Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Will Ed O’Reilly take Chicken Pickens’ money now?

By

I also became disenchanted with John Kerry when I found out the medals he threw over the wall weren’t even his own and that he had a video shoot of himself in Vietnam.  As with 99% of all Vietnam Vet families, we have no home made movies.

These are not misquotes. They are his own words, put out there for all of us to read, and are new low that even Kerry’s republican challengers for Senate have refused to sink to, as stated in the Globe.

O’Reilly’s disingenuous statements have caught the attention of at least one local newspaper; The Berkshire Eagle ran an excellent editorial on Saturday, condemning the Swiftliars and O’Reilly’s reintroducing their old lies into the current campaign.

With Senator John Kerry running for re-election next year, the last thing that state voters should be afflicted with is a rehash of the scurrilous allegations about the Massachusetts Democrat that marred the 2004 presidential campaign. Unhappily, Mr. Kerry’s Democratic opponent believes these allegations should be an issue, and we hope he will reconsider and follow the lead of the two Republican challengers who have said they will not be.

more here:

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/…

I freely admit that I am a Kerry supporter, but first and foremost I support honesty and integrity. O’Reilly has neither. He is not fit to run in our Democratic primary and should withdraw.

He is unable to challenge John Kerry on his own merits and needs to resort to lies and smears of the worst right-wing nuttery type. In doing so, he is shaming our state, our liberal values, and himself.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • One might also want to examine the discussion on Daily Kos on this issue. Ed O’Reilly’s response there, not met with acclaim (2+/6-), certainly indicates an eagerness to continue the Swift Boat discussion rather than to apologize and move on. There are a lot of links and documentation on Kerry’s history, on marriage equality, Kerry’s AUMF vote, etc. Worth a visit.

      • Here’s who is listed as trollraters on Ed’s DKos comment: karenc, beachmom, AllDemsOnBoard, blueness, matchpoint, Jail the BFEE. They show up on each others’ posts, where they’re just about the only commenters, they show up on the post about blogging Teresa’s book tour, and they show up on Senator Kerry’s own posts. Who are they working for, the MA Dem Party or John Kerry?

        • There was a heated debate as to whether the troll ratings were merited or not. The pro-troll camp pointed to this from the dKos policy

          Proven-false information, conspiracy theories, or debunked talking points.

          as sufficient reason for troll rating on Daily Kos. I’ll take reason 1 with reason 3 on the side.

        • No, the people supporting John Kerry online aren’t paid bloggers. They are supporters. Things politicians gain when they demonstrate a record of accomplishment that inspires folks. I doubt you’ll have an opportunity to witness that first-hand, so just take my word for it.

          <

          p>Paying people to blog is a very big no-no. I realize you just found out about these blog thingies back in May of this year, so you’re probably not hip to the ins-and-outs of this world, but this is a big deal. People have been caught for this and gotten in lots of trouble. I’m sure your campaign isn’t paying any of the 3 people who all spout the same talking points, right? ‘Cause I just wanted to let you know … that’s a big no-no.

          <

          p>Now, please continue making an ass of yourself. Sorry for the interruption.

          • Some of us (well, at least me) who are attacking Ed for his campaign tactics, can’t stand Kerry.

            <

            p>I wouldn’t vote for Kerry if his life depended on it.  But Ed’s tactics are making it so that it would be unlikely that I would vote for him, either.

            • Raj,

              <

              p>I am sorry to hear that you think any of this is a campaign tactic.  As I said in my Kos article, I was giving John Kerry money at the time of these attacks in 04. I didn’t start this current talk, John Kerry did two weeks ago on the South Shore.

              <

              p>I think it is time to get back to this campaign.

              <

              p>Ed O’Reilly

              <

              p>  

              • “I didn’t start this current talk, John Kerry did two weeks ago on the South Shore.”

                <

                p>I see you posted this after your so-called “apology.”  Well, now we know how sincere that was.

          • It’s just too bad the only thing Kerry supporters care about seems to be John Kerry.  They’re like landmines on blogs…ignore them 99% of the time, but step on a tripwire and blammo!

            <

            p>I’m disenchanted with Reilly’s use of this slander, and not sure what he thinks it gets him.  He has enough to take about Kerry’s role in THIS war without going into his role in the last one.  He keeps this up, my ballot for Senator will be blank come February.

            • Given that Kerry is using his leftover Presidential campaign funds to campaign against Reilly, I guess folks are just taking their candidate’s lead…

            • I am back on track.  I just posted about the differences between John Kerry and me regarding the current issues. Please see my comments under Raj’s comment. I am committed to staying on these issues.  I never intended to get off track, but sometimes things happen.

              <

              p>I joined this race to talk about postive soltutions and not negative sidewhows.  Improving health care, investing in education, ending the war in Iraq, closing tax loopholes and ending subsidies for special interests and supporting our Bill of Rights is what this campaign is all about.

              <

              p>FYI–The primary is next September for the U.S. Senate.

              <

              p>Thank you.

              <

              p>Ed O’Reilly

    • At the expense of bringing up the SBVT issue again, I think I need to reply.

      <

      p>I did not bring up this issue and never intended to.  I never read the SBVT book and quite frankly, I think it was one of the nastiest attacks on someone who served in Vietnam while helping George W. Bush who got a special assignment so that he could have it both ways.  GW got to say that he served during the Vietnam era and yet was in harm’s way.  

      <

      p>To top it off, I have no doubt that George W. went AWOL and destroyed his military records to cover it up. He was off partying rather than reporting to duty–well before he found salvation.

      <

      p>I was a long time supporter of John Kerry’s and much of that was because he served in Vietnam as my brother and cousin did.  The pain of that war is still very much alive.  As I have said, I sent the maximum donation first to Howard Dean and later, to John Kerry. I did my part to help a Democrat win the White House.

      <

      p>I found all of the Swift Boat attacks to be unfounded and vicious!  They were even more incredible coming from a regime of people who never served in the military, but had no hesitation to send others.  GW was a great cheerleader in High School and he continues to root on others while he stands safely on the sidelines shouting words of encouragement.

      <

      p>I apologize to my fellow Democrats for even the slightest hint that I gave credibility to the SBVT.

      <

      p>Sincerely,

      <

      p>Ed O’Reilly

      • …you are not running against GWBush, you are running against Kerry.  Pick a few relatively current issues that differentiate you from Kerry, that you believe might be winning, and beat on them.

        • As I stated in an earlier comment, John Kerry and I have different positions on nearly all of the major issues facing our country.

          <

          p>I believe we need to have a single payer health care system, a complete withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, a closing of the tax loophole for Hedge Fund Managers and I support Marriage Equality.  I also support the most aggressive bill in the U.S. Senate that addresses Climate Change–the Boxer/Sanders bill.  John Kerry does not.

          <

          p>John Kerry is opposed to the complete withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, against a single payer health care system, has no desire to close the Hedge Fund Managers Tax Loophole and does not support marriage equality.

          <

          p>My positions are in line with the Massachusetts Democratic Platform.  John Kerry’s are not.

          <

          p>This is what the focus needs to be on.  This is what a campaign should be all about.  I should never have allowed myself to have been drawn into the all of the other stuff. Let’s get back to work.

          <

          p>Ed O’Reilly  

  2. Are any of O’Reilly’s assertion about Kerry untrue?

    <

    p>I always thought those 2 points were truths. I have problems with untruths circulated by the anti-kerry crowd.
    Help me out here. Which parts of O’Reilly’s statements about Kerry are untrue.

    • Did he get anything other than an honorable discharge? No.

      <

      p>Here is a good diary that debunks that particular assertion:

      <

      p>http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

      <

      p>

      1. Lt. Kerry was assigned to the inactive Ready Reserve upon separation from active duty on January 3, 1970.  He was offered the opportunity to extend this Ready Reserve commitment on March 1, 1972 and when that offer was not accepted, he was transferred to the Standby Reserve-Inactive on July 1, 1972.  

      If you’d done your research, you’d know by now that all commissioned officers in the Naval Reserve hold appointment during the pleasure of the President and those appointments are for an indefinite term (10 U.S.C. Sec. 593(b)).  Thus, one remains on the rolls until one resigns one’s commission or is separated from service through procedures set forth by the Secretary of the Navy as deemed necessary for the maintenance of a sound officer corps.  

      2.  According to someone who bothered to ask the Navy for the original regulation referenced in Kerry’s Honorable Discharge from the U.S. Naval Reserve, BUPERSMAN 38383030, it was revised in 1977 and published Jan. 1, 1978, to provide for review of records by a Board of Officers and discharge of officers who had served in the the Standby Reserve-Inactive (on Inactive Status List) for a period of three years or more.

      <

      p>There are links to the sources in that diary.

      <

      p>As to the second point, Kerry threw his own medals in the form of ribbons, plus medals other vets had given him to throw on their behalf.

      <

      p>First person account of that day:

      <

      p>http://www.boston.com/news/glo…

      <

      p>Essentially O’Reilly is using people’s lack of knowledge about military procedure and terms to stir up the old and refuted lies yet again.

      • 1:  Re: the honorable v. other-than honorable discharge, isn’t the dispute this:

        <

        p>Kerry claimed an honorable discharge and produced a certificate received in 1978, subsequent to the reg cited in your quoted material.  However, wasn’t he was discharged in 1975? The material released by Kerry contains nothing in regards to that 1975 discharge.

        <

        p>While true that commissioned officers do not receive a “dishonorable discharge” the absence of an honorable discharge certificate is notable, and is in fact, (although not the case with Mr. Kerry) the same treatment a commissioned officer would receive if dismissed after a general court-martial. i.e No certificate.  

        <

        p>The question is, where’s the honorable discharge that Kerry received in 1975, or was there a reason for the absence of such certificate.

        <

        p>2:  Re:  the medals thrown away.  A stupid controversey really, but one of Mr. Kerry’s making.

        <

        p>Did you throw the medals away Senator Kerry?  

        <

        p>1971 to the Boston Globe–“yes.”  Then, in 1984, he shows his medals to a Globe reporter, and claims the ones he tossed belonged to someone else.  Then in 1996 campaign he says he tossed ribbons, and that ribbons = medals.  Fer Christ’s sake, all he had to do is say, hey I was young and stupid and threw some stuff away back in the 70s and I admit there’s inconsistencies in my story over the years.  But no, he keeps trying to wed all the stories into some medals = ribbons theory that leaves some folks who care about such stuff just scratching their head.

          1.  Discharge.

          <

          p>wasn’t he was discharged in 1975

          <

          p>Nope.

          <

          p>The material released by Kerry contains nothing in regards to that 1975 discharge.

          <

          p>That’s because there was no 1975 discharge.

          <

          p>2.  Medals.

          <

          p>Did you throw the medals away Senator Kerry?  1971 to the Boston Globe–“yes.”  

          <

          p>Nope.  

          <

          p>If you think he said that, please show your source.  If you’re relying on the second-hand account used in an anti-Kerry opinion piece, please note that it was a reporter’s description, not Kerry saying he tossed his medals.  He didn’t even say that to the TV reporter in the interview that is also quoted.  

          <

          p>http://www.boston.com/news/glo…

          <

          p> Then, in 1984, he shows his medals to a Globe reporter, and claims the ones he tossed belonged to someone else.

          <

          p>That’s right.  And he never claimed anything different.

          <

          p> Then in 1996 campaign he says he tossed ribbons, and that ribbons = medals.

          <

          p>As verified by Boston Globe reporter and eyewitness Tom Oliphant.

          <

          p>So, exactly where is the contradiction?

          <

          p>Or are you just looking for a false issue?

        • That is, if you’re really interested in “clarifying.”

          <

          p>

          Kerry, who understood well the importance that the media placed on imagery, put an exclamation mark on events by lining up with veterans to return their medals to the military on April 23. Kerry said he suggested that veterans place their medals and ribbons on a table and return them. But he said other members of the antiwar veterans group wanted to throw the medals and ribbons over a fence in front of the Capitol, and Kerry went along with the idea.

          Video footage of the scene shows hundreds of veterans angrily gathering in front of the Capitol, near a fenced-in bin with the large sign saying “Trash.”

          One by one, the veterans, most of whom had long hair and wore combat jackets, threw their medals into the makeshift trash bin.

          Some press reports say that Kerry “threw his medals.” But Kerry has long maintained he threw his own ribbons but someone else’s medals.

          In an interview, he said that he had previously met two veterans, one from the Vietnam War and another from World War II, who had asked Kerry to return their medals to the military. Kerry said he stuffed them into his jacket.

          http://www.boston.com/globe/na…

          <

          p>

          Out of all the stories that have hounded Kerry on the campaign trail, the issue of whether he threw away his ribbons or his medals is the most mendacious. . . . Over the years some have asked why Kerry chose to dispose of his ribbons, not his medals. Critics saw him as trying to have it both ways. . . .Further confusing the issue was the fact that Kerry did lob the medals of two no-show veterans toward the Marshall statue at their request. “The point of the exercise was to symbolically give something up,” Kerry recalled in his defense. “I chose my ribbons, which is what many of the veterans did.” The medals he tossed had been given to him by two angry veterans who wouldn’t make it to Washington; he was merely serving as their surrogate. Before Kerry discarded his ribbons, he declared: “I’m not doing this for any violent reason, but for peace and justice, and to try to make this country wake up once and for all.”

          http://dir.salon.com/story/new…

          <

          p>And just in case you didn’t bother to read the article that was linked for you before:

          <

          p>

          As he neared the spot from which members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were parting with a few of the trappings of their difficult past to help them face their future more squarely, I watched Kerry reach with his right hand into the breast pocket of his fatigue shirt. The hand emerged with several of the ribbons that most of the vets had been wearing that unique week of protest, much as they are worn on a uniform blouse.

          There couldn’t have been all that many decorations in his hand — six or seven — because he made a closed fist around his collection with ease as he waited his turn. I recall him getting stopped by one or two wounded vets in wheelchairs, clearly worried that they wouldn’t be able to get their stuff over the looming fence, who gave him a few more decorations. Kerry says he doesn’t remember this.

          . . .

          Some people have written secondhand accounts of that day stating that Kerry at that moment also threw “medals” that had been given to him by a couple of vets who were not there. I remember Kerry doing that later in the day after the event had broken up. He was in the company, for part of that time, of a small group of Gold Star Mothers (who had lost sons in the war). In addition to the events involving the military decorations, the veterans also held a tree-planting ceremony near the Capitol and attended congressional hearings on civilian casualties of the conflict.

          From what I could observe firsthand about Friday, April 23, 1971, Kerry did not make even the slightest effort to pretend that he was throwing all of his military decorations over that fence. He did what he did in plain view, and in my case in the view of someone close enough to kick him in the shins.

          It was clear to me that Kerry had arrived here with only the ribbons he wore on his shirt — which, by the way, were referred to as “medals” by the late Stuart Symington of Missouri, one of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee members present for his famous antiwar statement.

          http://www.boston.com/news/glo…

    • …whether or not O’Reilly’s assertions are true.  This has everything to do with campaign tactics.  O’Reilly is wasting his time talking about Kerry’s Vietnam war record (and subsequent anti-Vietnam war record) or GWBush’s non-war record.  

      <

      p>Those were over a generation ago.

  3. Who is this guy? What unit did he serve with? When was he in combat? What medals did he EARN?? If he has the Purple Heart, how long was he in the hospital? (30 days according to I-tried-to-commit-suicide Dole). If he has done none of the above, flush him down the toilet with rest of the DINOs!

  4. …contemporary to campaign on?  It strikes me that something that occured some 35 year ago is not particularly relevant today.

    <

    p>The medals issue is particularly silly.  When I was a boy sprout in the 1960s, we got lots of medals each commemorating our having successfully traversed one of the trails we hiked on.  It subsequently occurred to me that military people like to give each other medals and ribbons, the reason for which is somewhat obscure.

    • I agree and posted further in this thread about our need to get back to the issues of Iraq, Single Payer Health Care, Marriage Equality and closing tax loopholes for special interests.

      <

      p>Thank you.

      <

      p>Ed O’Reilly

  5. It is a sad day when another Democrat sides with the SwiftBoaters and continues to perpetuate the lies. If Mr. O’Reilly wants to do the “honorable” thing – he should withdraw his name from the Democratic primary. Now.

    <

    p>His actions are inexcuseable.

  6. It’s not sad, it exposes the lack of substance to his campaign.  This guy came to our DTC committee meeting and gave his anti-Kerry speech, mixed in with some progressive ideals.  He did seem to resonate with a few people, but any goodwill he’s worked for is GONE, what an idiot.

  7. That Kerry supporters are spreading this crap, kinda like Mitt spreading anti-Mormon push polls to rile up sympathy up in New Hampshire.

    <

    p>My thoughts is the Swift Boat stuff was an ugly mess, first of all John Kerry brought it on himself by only running on a “I served in Vietnam” platform for the whole primary, attacking Dean and others for not serving. Then the media and some liberal cohorts of Kerry went after Bushs guard service and then the Swift Boaters came.

    <

    p>Frankly I dont care. That was an immoral war and anyone who choose not to fight in it in my view made a responsible decision, especially considering how f***ed up so many of the vets were when the came back. My father once went through his yearbook at 8 of his friends were killed in that god awful war, and out of the survivors two killed themselves.

    <

    p>Secondly I dont care, Kerrys service doesnt make him a good Senator, he still sucks IMO, Bushs lack of service (in Vietnam anyway) doesnt make him a better or worse President, he couldve been a Medal of Honor winner and he’d still have committed the fiasco in Iraq and gone down as one of our worse Presidents. McCain has an even braver record of service than Kerry and I am terrified of his potential Presidency.

    <

    p>I am 19 years old, the Vietnam war was awful for everyone involved, but frankly I care far more about the war going on now where people my age are getting killed. For the Kerry people to bring back the memory of the Swift Boaters is frankly despicable, and Kerry as a vet, especially of that war, should’ve known better than to authorize the current one. That was the day I found out he had no spine, he had no spine on the 04 campaign trail, and my vote for Ed O’Reilly will be a vote to punish someone who has failed time and time again to show any political courage in standing up to this war mongering President.

    <

    p>Sure he condemns the war now, but so do most Republicans, its the political safe move, the only move Kerry knows how to make.  

      • Kerry supporters are not exactly spreading this stuff — unless the Boston Globe by quoting O’Reilly or the Berkshire Eagle by editorializing on it revel themselves as Kerry supporters.
      • The strategy with Kerry was to use his military experience as a shield against Republican attacks on Democrats’ patriotism. Personally, I thought that was a dumb strategy. Dumb, dumb, dumb. But that was the idea. The swift boat attacks were aimed at undermining it using the kinds of tactics that Rove advocates. (Rove might or might not have been involved.) That tactic is to attack the opponent’s strongest attribute. Anything harking back to that experience should leave a bad taste in Democratic mouths.
      • Kerry’s condemnation of the war is considerably more active than moderate Republican condemnation of the war. Moderate Republicans cannot even bring themselves to vote against timelines, or to vote for investigations, or translate their condemnation into anything other than posturing. Reminder: Kerry campaigned actively for Lamont in Connecticut in 2006.
      • McCain certainly does think jingoism is the answer. However, I don’t think he or Kerry argue that one should vote for either of them based on their military experience. At best, their military experience indicates what leadership abilities they have or lack. For such long-sitting Senators, their Senate careers are more relevant. I doubt either argues otherwise.
      • BMG has offered an abundant opportunity to read material from O’Reilly and his supporters. To them, everything Kerry does reveals his bad character. Reraising questions about Kerry’s military record is of a piece with that. But I’m not Maureen Dowd. I do not care about “character” in some psychology-at-distance or theater criticism sense. I care about what our Senators do. O’Reilly has not yet to make a case that he’d do anything that’s so substantially better that we should dump the Democratic Party’s 2004 Presidential nominee. Further, on another thread, Masshole (some handle!) offers some questions about O’Reilly’s role on the school committee that lead one to wonder where he’s going with the character bit.

      • 1)Military service irrelevent and it was a big part of both of their campaigns if you looked at their primary ads, and Kerry did attack Dean for not serving a shameful tactic at that

        <

        p>2)The Swift Boaters attacked him for his service which shocked me, I would have expected them to attack him for “betraying them” by protesting the war, but instead they attacked his service, low I know, but when he attacked his opponents service he opened himself up to this criticism and he didnt respond

        <

        p>3)I will vote for Anyone but Kerry which might include a rational moderate Republican nominee if they bother to run anyone at all. Its high time he’s out of here.

        <

        p>And yeah the war vote does say something about his character, that he served in one wrong war and still was dumb enough to authorize one, for purely political reasons as Bob Shrum points out Kerry really had doubts about that vote before he made it, I see it as weakness on the part of his character.  

    • of the Swiftboat liars is enabling.  This is less about Kerry than about SBVT and other scurrilous propagandists.   In a few years when antiwar Iraq and Afghanistan vets run–epecially decorated veterans–these same kinds of groups will go after them.    

  8. I wonder if it’s appropriate in this thread to say a good word or two on behalf of Ed O’Reilly.  

    <

    p>Yes, Ed O’Reilly is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in 2008.  Nothing wrong with that.  Ed’s a Massachusetts native, from a Massachusetts career firefighter family.  He worked his way with factory and other demanding jobs through UMass Amherst and law school.  

    <

    p>Ed O’Reilly has been a defense lawyer in the Commonwealth for more than a quarter of a century.  That means he’s been in dozens of courts in the Commonwealth fighting to ensure that all Americans’ rights under U.S. Constitution in fact protect his clients.  

    <

    p>Does anyone have a problem with that?  I do not.  In fact, I respect it.  

    <

    p>For what it is worth, I have successfully prosecuted crime by thugs in the streets and by suits in the suites.   Regardless of how a jury decides, it takes competent, dedicated, tenacious defense counsel for everyone — even prosecutors — to have confidence that the justice our Constitution guarantees to us all is in fact done.  

    <

    p>Speaking of the Constitution, has anyone else noticed what’s happened to our supposedly bedrock constitutional civil liberties in the last seven years?  

    <

    p>Our 4th Amendment right to privacy?  Wiped out in the Bush administration’s pre-9/11 lifting of our phone and email information (thanks, Verizon et al.) and its subsequent FISA-related shenanigans.  Our 6th Amendment right to know the charges against us and to trial by a jury of our peers?  Flicked off like pesky dandruff by the Military Commissions Act of 2006.   You’d be wise not to count on them any more.

    <

    p>Do I think that Ed O’Reilly would do a better job in the U.S. Senate of fighting for the U.S. Constitution than our present junior Senator?  Frankly, yes.

    <

    p>I also note that Ed was right on Iraq from the beginning –the unprovoked U.S. invasion, unblessed by the U.N., was a war crime, plain and simple.  It was actually the same crime — starting a war — for which the Allies prosecuted and convicted German leaders after World War II.  Ed is right that we must bring U.S. troops home immediately.  We have no business occupying a country that we’ve illegally conquered.  

    <

    p>Our present junior Senator, as I understand it, wants on the other hand to continue the U.S. occupation of Iraq by leaving U.S. troops in “enclaves” there for a very long time to come.  This flunks the sauce-for-gander test: how would YOU feel if Iraqi troops, even in “enclaves,” were occupying US?

    <

    p>Ed O’Reilly is also right that Americans and American businessses need universal, single-payer health CARE as H.R. 676 (109th Congress, not the present 110th) would provide.  

    <

    p>Come on, folks.  You do realize, don’t you, that you live in the one and only industrialized nation in which citizens can be bankrupted, put out on the streets, by their medical costs?  And bankrupted EVEN IF they have health insurance?  (Of course you do.  You’ve seen SiCKO, right?)  

    <

    p>And you all, Gentle Readers, have health insurance that can never be cancelled, even if you get too sick to do the job that provides it — oh.

    <

    p>Ed O’Reilly is committed to single-payer health CARE — not just insurance, but guaranteed CARE — for all Americans.  Think of it as improved and expanded Medicare for all, with no co-pays.  Wouldn’t you like this?  Wouldn’t you like never, ever to need one of those little cans by the checkout at the 7-11, pleading for change for your or your child’s medical costs?  

    <

    p>As far as I know — please correct me if I’m wrong — the present junior Senator does not support guaranteed health CARE for all of us.

    <

    p>I’d also mention Ed O’Reilly’s commitment to locally-produced, locally-owned, non-profit, non-polluting, renewable energy.  Think wind, for instance.  Think hydro. (We still have the canals from a century ago.  In Holyoke to my knowledge, & perhaps elsewhere in Massachusetts, they produce power even as I type). This is unglamorous but it is critical, both for the health of the Massachusetts economy and for the health of human beings on this planet.  

    <

    p>(The planet and the cockroaches will survive, never fear.  The question is whether you, I, and our grandchildren will.)

    <

    p>Just imagine our Massachusetts economy if it didn’t need to run on oil.  For starters, no dead/wounded Massachusetts National Guards and reservists, or active duty military, fighting to secure Iraqi (or Iranian) oil. Then there’s avoiding the global warming, and the inconvenient global flooding, and inconvenient climate change refugees…. Also, there’d be plenty of money for Massachusetts roads, high-speed rail, schools, and universities.

    <

    p>You do know, of course, that our current Mass tab for the conquer ’em approach to energy is constantly updated at http://www.nationalpriorities.org.  In fact, you can check out to the dollar what it’s cost your own city or town so far — and just watch those dollars zoom up!  Quite exciting, really.  Even at the dollar’s new discount to the Euro.

    <

    p>Seriously, this in my view is enough to suggest that Ed O’Reilly has thought deeply about what it will take to bring Massachusetts, and the nation, into a 21st century in which both human beings and the American Republic can survive.  If I saw this kind of leadership and vision in our current junior Senator, it would be one thing.  But, folks, I don’t.

    <

    p>    

    • Do I think that Ed O’Reilly would do a better job in the U.S. Senate of fighting for the U.S. Constitution than our present junior Senator?  Frankly, yes. How? Kerry is on the same side of all these constitutional issues as O’Reilly. Does O’Reilly have super-magical powers that will get Senator Feinstein to vote right? And Senators Landrieu and Pryor?

      The position is Senator not Senate.Our present junior Senator, as I understand it, wants on the other hand to continue the U.S. occupation of Iraq by leaving U.S. troops in “enclaves” there for a very long time to come.  This flunks the sauce-for-gander test: how would YOU feel if Iraqi troops, even in “enclaves,” were occupying US? That would seem to be a Presidential decision. I fail to see why such nuances are important when we cannot even line up the Democratic caucus on FISA or Iraq timelines.

      Seriously, this in my view is enough to suggest that Ed O’Reilly has thought deeply about what it will take to bring Massachusetts, and the nation, into a 21st century in which both human beings and the American Republic can survive.He hasn’t even begun to think deeply about the role of Senator: He doesn’t seem to understand how filibusters are put together or Senate traditions regarding them. He doesn’t seem to have thought about how one wins political support for positions that don’t yet have a majority. He wants Kerry to be a team player but he also wants Kerry to run a failed filibuster regardless of what the Senate leadership thinks. He wants more progressive Senate legislation but doesn’t want Kerry traveling outside Massachusetts to advocate for it.

      It’s an embarrassing muddle.

    • Harper has flipped me. I was anti-Ed before but then Harper hit me with this thunderbolt- Ed thinks about stuff. He hasn't really done anything with all those wonderful thoughts floating around inside his head but that's not the point. What are accomplishments or qualifications or credentials or action when you spent some time thinking about some stuff that's going on in the world? That's not daydreaming, my friends; that's the visionary leadership that this country is sorely lacking.

      When the war in Iraq began, Ed thought about it. And he kept thinking about it. For five years. He thought his ass off. And then he realized "Hey, I'm thinking stuff about stuff that happened five years ago. I should be a Senator."

      Get this man to DC ASAP.

      War in Iraq– Ed's thought about it. Global climate change– Ed's thought about it. Health care– Ed's thought about it. And in 2008, Ed plans to clear some time to think about loads of other things– the economy, taxes, the cost of college, immigration, infrastructure improvements, labor rights, veterans and Jessica Alba. It's not like Ed's a machine and can think about all sorts of stuff in the same calendar year. If elected, Ed should really make a name for himself on the Committee on Stuff Ed O'Reilly Has Thought About.

      Now, some of you may have also thought about these issues and are starting to wonder if you are also qualified to be a Senator. Ask yourself these two questions: (1) are you certified in CPR, and (2) are you known for your sense of humor? If you answered "yes" to both these questions and you also think stuff about stuff, congrats– you're as qualified as Ed O'Reilly to be a Senator.

      • When you can dismiss a candidate who stands for the basic positions of the Massachusetts Democratic Party on the major issues — single-payer, get out of iraq now, marriage equality, tax equity [read, close hedge fund tax loophole], impeachment of Bush & Cheney —  and fawn over the incumbent who supports none of these [don’t tell me how much he wishes he had not voted for the war], then you are hysterical, not rational.

        <

        p>This diary entry is about one thing and one thing only: the sympathy vote for Kerry who is confused about whether he is for war or against it. He played his Viet Nam anti-war role like a good actor, the same way he played his Viet Nam soldier role for whoever was filming him. He studied the polls to see which way to vote in 2002 for war and he studied them again to see which way to talk against war as the public woke up to what was going on. This is not leadership.  It is unconscionable. It gains no sympathy from me.

        <

        p>I’ll leave it at this: if Kerry has the so-called ‘proof’ that Pickens is asking for, good for him, go for it, get the million bucks. But don’t expect the issue to go away if he keeps bringing it up. That’s the way I read what Ed O’Reilly said to the Globe. I think any politician who wants to run on a war record [which ought to be questioned in itself] is open to question about what that record really is.That includes Bush as well as Kerry.  

        • Thank God a voice of reason has been heard from. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that volunteering for Vietnam was just another crass political move from the soon-to-be Live Shot. Graduate from Yale, what ya gonna do? Go to law school. Go to Wall Street. Go to DC. Nope. Go to Vietnam– what an elitist sell-out.

          <

          p>And then the guy has the stones to fight in the war and then come back and protest against it! What kind of PR-starved moron goes to war, sees its tragic folly firsthand and then comes back and tries to stop other soldiers from dying? Man, Derrico, I know how you feel. When I see those Iraq vets opposed to the war blabbering on about ending the war, all I can think is “Here’s another Kerry wannabe. Guy serves in Iraq, realizes the war is a fiasco and then comes to the States and all of a sudden is anti-war.” You can’t be anti-war if you used to be pro-war (read “served in the military”). Vets need to leave the anti-war stuff to the pros, namely people who didn’t serve and Ed O’Reilly.

        • When understanding facts, details, and policies is just too too much work in one’s busy busy day, there’s a quick an easy substitute.

          <

          p>It’s instant personality analysis!!

          <

          p>Yes, you too can ferret out motives from your couch. You too can look into the minds of others while looking into your television set.

          <

          p>So too this comment, I’m afraid. Kerry has figured out where he stands on the war for anyone who has access to information. His role against the Vietnam war was no play for the television cameras either.

          <

          p>It totally baffles me how the O’Reilly campaign thinks one can advocate for positions without getting publicity. Rather than thinking about that we get Instant Personality Analysis!! and are told how Kerry does everything for self-aggrandizement.

  9. First, I want to say the Boston Globe called me out of the blue the other day while I was traveling over the Thanksgiving holiday to visit family. I never intended to make this an issue in the campaign.  I still do not intend to make John Kerry’s discharge an issue. I welcome people to read my entire article that is linked in this post by a John Kerry supporter.  

    <

    p>The bottom line is that this is a huge distraction from what is really important to the people of this state and the future of our country. I am running for the U.S. Senate based upon John Kerry’s record in the Senate and not his military record.

    <

    p>I am a Massachusetts Democrat and John Kerry is not. Please allow me to list the differences:

    <

    p>MA DEM. PARTY PLATFORM         Ed O’Reilly      John Kerry

    <

    p>COMPLETE IRAQ WITHDRAWAL        YES              NO

    <

    p>SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE         YES              NO

    <

    p>SUPPORT MARRIAGE EQUALITY       YES              NO        

    <

    p>FAIR TAXATION-CLOSE HEDGE
    FUND MANAGER TAX LOOPHOLE       YES              NO

    <

    p>John Kerry’s bloggers (some paid and some perhaps not) want to go back 35 years.  I do not. As I said in the linked article, when John Kerry gets back from his vacation, let’s start debating these issues.

    <

    p>Ed O’Reilly
    Candidate for the U.S. Senate

    <

    p>    

    • Is explain this…

      <

      p>

      All John Kerry needs to do is release his original discharge papers showing whether or not he was honorably discharged or was given a general discharge. It is really that simple.  Once he produces the honorable discharge at the time of his discharge, together with the “exit interview”, all of this will be past us.

      <

      p>An apology will go a long way.

    • …you might wish to consider sticking to those issues and not bring up issues long past.

      <

      p>Recall that Ronald Reagan in 1980 beat Jimmy Carter by choosing four or five issues, that he (or his handlers) believed could be simply stated and that he (or his handlers) believed would resonate with the voters.  

      <

      p>You have done so in this comment.*  The issue of Kerry’s (who I can’t stand) military record is an unnecessary diversion from the message that you apparently want to project.  Stay on message, and you might just beat him.

      <

      p>*Although the message about the hedge-fund manager compensation will be a bit obscure to most people.  You might want to broaden it out a bit: CEO compensation, banks mishandling home mortgages, you get the idea.

      • As I said, I never brought this issue up.  

        <

        p>Thank you for your encouragement.  I plan to talk about these issues as I have the entire campaign.

        <

        p>Ed O’Reilly

        • John Kerry has opened this wound and made the first challenge this time around.  He doesn’t need a portfolio.  

          All John Kerry needs to do is release his original discharge papers showing whether or not he was honorably discharged or was given a general discharge. It is really that simple.  Once he produces the honorable discharge at the time of his discharge, together with the “exit interview”, all of this will be past us.  

          Since John Kerry now has the portfolio and all of the t’s are crossed and the i’s dotted, I assume John Kerry now has that documentation.  He should just show it and end this issue and move on.  We don’t need more division.

          As I said, credibility is at issue and I want John Kerry to take the high road and show his crediblity and show the Honorable Discharge Papers he must now have.

    • From your 1200 word post on Daily Kos from yesterday (11/26) at 6 AM about this issue that you really don't want to become an issue and are really tired of all the Kerry bloggers blogging about:

      John Kerry has opened this wound and made the first challenge this time around.  He doesn't need a portfolio.  

      All John Kerry needs to do is release his original discharge papers showing whether or not he was honorably discharged or was given a general discharge. It is really that simple.  Once he produces the honorable discharge at the time of his discharge, together with the "exit interview", all of this will be past us.  

      Since John Kerry now has the portfolio and all of the t's are crossed and the i's dotted, I assume John Kerry now has that documentation.  He should just show it and end this issue and move on.  We don't need more division.

      As I said, credibility is at issue and I want John Kerry to take the high road and show his crediblity and show the Honorable Discharge Papers he must now have.

      Now, I know it must be tough to be caught off-guard by reporters who have the gall to call you for a quote about the guy you're not going to be certified to run against. Don't those jackals realize that you were vacationing from the vacation that you're taking to run for the Senate! Fellas, give the guy some room to breathe and eat turkey!

      Speaking of turkey, let's talk some. Nestled deep inside the post of ridiculousness you just threw up, is this nugget:

      I am running for the U.S. Senate based upon John Kerry's record in the Senate and not his military record.

      There it is. Ed, the simple fact is that you have no record to run on. You have no real record of any of the sort of stuff most people would expect from a candidate for US Senate and no real idea about just what a US Senator actually does. Which isn't surprising because you haven't been involved in public service for what, 20 years? And based on your decades-long "record" of non-public service you truly believe the people of MA should send Kerry packing and elect you to the Senate?

      Talk about being a legend in one's own mind.

    • Ed:
      The question remains why did you make those comments to the Globe? You can’t have it both ways. The choice was yours.

      <

      p>Having seen you at a number of events, if you are so environmentally conscious, why drive up in a gas guzzling SUV?

      • Even Kerry’s Republican opponents had the presence of mind, not to mention the decency, to tell reporters that they were not going to make Kerry’s military service a campaign issue.

        <

        p>Snip snap.  That simple.

    • As the author of this comment, I hardly qualify as a “Kerry supporter”. I’m certainly not a member of his campaign.

      <

      p>My hope is that I won’t have to spend any effort on the Massachusetts Senate race because the Maine Senate race is more important. Tom Allen for Senate.

    • And that’s your problem.  You actually went out of your way to make John Kerry’s discharge and issue in that DKos post.

      <

      p>An issue which was answered in detail in a diary linked on this thread as well as the DKos thread, or don’t you bother to read those?

      <

      p>http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

      <

      p>By the way, I’m not a Kerry blogger, nor a campaign worker, paid or unpaid.

    • First off, as I already pointed out to one of your, naturally, unpaid supporters/sock puppets above; our support for Senator Kerry is completely voluntary. Unlike you, he has earned it with deeds over the course of his career.

      <

      p>Now,if you never intended to make the swift boat business an issue in the campaign, why did you state in the Globe that ‘this needs to be cleared up’, with ‘this’ being already refuted talking points straight out of O’Neill’s book?

      <

      p>Were you really so intent on discussing relevant issues, you would have joined Beatty and Scott in their pledge not to revisit these lies.

      • John Kerry and I were saying much the same thing.  Clear this up and move on.

        <

        p>I am back to the issues that matter in this campaign.

        <

        p>Ed O’Reilly
         

        • And elaborated in great detail on your prior Globe statement. Sorry, Mr. O’Reilly. The genie is out of the bottle now, and you can’t pretend otherwise.

          • I do think that the apology posted here is the right direction, but posting a comment on a post is entirely different than being quoted in a major newspaper.  

            <

            p>In my mind I still can’t get past the Kos comment posted after the Globe article defending giving credence to the swift boat liars.  

    • You say: “John Kerry’s bloggers (some paid and some perhaps not)”

      <

      p>I’d really like you to point out which have been paid.  You made the claim.  Back it up. How many are paid?  Or is this just another of your baseless, fact-deprived insinuations?

      <

      p>Do you really want to have to apologize to the Senator’s supporters in addition to the apology you already owe Sen. Kerry for questioning his service?

      <

      p>Perhaps after the Senator returns from his vacation visiting ‘struggling single mothers in their dilapidated mud houses’  
      http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/…
      and meeting with the Mayor of Cape Town, you can ask him.

      <

      p>I’ll bet you my entire “John Kerry Blogger” paycheck what you find is going to make you look pretty pathetic.

  10. …is Chicken Pickens?  Foghorn Leghorn I’ve heard of, but I’ve never heard of Chicken Pickens.

    • Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…

      <

      p>Relevant points:

      <

      p>

      Political Interests and Contributions

      Since 1980, Pickens has contributed over $5 million in political donations.[1]

      Pickens and friend and fellow financier Harold Clark Simmons are financial supporters of President George W. Bush, having contributed heavily to both his Texas and national political campaigns. In 2004, Pickens contributed generously to 527 conservative groups, including a $3 million contribution for the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth attacking Bush’s rival, John Kerry, and $2.5 million to the Progress for America advocacy group. Pickens made a $250,000 contribution for Bush’s second inaugural celebration.

      On July 16, 2007, Pickens wrote an article for the National Review supporting Rudy Guiliani for President. “In Rudy Giuliani, a gracious and committed public servant I’ve known for many years, we see that rare blend of big-picture vision and proven track record of achieving the “impossible.” We see a forward-looking, accomplished executive eager to tackle the challenges of today’s America and ensure that tomorrow we wake up stronger, freer, and more united than ever before.”[2] Pickens is an executive-committee member of the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee.

      Pickens chaired the celebration for the 40th anniversary of the American Spectator, a conservative U.S. monthly magazine covering news and politics.[11]

      <

      p>If I were running for office in MA I’d probably not want my name associated with his in any way.

        • Chicken Pickens is little rhyming taunt, aimed at the chickenshit behavior he’s recently displayed:  making his million-dollar offer (that re-started this whole round of Swiftboat recriminations) followed by a response from Kerry, followed by immediate moving of goalposts.

  11. Susie: Hey Eddie, do you think Johnny’s a booger-eater?

    <

    p>Eddie: Yeah, Johnny’s a booger-eater.

    <

    p>Johnny: Waah! Eddie called me a booger-eater!

    <

    p>Eddie: I did not bring up this issue and never intended to.  I never intended to get off track.  I should never have allowed myself to have been drawn into the all of the other stuff.  Clear this up and move on.  Etc.

    <

    p>As a parent, I’d tell Eddie that he doesn’t get out of this by portraying himself as the victim and that he owes Johnny (not me) the apology.

  12. EOR
    Your apology (?) still doesn’t answer why you made the comments to the Globe as well as post it on dailyKos. I am not a Kerry blogger, just a local elected official. This goes to the question of one’s integrity as well as what one has accomplished in life. So far Ed, your campaign is wanting in both regards.

    <

    p>As I wrote before, the choice was yours. For the good of the party, I would strongly advise you to withdraw from the primary.  

Archives