Council. No doubt, Ed would have swung neophytes like Feinstein and Lieberman and the other 15 Dems that voted in favor and made America safe again.

          • you dream about Kerry quite a bit.  Becuase it’s all pipe dreams as far as I can see.  Nice admission though.

        • that a true leader would have lead.  No excuses.  No pretenses.  No lies and and no games (or really poor excuses).  It’s been done before in that mean old Senate environment.  Take a look at Mike Gravel.  You (and maybe Senator Kerry) might learn something about courage.  Oh, wait, one person can’t make a difference or stand up for what’s right in the Senate because individual strength has no meaning there.  You’ve got to look at polls first, then ask the consultants, then the lobbyists and then calculate a strategy for voting.  Give me a f***ing break. 

          • You fawn over guys like Mike Gravel, who has accomplished nothing, absolutely nothing in the past 25 years and didn’t have the political wherewithal to actually stay in office and make the monumental national impact that you obviously believe in your heart of hearts that he would have but you crucify Kerry because he rides in a bike race to race money for cancer research?

            <

            p>
            And political courage doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s not hard to be “courageous” when no one is paying attention to you.

            • Do you know anything about history?  Do you even understand what the Pentagon Papers were all about?  If you are that young, thank Mike Gravel for preventing you from being drafted.  Do yourself a favor.  Do your research and then come back and talk about it.  I’m not going to even go there if you don’t understand this country’s history.  Sweety, I like you despite what you say.  I want you to really understand what you are talking about.  It will help you.

              • and I know the role that Gravel played in their publication and his role in ending the draft. Great stuff.

                <

                p>
                But if you’re so into what people were doing 30 years ago, why no love for Kerry and his Vietnam record? While Gravel was getting his Ellsberg on, Kerry was returning from war and becoming a powerful voice against Vietnam.

                <

                p> 

                • Kerry spoke eloquently about his experiences in Vietnam.  He was absolutely a force in the movement to end the war.  I give him credit for his speeches and what he stood for.  Why should anyone be expected to be the last to die for a failed adventure?  I loved John Kerry for his stance. 

                  <

                  p>
                  When he didn’t even bother listening to his constituents and voted for the Iraq disaster, it was obvious that he had lost touch with reality or he had become so immune to reality that he was disavowing his entire life history.  I cannot forget or forgive him giving carte blanche approval to this administration.  He knew better.  We expected more from him.  Millions and millions of people protested, and he ignored them. His constituents pleaded for time with him, and he ignored them.  John Kerry failed an entire generation who supported him.  It’s very simple and sad. 

                • Vietnam indeed. how about 120 days. I spent thirteen months there. how about Kerry? Oh, that’s right, he was horrifically wounded. The corpsman had to run down to papasand 7-11 to get a box of bandaids to staunch kerry’s hemmoraging. Then the war hero was required to abruptly abandon his command due to the extent of his debilitating injuries.

                  <

                  p>
                  What a F’n FRAUD!

        • Some of you folks will apologize for Kerry no matter what he does or doesn’t do. He rides his bike instead of making his presence visible and audible in defense of the Constitution. OK, cancer research. Why didn’t he send them a fat check and say how much he cares, while he stayed in the Senate and did his best to speak to the American people about the disemboweling of the Bill of Rights? My guesses are (1)  that he is displaying the same old fear of saying anything that will display any definite position on any issue that isn’t totally safe (is anybody in favor of cancer?) and/or (2) that he knows how little people care about him and his fine words anyway. He is definitely no leader, no help to the Democrats, no defender of the Constitution …. or the Senate. Maybe he and Bushie can go ride their bikes together, into the sunset, very soon.

          • Another reason why even though I live in IL most of the year, and even though the MA primary wont be useful for the Presidential election, that I will proudly vote for Mr. Reilly  if anything else because he is a strong progressive voice and maybe Mr. Kerry will finally find is if hes challenged.

            <

            p>
            To say that I didnt vote because my vote wouldn’t affect the outcome doesnt matter, give Finegold credit for voting NO on the Patriot Act when he knew he was the only vote in that direction, give Kennedy credit for voting NO on Iraq even though he only stood with 22 other Senators and not the majority of the Senate, give credit to Ron Paul who has voted against every budget since he has been elected to Congress because it had a deficit, true leaders have courage and clearly Kerry showed that he still thinks he can triangulate his way into the White House and avoid votes that might be used against him later. Spineless. Gutless. Typical attributes of Senator Windbag.

        • As all the Republicans and Liebercrats voted for this bill, Kerry could not have swung it.

          <

          p>
          What totally baffles me though is Feinstein’s vote. Can anyone explain that?

        • I agree with concerns about how this came the floor in the first place.

          <

          p>
          And while I applaud Kerry for lending his name and his legs to a very, very worthy cause, his apparent lack of interest in staging a no holds barred opposition to the bill–even if it were Alamo-esque–is disappointing.

          <

          p>
          I don’t know what his motivation was and I don’t care to call his office to get a non-answer. It was he who did not act and should explain why.

          <

          p>
          Or does anyone think he has not heard there is some concern about his lack of participation on this?

          • Even an Alamo-esque loss without PR backing accomplishes little. Unfortunately, it’s not what Kerry actually does that matters politically; it’s what the media describes Kerry as doing.

            <

            p>
            Do we want the message that an attention-seeking Senator Kerry motivated by pure partisanship and downplaying of the terrorist threat led a hopeless filibuster that was rightfully defeated?

            <

            p>
            Not the road to victory on this issue when it comes up for a vote in 6 months, let me tell you.

              • The infuriating thing, though, is that the 40 examples will either be just a number (as in “40”) or they will be transparently lame. In either case, the media will give them a free pass if we do nothing about it.

    • Read it and weep:

      <

      p>

      A Kerry staffer said the senator was back in Massachusetts for a long-scheduled charity bike ride to raise money for cancer research, adding he: “was prepared to return to the Senate if he was able to affect final outcome of the FISA vote. Kerry strongly opposes the changes to the FISA legislation that expanded Bush’s eavesdropping authority.”

      • I’m likely to weep, but not for the reasons you think. 

        <

        p>
        It does make me want to cry when I know that photo ops are more important than standing up and voting a loud “NO” to the desecration of the constitutional rights that JK has sworn to uphold.  To point out that he was only willing to be there if he could affect the final outcome is pathetic.  It’s an admission that there’s nothing he is willing to do because the he has accepted that the outcome is determined.  A real leader would try to change the outcome.

        • Maybe the problem the Democrats have standing up is precisely this: Everything is just a vote. They vote. The media interpret the vote. They worry about how it will “look”, i.e., how the media will portray it. They are way to passive about shaping the narrative.

          <

          p>
          If opposing these FISA changes is just pandering to the ACLU or if it is not taking the terrorist seriously or if it is just Bush-hating or if it is any of the other stupid narratives the media are going to load on it, then it becomes hard to stop the bill. Very hard. Maybe a True Leader or two will vote against it. Possibly loudly and in all caps. That’s not going to stop it though.  It seems to me as if the Democratic positions need to get a lot more media prominence. There need to be ad buys, prominent speeches, op eds in every major paper, and radio appearances to make the case before the vote. With Republican positions always controlling the debate, get used to losing.

          <

          p>
          Possibly that means we should get everyone to join MoveOn right away, because MoveOn consistently tries to affect the debate. Possibly it means we should get everyone to take out a Democracy Bond.

          <

          p>
          One thing is certain: The abandonment of PR can’t be what we want.

      • If he was back in Mass., how did he vote earlier in the day?

        <

        p>
        According to the Six & Six post on Kos, naming the Senators who were missing in action, only Murray and Johnston (the guy with the stroke) were actually absent from all the votes that day.

        <

        p>
        So – LiveShot votes, but when FISA come up, says – Whoops!  Plane to catch!  There may be cameras there!  See ya!

        <

        p>

        Full disclosure – I am delighted the bill passed, as I regard it as important to national and global security.  I am not a big fan of those who talk the talk and skip the walk, however.  Kudos to Ted Kennedy.

  2. The failure of leadership, I think, was in letting this unamerican bill come up for a vote in the first place. One would think that the majority party, with its control of the rules committees and the agenda would be able to keep it from coming to a vote. I really don’t understand this, and I haven’t heard any Democrat claiming that there was some sort of reason to do this other than a scared feeling that September might be jinxed.

    What causes this refusal to fight for what’s right? It’s tempting to chalk it up to personal failing — because that’s what are programmed to do. (Cut off on the highway, we do not exclaim, “you otherwise good person just did something wrong!” We exclaim, “You asshole!” Personal failing, not behavior.

    <

    p>
    The problem is this has been a systemic problem with our Congressional Democrats for too long. Is it because

    • of learned helplessness from years of Republican attacks?
    • of an excessive reliance on an overly cautious consultant class stuck on current polls not future possibilities?
    • of a hostile media?
    • of the cautiousness of corporate donors?
    • of the large number of moderate Democrats who might actually support these FISA changes?

    What is it?

    <

    p>
    It’s tempting to say it’s personal failing but it’s too systemic to be personal failing.

    • Surely they could have had enough no-to-cloture votes to run a filibuster on this thing on principle. Too bad Kerry wasn’t there to lead one.

      <

      p>
      So even if there were a number of spineless Democrats worried about being blamed (sigh) for another attack while they were vacationing, still the number of them who were rightly opposed could have stopped it?

      <

      p>
      Not sure what the final vote was, but I bet dollars to donuts that Reid would NOT have wanted the headline to read: Democrats Break Their Own Filibuster.

      • The whole thing that baffles me is that this was handled under normal legislative procedures when it should have gotten bottled up in committee and then stalled in the Senate.

        <

        p>
        I tend to overpersonalize this when I write about it so I’m not picking on you, but I suspect it might be wrong to blame it on “spinelessness”. Instead, we need some new tactics and organization. One can’t decide to organize a Thursday filibuster on Tuesday. We seem to playing that losing game repeatedly. This is dumb. We need to get them to change tactics in order to win.

      • The final vote was 60-28. It only takes 60 for cloture. Unless you think some of the Senators that voted for it would have voted against cloture, a filibuster had no chance. 12 Senators didn’t vote, so some of them might have been willing to vote for cloture too. It is more likely that this bill was supported by a veto-proof majority than that it could have been filibustered. Unless you think that Kerry could have made a speech that would have changed votes, his absence had no practical effect.

    • Our elected officials want to stsy in office. They will say and do anything to stay in office. They will avoid, no matter how honorable, any act that will jeopardize their re election.

      <

      p>
      leadership is setting the good example , perhaps at your own expense. They have no balls nor any honor.

      • Because nothing would kill the re-election chances of Amy Klobuchar, Barbara Boxer, or Pat Murray like voting against secret surveillance of Americans as supervised by Alberto Gonzales.

        <

        p>
        You are right on one thing though, none of those Senators have balls.

      • We do live in times that reward well-advertised dishonor and penalize poorly explained nobility.

  3. …not voting before.  Please contact Kerry’s office and find out whether he “paired off” with another senator so that neither of their votes would have mattered.

    <

    p>
    Please do your homework.

      • …it doesn’t matter to me one whit whether or not Kerry cast a vote.  But apparently it does matter to the commenter to whom I was responding.

        <

        p>
        I gave one reason why Kerry might not have believed it necessary to be on the Senate floor to cast a vote on a particular matter.  And it was a legitimate point–it was a widely-used tactic, oh, 30 years ago.

        <

        p>
        If the person to whom I was reponding actually was interested in finding out why Kerry was not present for the vote, he or she could call the senator’s office and find out why he was not present for the vote and stop casting inuendos here.

        <

        p>
        I infer from this silliness over the Internet that few people are really interested in finding out what the situation really is.  Instead, they merely want to throw pot-shots.  That, in the long-run mean nothing.

        • It’s your idea that there is some relevance to finding out whether Kerry was paired against. Wouldn’t you find it impertinent if I assigned you activities? Could you see how others might read your request as a form of impertinence?

          <

          p>
          Further, if all Republicans, Liebercrats, and Blue Dogs voted for this bill, on the outcome, it doesn’t matter and I believe Lolorb knows this.

          <

          p>
          Sometimes, I suspect, when you get an idea in your head, it becomes The Idea, The Method of Resolving the Issue and it is a sign of our not taking a course on critical thinking that we do not recognize the right framework.

          <

          p>
          The problem with that is that you sometimes overlook the intelligence or reasoning that goes into other’s posts — so fixated are you on your own line of thought.

          <

          p>
          Lolorb’s view, as I understand it (corrections please), is that we expect our Senator to be a leader, a leader who stands up for what is right, and who by the force of his or her convictions convinces others to likewise do what is right. A leader therefore is present at important fights in order to recruit and sway others.

          <

          p>
          I have argued against this view in a number of ways, but whether Kerry was paired or not does not seem particularly relevant from that perspective.

          • don’t speak for me.  I can handle it myself.

            <

            p>
            You’re welcome to go into skeptical mode at any time though.  Where are the questions about priorities and the litmus test (photo op vs. senatorial duties)?  Where are the same questions about not speaking out about critical progressive issues (Iraq, Iran)?  After experiencing your diatribes, I would expect nothing less in this instance.

            • I was describing my understanding of your position. Only I can do that. If you don’t think it’s important for other people to try to understand you, why bother posting here?

              Did you notice by the way that 21st Century Democrats have already begun to change their site? Gone are their list of issues. The site might actually improve and say something more useful for example, like the Wellstone Action site. Go there. They do really good work that is similar to what 21st Century Democrats claim to do.  Wellstone Action deserves support

              <

              p>
              I bet you hadn’t really heard of 21st Century Democrats before as their diaries here and on Kos get almost no comments and you betrayed no knowledge of them. Have you, unlike me, given them any money? Why are you so defensive of a group you seem to know nothing about? A little ferocious, no?

                • to continue a conversation unless there is a reason.  KBush seems to care most about never allowing an issue to be dropped.  I don’t intend to play the game.  Giving me a three isn’t going to change that.

                • It was your dismissive tone that I objected to (“Whatever”). You already are playing the game, keep your ball in it. It’s one thing to say “I think we’ve covered this, let’s move on” and quite another to roll your eyes and walk out of the room.

                • The comment to which I replied consisted of you returning to the previous conversation (“skeptical mode”, “litmus test”, “critical progressive issues”), a conversation that you falsely claim to be done with. I thought you wished to return to it, perhaps with something more substantive than a bouquet of 3s attached to my comments.

                  <

                  p>
                  Perhaps not.

          • It’s your idea that there is some relevance to finding out whether Kerry was paired against.

            <

            p>
            Someone became unhinged because Kerry did not vote because he wanted to attend a bike ride.  I gave a possible explanation why he did not vote.  If the person who is non-plussed about Kerry’s not casting a vote really wants to find out why he did not cast a vote, that person is more than capable of calling Kerry’s office and finding out why he did not cast a vote.

            <

            p>
            I couldn’t care a tinker’s damn whether or not Kerry does anything.  I’ve never voted for him, and the likelihood is that I never will.  I frankly wish that he would just go away.

      • From the “CRS Report to Congress”…source is a PDF.

        <

        p>

        For a rollcall vote to be constitutionally valid, a majority of Senators must vote, answer “Present,” or announce that they have live pairs and refrain from voting for
        that reason.

        Pairing is a voluntary arrangement between individual Senators to offset their votes on a rollcall vote, so that if one of the Senators needs to be absent it is offset by another member who does not cast his vote. When less than a quorum votes, but the addition of names of Senators present and paired and announcing votes made a quorum, the vote is valid.

        <

        p>
        Where raj and I disagree is about how/when it should be used.  I think Senators should only pair off when it’s the only way to fulfill the duties they must perform off-floor…as the passage says, when the Senator needs to be absent.  I don’t see that a charity bike ride is a “need”. Raj and Senator Kerry clearly disagree.

        • I’d be a little surprised, though, given current conditions, if this were a common practice. Is there a reason to believe Kerry specifically paired off with someone? It seems to me that there would be pressure on GOP senators to show up for this one.

          <

          p>

          • …outside the Senate Cloakroom, which has better cloaking than the Klingons.

            <

            p>
            Me, I am suspicious of John Sununu’s vote, as he fights Shaeen’s poll numbers, and wonder if HE was the other set of the bookends…..

        • Where raj and I disagree is about how/when it should be used.  I think Senators should only pair off when it’s the only way to fulfill the duties they must perform off-floor…

          <

          p>
          …and I’ll be a little cynical.  The only duties that a Senator must perform is to be elected.  They cast yeas and nays, or pairings, or “present” on bills.  They collect a salary, that, according to the US Constitution, is to be paid for by the treasury.  If constituents don’t like the way that their Senators operate, they are perfectly entitled to vote them out of office.  That is the only option available to constituents–voting them out of office.  Otherwise, the Senators get paid by the treasury.  That’s in the constitution.

          <

          p>
          Sabutai, we don’t disagree about I don’t see that a charity bike ride is a “need”.  I’d long for the days when senators would filibuster in the Senate well for days on end, but it isn’t going to happen any more.  Nowadays Senators only need to say “I’m going to filibuster” a bill and things stand still until a cloture vote (60 required) is taken.  It has become a charade.

          <

          p>
          Quite frankly, if you really want senators merely to take votes, give them little cell-phone like devices that they can vote from anywhere in the world.  Maybe even Timbuktu.  Using usernames, passwords and pgp-style encryption, it would be an easy thing to do.  Most of the work in the Congress is done by the staffs, anyway, and the truly important issue is that the legislators select the staffs–and that is where the important power lays, the staff selection.  (emphasis intended)  The rest in the Senate well on C-SPAN is, as the Germans would say, ein grosses Theater.

  4. I think this has to do with our views of the role of the Senate. Is it a deliberative body, or just a voting body? The mythology of the Senate suggests the former, and Senators do, I think, work together across party lines far more than do members of the House of Representatives to make policy. But I do think that floor speeches don’t change too many minds or votes these days, and they haven’t for a long time.

    <

    p>
    That being said, I think it’s important for our Senators (and Representatives) to speak from the floor on important issues such as FISA, even if it is in a sense yelling into the wind. So I wish Sen. Kerry had found the time to be there.

    <

    p>
    TedF

  5. How many of you slamming him in this thread would be defending him now? From the tone of these comments, I think you’d be saying his speech was a pose.

    <

    p>
    Of course he should have voted, but he does have a longstanding commitment to the PMC, give him some credit for that.

    <

    p>

  6. Just got an email from ACLU.  They have a “Tell Congress you believe in the Constitution and demand that it fix this legislation” petition.  Here is the email

    DEMANDING THE TRUTH ABOUT FISA

    Today, the ACLU is filing an unprecedented demand with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. We’re seeking the disclosure of court records cited by supporters of the president’s horrendous FISA overhaul.

    These secret documents have played a pivotal role in the undoing of legal safeguards that have stood for three decades. But no debate can occur in a vacuum. As Congress and the people struggle for a resolution to this assault on our privacy, an open review of these judicial orders is required to ensure that the democratic process endures.

    Sign our petition. Tell Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi: ?We Won?t Let Congress Fail Freedom.?

    Dear Laurel,

    Democratic ?leaders? have crossed the line and betrayed the will of the majority who put them in power in 2006. This week, a timid Congress caved in to President Bush and his demand for more out-of-control authority to spy on Americans.

    The FISA gutting legislation voted on last weekend allows for massive, untargeted collection of Americans? international communications without court order. The law allows for no meaningful oversight by either Congress or the courts and leaves decisions about the collection, mining and use of American information up to the Bush Administration?s Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. Tell Congress you believe in the Constitution and demand that it fix this legislation.

    In short, instead of putting the brakes on the Bush Administration?s continued and reckless abuse of power, Congress handed them more power to invade our privacy and ignore our Constitutional rights.

    And it never had to happen if leaders in the House and Senate had had the courage to take a stand and say ?no more? to the Bush administration.

    We need you to stand with us and tell Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that we?re sick and tired of Congress failing to defend freedom.

    The ACLU is launching a major new campaign to hold Congress accountable. But we can’t do it without you. Stand with us today as we send Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi a wake up call.
    Tell Reid and Pelosi: ?We Won?t Let Congress Fail Freedom? by signing the petition.

    Congress can only redeem itself by taking immediate action on four key demands:

      * End unchecked surveillance and warrantless spying on Americans.  * Restore habeas corpus and due process.  * Shut down Guantánamo Bay and give those held there access to justice.  * Stop torture and secret ?renditions? to countries that torture.

    Democrats were elected to stop a President that is out of control – not grease the wheels for further abuse. In the weeks ahead, the ACLU will mobilize activists across the country, run newspaper ads in the districts of members who sold out the Constitution, and bury Capitol Hill in a sea of petitions protesting Congress? utter failure to stand up for the rule of law. If Members of Congress only respond to political pressure, then that?s what we?ll give them. Are you with us? Sign the petition.

    This Congress has proven to be as spineless in standing up to the Bush Administration as the one that enacted the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. That?s why it is so important that you immediately sign our ?Don?t Let Congress Fail Freedom? petition right now.

    Only a huge public outcry can convince a Congress that is afraid of its own shadow to stand up to the President on our four pressing demands. Please act right now.

    In defense of freedom,

    Anthony D. Romero
    Executive Director
    ACLU
    For more information on the ACLU’s work:

      * Read the ACLU’s Fact Sheet on the FISA bills.

      * Read more about our motion to unseal FISA court documents.

    © ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004

    Letters to the editor would be a good idea too!

      • but post it here anyway.  if it’s as nose-crinkling as you suggest, it should spark some interesting debate!

    • …civil liberties issues.  But I’m not sure what they can do on this issue, given the recent descision from the 6th Circuit on the NSA spying issue (the appeal out of Detroit). If they can’t get a plaintiff who has standing, and can’t even get evidence (national sercurity, you know–the evidence is “classified”) to even show standing, the cause is pretty much lost.

      <

      p>
      The USofA is starting to sound much more of a police state than I would have ever imagined.

Archives