Here’s a Gloucester Times story on his announcement:
O’Reilly, 53, said he would vote to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq.
“Immediately, like today,” O’Reilly said. “And keep a temporary force in the area to fight al-Qaida.”
And here’s Granby 01033 quoting a “message from Ed O’Reilly”:
As I travel across our state for the next seventeen months, I expect to discuss many topics, but the centerpiece of my campaign shall be:
1. The IMMEDIATE withdrawal of our troops from Iraq;
And here’s the question and answer from the questionnaire of the PDA that Ed O’Reilly filled out (pulled from a PDF on their site):
Q: Will you pledge to support such immediate and total withdrawal from Iraq of the military forces, including supporting legislation towards this goal?
A: Yes, including the 100,000+ private military contractors that are part of the occupying force.
Notice in that last one that he explicitly promised to support legislation toward that goal, something he now claims isn’t his job as a Senator.
Frankly, this is outrageous. John Kerry introduced legislation in 2006 (Kerry-Feingold) to set a deadline to get our troops out of Iraq, and starting in 2007, this became the default Democratic position. Every Democrat voted for this; only Republicans denied the need to set a deadline. This is not even a progressive position, this is a standard Democratic position, one where John Kerry and Russ Feingold led the way. Only Lieberman and almost all of the Republicans have taken a position like Mr. O’Reilly. His statement is a complete sell-out of progressive policy.
Let’s face up to something some people have said about Ed O’Reilly in the past: he has absolutely no record of working for progressive causes. He simply started mouthing progressive slogans and talking points when he started to run for office, and some of us tried to warn that he didn’t have a record to back this up. Now, from yukking it up with right-wing bigot Howie Carr on his radio show, to continuing to support a legislator who compared homosexuality to child molestation, to now abandoning the Democrats on the biggest issue of his campaign, we’re starting to get a disturbing pattern emerging from Ed O’Reilly. He outright lied to the PDA MA to get their endorsement, and now he’s dropping the Iraq policy he used to get that like a bad habit.
I have been a supporter of Dems all of my adult life, as has my husband, who also served in the military for 20 years. So we care about this issue.
I have always been a strong Kerry supporter, but I was not happy about the IWR vote, and even less understanding of it than my husband. While not agreeing with the vote, he could understand Senator Kerry’s reasoning at the time. Since then, John Kerry has more than redeemed himself with his strong and consistent stand on Iraq and setting a deadline, as noted above.
When my husband met John Kerry a couple of years ago, this is what he told him:
“I joined the Air Force in 1982 initially to get away from Reaganomics and for a chance to get affordable higher education. After serving 20 years and 5 months, I retired in 2002 and moved back home where I now work for the military at Hanscom. I got involved in politics after 2000 because I realized our country was being hijacked by thugs. This is not what I gave 20 years of my life to protect.”
O’Reilly is not the kind of Democrat I trust to help take back our country from those thugs and bring back a consistent progressive agenda, beginning with Iraq.
alone–since I myself dont know the best direction to take in Iraq. But the comments taken together confirm my intuition of sliminess that I get from him. I know a lot of people who want to believe in him but he makes me want to take a shower.
And now O’Reilly is even backing away from that, or at least abdicating responsibility to call for one. ‘it’s not up to me’
because there is no way to down-rate diaries.
<
p>your past three posts on this blog have been half-baked hit pieces on O’Reilly. You joined BMG last year, right after O’Reilly announced, in order to discredit him among the grassroots. You contribute to no meaningful discussion on this blog.
<
p>Please refer to the rules of the road and disclose any conflicts of interest when you post.
It came up in another post.
<
p>This post is harsh, but it’s accurate. He did say one thing now he says another about troop withdrawal. I think it’s valid to post.
to the Rules of the Road and review the appropriate use of a zero. Your intended use is a flagrant violation. If the editors wanted you to be able to down-rate diaries, I assume they’d provide you that function. Instead, they expect you to comment, expressing your disagreement in a civil manner. Abusing the rating system is not one of the options.
<
p>show me my flagrant violation…
Why all these calls for ‘full disclosure’ all of a sudden? I see no conflict of interest in my being a Kerry supporter, co-founder and contributor to Kerryvision (an idependently run website that features Kerry-related and other video content, not affiliated or funded in any way by John Kerry or his campaign. Got that?) and posting fact-based, if harsh, diaries pointing out O’Reilly’s inconsistencies, and (in prior diaries) lies and smears against Kerry. I really don’t need to discredit EOR. He does a perfectly fine job of that himself.
<
p>As to giving me zeros; wow, you slay me. That hurt. Knock yourself out, Leonidas. Now, how does this affect what EOR told Emily Rooney in that WGHB studio interview the other day?
I think the BMG community is just asking you to say so. It’s not a sudden emphasis on disclosure. A heated campaign is the time to remind people, but as far as I know it has always been the rules. Ironically, in your comment complaining about the need to disclose you in fact did disclose in a way satisfactory at least to me. On the merits I do think you are a bit harsh. Painting O’Reilly as a right-winger just doesn’t square with the bulk of his positions.
I’m still wondering how the EOR supporters are going to justify it. I’ve been getting the feeling, though I can’t prove it, that EOR supporters don’t actually take his statements and positions all that seriously. Now let’s get the facts straight: EOR is running against the senator who first introduced binding legislation to set a timeline to get our troops out of Iraq. EOR is now against setting a timeline to get out of Iraq. EOR represents the progressive position on Iraq how, exactly?
<
p>Disclosure: I’m another Kerry supporter who has run or been involved in at least three Kerry-related sites that are not in any way funded, coordinated or directed by the Kerry campaign — e.g. http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com, which I created in the ’04 campaign with a friend of mine. Kerry inspired me to get involved in politics, so I continue to speak up on issues concerning this election.
I received the following email from the campaign today:
<
p>”U.S. Senate candidate Ed O’Reilly said Friday that his position on Iraq has remained consistent, and that the Kerry campaign is purposely distorting his remarks on Emily Rooney?s WGBH Greater Boston Program on June 17. “I am in favor of the total withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and always have been. I am also a firm believer that we need to do so in the safest manner possible. This has not changed, ” O’Reilly wrote in a website posting, today. “The simple truth is that I do not know how long it will take to achieve this goal and I will leave it up to our military leaders to accomplish the task.” Ed wants to begin the process immediately, but acknowledged the minimum time necessary for total withdrawal of troops will take at least 12-18 months. “The role of a political leader is to set a goal and a mission. It is up to the military leaders to accomplish that goal. As one listens and watches the Emily Rooney interview, it is clear this is what I was saying,” O’Reilly said. ?John Kerry was wrong when he voted for the War in Iraq and he is wrong now when he says he is in favor of a timeline. The simple truth is that John Kerry’s timeline proposes leaving some of our troops in Iraq indefinitely. What kind of timeline is that? Ed asks. As usual, John Kerry wants it both ways. He voted for military action in 2002 and now says it wasn?t a vote for military action. Today, John Kerry says he wants a timeline, but his timeline is not really a timeline at all when it comes to having all of our troops home from Iraq.? Ed said.”
<
p>Sorry, but its when being careful becomes “right-wing” that the left is seen as going off the deep end. If we move to quickly we risk leaving behind a failed state that can only be more threatening to us in the long run.
I was pretty neutral on this whole kerfuffle, but EOR’s statement is incoherent and snarky.
<
p>It’s very disappointing, especially the recycled 2004 Republican talking points.
Leonidas just had no substantive response so he went with all he could think of to attack you. Maybe he is engaging in a little irony today.
<
p>BTW, full disclosure, I am very disappointed in Senator Kerry, particularly in his constituency services, but I do not think Ed O’Reilly is the answer. He just does not seem competant enough to me to send to the Senate. (I really do not like single-issue candidates as he appears to be.) So I do not know what I will do in September.
Wow what a bully. You don’t like what you read so then you ATTACK THE MESSENGER. That seems to be the theme of the dissenters in this diary. Attack the messenger, not the message. You know why? Because you’ve got NOTHING to refute her post. It is entirely fact based and shows Mr. O’Reilly has changed positions on Iraq. You cannot defend the indefensible so you launch personal attacks on the diarist. Beyond disgusting.
<
p>Uprating Kertin’s comments due to troll rating abuses.
against a fellow BMGer without a shred of evidence. Mind your manners.
I just think you’re going about it the wrong way. Your post doesn’t deserve a 0 either though, because the point you make is valid. Just keep hammering on the fact that she hasn’t disclosed her conflicts of interest. Clearly, they exist.
the problem with the Kerry Flashmob (hat tip to Wookie) is that they have no interest in fostering debate or care about their reputation on the board.
<
p>they just want to make a hit, promote it, trying to make the impression of spontaneous grassroots behavior
<
p>the Editors should have intervened long ago, but they have encouraged it…
Really, I have read it a few times, and I still do not get your point. Are you saying that all of us who had a problem with your personal attack on Kerstin are the “Kerry Flashmob?” Or is there some other group that you are referring to?
It answers a very legitimate question – what is O’Reilly’s position on what to do going forward on Iraq. The answer is that it appears to run the gamete of the entire Democratic party and then some. To the PDA, he strives to sound like Kuchinich and speaks of immediate withdrawal. Here, his answer says if he was in the Senate in 2007, he would have been the lone Democrat to not vote for the Iraq spending bill with a call for setting a deadline. Imagine that MA would have had the lone Democratic dissenter rather than the one of the Senators leading the effort.
<
p>Since early 2007, even Democrats, like Hillary Clinton, who were adamant in opposing Kerry/Feingold, echoed Senator Kerry’s words in saying that without a deadline, there was no incentive or lever to force Iraqi politicians to make the tough and personally dangerous decisions they need to make. What O’Reilly does not seem to get was that the deadline to push the needed political actions and diplomacy. Hearing the various Democrats in their 2008 campaigns, Kerry’s opinion on this is now, as Kerstin said, the defacto Democratic position.
<
p>Kerstin, has at the beginning of what she wrote that she is a Kerry supporter. Why are you allowed to attack the Senator and unwilling to allow anyone to question O’Reilly? Do you dispute the words?
<
p>There is very little that can be found on who O’Reilly is and what he has done in his life as an advocate, activist or a public servant. Now, you seem to say that even his words should not be given more visibility.
I assume from your post that you are unable to dispute the substance of Kirsten’s post so you have decided to attack her personally. I found Kirsten’s post very interesting, and even more so after reading what little you had to refute it.
Is everyone assuming that “Kerstin” is one?
I don’t think Kerstin is a plant. Senator Kerry’s staffers are not going to risk his ire at doing something so stupid. This is just normal MA politics in action. Could Kerstin be in contact with the Kerry campaign? Sure. Are they directing her to post this stuff? No. Could she be a little less volatile in her postings? Yes. Is there validity to her point? Yes.
Of thoughtful, determined action on getting our troops out of Iraq safely and in a timely fashion, it’s impossible to look at O’Reilly’s statements, above and not see that this is a man who simply does not know anything about the region or the situation. He is not equipped to discuss the withdrawal of our troops in an informed way, he doesn’t have the knowledge required. This would lead him to actions based on ignorance and heaven knows we’ve had more than enough of THAT over the last 8 years of this administration. Put that up against John Kerry, who has been fighting for security and respect for our troops since he WAS one and came home to speak out for his brothers in arms and the choice is clear.
<
p>As a Mass. citizen, I feel very lucky to have someone as committed and informed as Senator Kerry working to clean up George Bush’s mess in Iraq and bring our troops home safely.
This argument sounds wonderful, until you consider the fact that Kerry got us there in the first place. I guess that’s why the GI Joe show used to say Knowing is (only) half the battle!
You might want to learn some history.
And I’m not naive as to think it wasn’t a political calculation. I know my history; I just have a much more realistic understanding of it.
<
p>Got us in there was strong, yes, but he did nothing to keep us from getting in there in the first place. If he had, I think he would have won POTUS.
going to war before and after the vote. If his goal was to position himself as for war, he would have stayed quiet as the country moved towards war, as others did.
<
p>
He voted for the resolution because it was the politically expedient thing to do, at the time. The resolution conveniently provided for plenty of cover, which I assure you was not an accident. All the Democrats who signed onto it were obviously hoping to have their cake and eat it too; they could sign it and be a good little patriotic American, while denying they wanted to go to war when the war turned sour, which almost all wars inevitably do.
<
p>I’ve been too involved with politics; I’m just not buying. I know how politicians think: John Kerry did the politically expedient thing to do in a time when the President was going to war and was immensely popular. You would do MUCH better for yourself if you kept arguing that Kerry thought it was his biggest mistake ever and that he regrets it even today. That’s a far better argument as opposed to trying to say Kerry didn’t give the President his permission to go to war, because that’s what he did and few are foolish to believe otherwise.
At the time, it was obvious to me and to anyone who remembers the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, that it was permission to invade. I know John Kerry remembers that. It was so obvious that when his staff next asked me for support, I told them he’d never get my vote again.
<
p>War is the most clearly defined test of morals that there is. People who are for it without responding to an immediate threat are helping to perpetrate the worst thing that a nation can do. I once thought JK believed that, too. His vote for the Authorization convinced me I was wrong.
This debate is useless.
Kerry has said repeatedly that his vote was wrong – however a reasonable look at all he said in 2002 and 2003, shows that he not in favor of the invasion ever.
<
p>He wrote a September 6 op-ed in the NYT, that was generally labeled as anti-war. It contained the same reasoning in the his IWR speech. In his IWR speech, Kerry spoke of the public Bush commitments on how he would use the authorization if granted it. He said he would speak out if Bush didn’t.
<
p>When it was clear that Bush was going to go to war in spite of the fact that the work of the inspectors showed that there was less imminent danger than anyone thought in October 2002 (even people like Feingold had paragraphs depicting the potential danger) and there were still available diplomatic efforts, Kerry was a prominent enough critic of going to war that he was singled out for criticism by the right.
<
p>Here is one example, from David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter in National Review.
“How often do we hear it said that America is “rushing toward war”? Presidential candidate John F. Kerry warned against the “rush to war” in a major speech at Georgetown University on January 23. The day before, the leaders of France and Germany delivered a similar warning. So did the editors of the New York Times.
(snip)
If ever any administration has moved with deliberate speed, it is this one. But no matter how slowly it moves, it is never slow enough. No matter how often it makes its case, it has never made the case enough. And no matter how much evidence of Saddam’s dangerousness it adduces, the evidence is never convincing enough. When, do you suppose, would John Kerry and President Chirac and the editors of the New York Times think it a good time to overthrow Saddam? After another three months? Or six? Isn’t it really the day after never?
<
p>It is not the speed of war that disturbs them. It is the fact of war. But this time, the fact of war is inescapable. War was made on the United States, and it has no choice but to reply. But there is good news: If the preparations for the Iraq round of the war on terror have gone very, very slowly, the Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts. The sooner the fighting begins in Iraq, the nearer we are to its imminent end. Which means, in other words, that this “rush to war” should really be seen as the ultimate “rush to peace.”
(DU link, because it was the only accessible one I could find – http://www.democraticundergrou…
<
p>It may be that, given that in Kerry’s IWR speech, he speaks of how the war critics (including himself) had succeeded in making the Bush administration go to the UN and Congress – rather than acting unilaterally. Given what he says in the speech, it could be that he thought that Bush could be pushed to keep his commitments – and maybe avoid a war unless imminent danger was proven and it was a last resort. What is clear is that Senator Kerry, if he were President would NOT have taken us to war.
<
p>He also has been leader in moving the country to accepting that we need to set a deadline and leave. The past can not be undone, and from the OP, O’Reilly would be less a force to resolve this war than Senator Kerry.
who had over 20 years of senate/security access to intel on iraq and the middle east.
<
p>and still rubberstamped bush’s war.
<
p>
But Senator Kerry did more to speak out against this war and try to end it than most people in Congress.
too late, I’m afraid. He’s been great since he lost POTUS though!
I protested with my teens in DC and NYC in early 2003 and was watching and reading the News. Kerry spoke out, unlike the Clintons, John Edwards, Joe Biden, or Chris Dodd – people many hold less to account on this than John Kerry. Edwards actually spoke in favor of the invasion for months after it happened.
<
p>There were some like Gore, Kennedy and Byrd who spoke out against the IWR.
<
p>The fact is that Kerry could have spoken day and night in 2002 and 2003 against the war – and even voted against the IWR and BUSH WOULD STILL HAVE GONE TO WAR.
i was with about 30,000 fellow constituents of john kerry’s marching down boylston street as the run-up to war was hitting full steam.
<
p>how many of his constituents, on boyslton street that day or otherwise, do you think he served and represented by being the only member of the massachusetts delegation to rubberstamp bush’s rush to war?
<
p>
Poor Ed — the times they are a changin’ for him. PDA was so 6 months ago. Now he needs to get some votes from his new consituency: the Howie Carr vote. And that means chucking the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. I mean, why is this guy running again?
I like John Kerry, but criticizing O’Reilly for going on Howie Carr’s show is silly, and pretty hypocritical seeing as John Kerry appears on Jay Severin’s show, who is arguably worse in terms of overall bigotry. Neither appearance should be criticized — neither should be taken as an implied endorsement of the host.
gotten up in front of the state democratic convention and decryed the notion of a timetable for withdrawl with the same screeching bug eyed fervor he brought to denouncing John Kerry?
Everything about this campaign is half-baked, from the candidate to his views on major issues. EOR is the Ogo of Democrats. He really should start with a state-level elected office; this straight to the top as U.S. Senator hubris is simply too much.
Obama has recently backed away from timelines.
<
p>As long as Bush is in office, we have liars and fools at the wheel. A carefully thought-out nuanced policy is unachievable. We needed to get our hands on the on-off switch and set it to “off”. Sadly, that never happened.
<
p>A Democratic Administration — or even a conscientious Republican one — would benefit from more flexibility. Withdrawing takes place within the complex political entanglements of Iraq and its neighbors. With Secretary of Diplomacy Avoidance Rice in charge, we have had no window into how to accomplish that; once we have an actual Secretary of State, this becomes possible.
<
p>So my take is that from 2003 through December, 2008, we need a timeline. We shouldn’t need to constrain an Obama Administration with a timeline.
That said, O’Reilly has made a big, big fuss about how his position on Iraq is so much better than Kerry’s, that it’s a reason to support him. So now he’s changing his Clearly Superior Position?
http://www.barackobama.com/iss…
<
p>
<
p>His speech on it in Sept. 2007: http://www.barackobama.com/200…
<
p>The pollsters are still polling based on Obama’s Iraq policy of a timetable for withdrawal:
<
p>http://toledoblade.com/apps/pb…
<
p>
<
p>Honestly, where did you get the idea that Obama has backed off from his Iraq policy?
Obama has been emphasizing the need for flexibility in the withdrawal process. He has spoken of pulling some forces out soon, but he has also balanced that with the need to listen to various parties — Iraqi, military, and diplomatic.
<
p>This is quite in contrast to the rigidity that must be handed a Bush Administration that will use any flexibility it is given to mess things up even more.
His Iraq plan is a timetable for withdrawal. Saying he would be flexible to a certain extent does not change his position one iota. I am only arguing this point with you, because if Obama hints that he will chuck the timetable, the GOP will launch a full scale attack on him for being a waffler. There WILL be flexibility on the timetable, but the idea is that the Iraqis only seem to get to work when they have a deadline. If they sense that the Americans will just kick the problem down the road, then the Iraqis procrastinate. The timetable is part of the negotiations and diplomacy. It is quite vital.
<
p>Do you have some quotes from Obama? Because I don’t think he is “backing off” from the timetable.
<
p>Thanks.
is, by definition, inflexible.
<
p>Once you talk about flexibility, you are no longer adhering to a timetable, as any Amtrak customer will tell you.
<
p>That seems to me to qualify as “backing away.”
was not a time table for the Bush administration, but called on the Bush administration to give the Iraqi politicians a time table to push them to make the really tough and personally dangerous decisions that need to be made to resolve their political problems.
<
p>When Kerry first proposed this in April 2006, he was suggesting what a President should do. In 2007 and 2008, even HRC has spoken of the need to do this for this reason.
The power of coincidence always amazes me! For instance, what do Kerstin. Luftmensch, Elias and beachmom have in common?!…they all support Kerry, berate O’Reilly for sure, but they also incredibly joined BMG almost simultaneously June 20-21, 2007…what are the odds of that! go figure…
<
p>There’s an old neighborhood expression..”He lies, and you swear to it.”…it’s an old trick, that could apply to posters who are on the attack as well.
<
p>There are differences between Kerry and O’Reilly on key issues…but O’Reilly is clearly running to the LEFT of Kerry on most of them…I am a regular viewer of Greater Boston and saw O’Reilly’s interview that you reference…you have stretched the elastic much too far to make a false impression about his stance on the withdrawal question.
<
p>
That’s what I notice here. How about a real argument on the issue. A firm timetable matters. Otherwise, you’re going to morph into McCain before you know it. Or the wormy position as exemplified by wussy Dems in 2006 who did not go along with Kerry for the timetable — it was all let’s START withdrawing troops, but with no end in sight. Heck, we’re doing that now, as announced by Petraeus. We are beginning to draw down some surge troops.
<
p>O’Reilly acted like he was a total lefty on Iraq, and has been bashing Kerry nonstop on it. Now it ends up that O’Reilly is to the RIGHT of Kerry with a fuzzy MAYBE SOMEDAY we’ll withdrawal all the combat troops. Sorry, this is a movement in his position, and it makes him seem a lot less trustworthy.
<
p>Anyway, check my history. And better yet, check my history over at DailyKos which goes back a lot longer (same user name). I have supported Kerry for a very long time, because I wanted him to be president. But I also am interested in other issues, and have been a full Obama supporter, too. There is nothing to hide here. I am puzzled why it’s that big a deal that some of us support and like Kerry. I’ve been reading BMG since 2006, when they did a Kerry interview here. So … there it is.
aren’t really wanted here, actually. The denizens like themselves a little fresh EOR; John Kerry, ehhhh, a bit rancid. So the new folks who post here and who happen to like or trumpet Kerry are suspect, operatives, shills, etc. Of course, new folks who post here who happen to like EOR (if there are any) are welcome, progressives, right, etc. Messed up, that, eh, it’s the internetz.
I don’t even like Ed O’Reilly and I find myself defending the guy simply because I am so sick of this Kerry Flash Mob. It’s not the message, it’s the messengers, and I simply don’t trust a group of people who continuously hit-and-run on the same exact topic and apparently have no opinions on anything else.
<
p>I’m sure if the editors wanted to track the IP address(es), there’d find more in common than their joining dates and their disdain for Ed O’Reilly.
<
p>Yes, it’s so difficult to believe that John Kerry has more than one supporter, we simply must all be one and the same paid staffer.
I am suggesting that everyone click here and see what the common denominator is among every single post, comment, rating and recommendation and then come to their own conclusions.
<
p>Do me a favor, please update your signature to note that you run KerryVision, so at least everybody knows upfront what your conflict of interest is, as they read your latest character assassination on Ed O’Reilly.
The guy is running on the fact that he’s more rigid on Iraq than Kerry. But low and behold he isn’t as wedded to that position as he led anyone who would listen to believe. I for one originally found O’Reilly’s message attractive, but once you dig into the guy a bit, you find that he’s an empty suit whose only message is “I hate John Kerry.” And is willing to say or do anything to get support.
<
p>I’m sorry, but I’m not willing to support anyone who is so willing to trash a fellow democrat in order to gain power. Especially one who has repeatedly stuck his neck on the line to support progressive candidates such as Lamont and Obama.
I make no secret of the fact that I am a Kerry supporter, and believe it is my responsibility to point out O’Reilly’s hypocrisy, especially considering he is running on a platform that pretty much consists of maligning and lying about Senator Kerry, and a paper-thin resume which leaves much to be desired.
<
p>As to Kerryvision – the site is a joint venture and consists of strictly Kerry supporters and is in no way affiliated with John Kerry or his campaign. Again – big revelation, huh? A Kerry supporter jointly runs a website in support of Kerry. Damn, you got me!
<
p>Now, to get back to the issue at hand: kindly explain how writing a diary that points out O’Reilly’s inconsistencies is a character assassination.
is a necessary skill in reading political blog posts. I noticed too that there are only certain times when these posters participate. But the same is true with EOR. His best friend, brothers and various cohorts do exactly that behind the scenes without disclosures. In this instance, you’re just witnessing pro-Kerry people who email each other to do a recommend and participate. It happens all the time. Don’t worry too much about Ed IAAM (It’s All About Me) O’Reilly. He assassinates his own character on a daily basis. Someone probably told him he looks more Senatorial when he comes out with nuanced positions. He’s probably looking in the mirror right now practicing his new spewl for Howie.
<
p>Disclosure: I briefly and stupidly thought EOR cared about progressive issues, but it’s really always been IAAM. The only vision that EOR has is one of an O’Reilly family political dynasty (I’m not kidding).
had me almost totally charmed, although I didn’t sign his petition. Dynastic aspirations – I can picture it.
From my read of this situation, the only support he gets (outside of anti-kerry) is in Watertown, where his family seems to be well regarded, why not start at the local level and build up? Jeez, the Kennedy’s started with a generation or two of Mayors and local leaders before running for federal offices….need to start somewhere besides every known job under the sun….
Hmmm….not the usual course in MA politics…Kennedy and Kerry started at the top levels from the get-go…as did our governor…no prior local start-up required.
<
p>Isn’t that the beauty of the system? Anyone can run for any office they choose.
The problem is, after a term or two, our political leaders get to feeling “entitled” to their position and anyone who is (excuse the expression) “audacious” enough to run against them is out of line.
After serving our country in Vietnam and then coming back to join grassroots movements to bring our troops home and helping found the national environmental movement, he began his political careeer with a failed Congressional bid, then went to law school, practiced, and worked as DA and Lt. Governor before seeking his Senate office. And he never quit in the middle of his term like O’Reilly did because it was “too much work.”
<
p>I see a lot of Kerry-hating and wilful ignorance from certain people at BMG, just as I see reasoned support for the Senator.
<
p>I am appalled at the bullying tactics being used by certain posters here, calling Kerry supporters shills, in effect. I have never yet downrated a comment (even the ones that enrage me!) on this board, nor will I. Yet my own mild and truthful comments have been downrated. I think that’s negative and unproductive blog behavior and I deplore it.
<
p>The majority of MA voters, as will be shown in September, support John Kerry because they know he is one of the hardest-working, most progressive, most effective and smartest Senators in this country. We are lucky in our congressional delegation, but Senator Kerry can be singled out for his dedication to the people of this state and his lifelong, exceptional service to our country.
I think that would be news to the Sierra Club, not to mention Teddy Roosevelt.
He helped organize the first Earth Day in 1970 and has been a mover and shaker in the environmental movement for almost 40 years.
JK was Asst. DA. 🙂
John Kerry’s first run for public office was Congress…a losing endeavor as he did not come from the Lowell / Merrimac Valley district he was running in (Johnny they hardly knew ye)…he got hired as an Assistant DA in Middlesex County…he then ran for Lt. Governor in a crowded field against 2 Italians and 2 women and lucky for him his Irish sounding last name helped him to squeek through the middle and win with under 25% of the vote…as Dukakis’ LG he served “in waiting” and it did not take long for him to bolt when the Tsongas US Senate seat opened up because of Paul’s illness…
<
p>Kerry has held the seat for 24 years, no opposition on a primary ballot until now…he has been one lucky guy.
I find it very silly that you can not accept that someone good enough to win the Democratic nomination very easily should have at least a small number of people, who actually know his record – as they bothered to research it – and at some point saw a link to BMG on a Kerry related issue. I came to read about an interview.
Does not negate their truth. My main political involvement here and on other political blogs is focused on supporting the Senator because in his work for MA and the country, I find hope for our future. I see many of the same posters supporting O’Reilly, when it comes to that. I do not question their right to post their opinions.
<
p>I would like to see replies to my posts about Ed O’Reilly’s incompetence rather than attempts to stop me from posting my reasoned support of John Kerry.
He’s been blogging since before BMG was BMG. He can defend himself, I’m sure, but the guy who described our former Governor as a chronic masturbater is not employed by the Kerry campaign by any stretch of the imagination.
what positions has O’Reilly taken that put him to the left of Kerry?
What’s up with all the hit jobs on BMG lately?
<
p>This site isn’t a tool to bash your least favorite candidates. It’s a place where we all go to learn about what’s going on and have some insightful commentary. Let’s try to have some more informative pieces in the future, okay? You’re not doing John Kerry any favors. And, if you are going to go for the jugular, at least make a full disclosure.
<
p>Finally, I fail to see a difference between Kerry and O’Reilly’s position on Iraq, as described here:
<
p>
<
p>It’s almost exactly the same position! The way you made it sound at the beginning of your post, it sounded as if O’Reilly didn’t want to get troops out of Iraq at all. He just clarified his position, something no different than what Kerry has done for in the past – and been slammed for it over and over again. So, again, I hope people will consider the tenor of their posts in the future, trying to be a little more honest and a little less hostile.
<
p>Disclosure: I’ve publicly said I’m leaning towards Kerry in the upcoming election, but posts like this are really making me rethink that position.
EOR and the others from his EORification cult swarmed here negatively. EOR set a negative tone and continued it right until he got push back for sticking for the claims of the Swiftboat Vets. This is far from the most gratifying style blog for me to read, but the people who support Kerry sure didnt start out this way.
goes both ways. But two wrongs don’t make a right. These kind of posts don’t help peoples’ causes.
negatively–however inconsistency on Iraq has been EOR’s #1 rationale for his candidacy, so I think it is fair game to point out EOR’s inconsistency.
When you try to frame things negatively starting out, it takes away from your overall argument. Of course, there was a point there and it could have been made much better. I would have been more curious had the post started out discussing what EOR actually said, free from any bias or prejudice. We could have had an actual discussion over whether or not EOR really flip flopped or has a position that is “to the right of” the Democratic Party. It seems to me that what he said and Kerry says is basically the same, except EOR is far less eloquent and good at speaking than Kerry is (which is – no offense to our Senator – saying a lot).
I really dont like negativity.
<
p>A little off-topic: I do think the complaints of strong arm tactics after the convention have been exaggerated. I dont believe the poster who said he/she got 8 phone calls urging them to vote against EOR (or for Kerry)? My read on that post was that it sounded improbable. All my town’s delegation was undeclared prior to the convention and we got 1 phone call from Martha Coakley and 1 call from Kerry.
I can give you names and numbers of the staffers who called me…
<
p>I probably still have some messages on my machine too
nobody in my area got anywhere near that number of calls (2 robo calls – no staffers). My chair got a mid week taped call from a staffer. My instinct is not to believe this unless you are some heavy-duty local leader that was getting extra pleading.
your claim because I received close to that many myself. The calls were a coordinated effort to touch delegates repeatedly. Campaigns should do that. Clinton did the same with MA voters. What exactly is your issue with the calls? Trust me, if EOR IAAM had funds and the backing of anyone of import, he would have had robocalls going out every five minutes.
seems to me that providing more effective local representation is what is fueling eor.
<
p>That is exactly what I provided for you. Information about a supposed progressive Senate candidate’s conflicting statements, or about-face, if you will – documented and linked.
<
p>
<
p>As a matter of fact, EOR has now positioned himself to the right of Kerry on troop withdrawal. Also, nowhere in my post have I implied that EOR is against withdrawal. However, his new position of opposing a timetable is clear, as seen in the interview, and I do wonder how PDA feels about that.
<
p>
<
p>Really? Really??!! You seriously base your candidate support on a knee-jerk reaction you have from a (to you) disagreeable post or two?
This isn’t an informative piece. Your very first sentence illustrates that.
<
p>
<
p>I tend to doubt that; the general consensus seems to be a reasonable, safe withdrawal.. which is what O’Reilly’s quote urged for. Even if it were true, it’s not as if you provide any evidence whatsoever. Hence, you hurt your point.
<
p>
<
p>Pray, tell, what’s the significant differences of both proposals? I’m really curious. As far as I know, John Kerry supports a reasonable withdrawal, as does Ed O’Reilly. Kerry does support a timetable, but it seems to me that EOR would hand that responsibility over to our (hopefully) Democratic President and his military experts.
<
p>
<
p>No, you just said he’s to the right of the Democratic Party, yet I fail to see a meaningful explanation on how.
<
p>
<
p>There’s been an aweful lot of coordination going behind preventing EOR from appearing on the ballot. That leaves a sickening feeling in my stomach. I like Democracy, I like people having choices, and I like those choices to not be stained by hit pieces and negative campaigning, especially when it comes to the blogosphere — where you already have peoples’ attentions. I come here to learn things, discuss, banter… not to hear political spin. The kind of support a candidate is getting is absolutely reflective on that person’s campaign; I’m sorry if you don’t like hearing that, but it’s the truth. If you want Kerry to win (as I have), I hope you’ll improve your posts in the future.
Are they all positive with absolutely no negative contrasts pointed out? Because I have lived all over, and I have never seen an all positive campaign the way you seem to dream of. Democracy is messy. As the saying goes, “politics ain’t no beanbag”. This diary contains no personal attacks against Mr. O’Reilly. It simply shows an inconsistency on his position on Iraq AND that he has inexplicably unendorsed a timetable for withdrawal. That is in complete contrast to the platform position of the Democratic party putting him to the Right of John Kerry, who has consistently backed a timetable for withdrawal since April 2006 when he unveiled his plan. Don’t you think that is vital information to have in order to form your choice? I think it is.
but this is a community of people interested in ideas and action, people that generally know a thing or two about politics… I just don’t think spin belongs here.
<
p>I don’t think we should be getting together and singing kumbaya, just be honest and don’t resort to hyperbole. I’ve already pointed on numerous areas where “this diary” does go out of its way in bending facts, or at least not backing serious accusations up.
<
p>
<
p>Come on, don’t be dishonest. You’re focusing on one word that he said, ignoring the entire context of his entire answer. That’s absurd. That’s what the Swiftboaters did to Kerry. He specifically referenced a time, but said he’d leave it up to the military experts. How is that “to the right” of the party? It’s basically what the party is saying. As I’ve said, I’m not one to swallow spin. I’m spitting it out and it’s giving me a sour taste in my mouth.
<
p>
<
p>Where ever did I suggest we ignore this information? This diary would have been 10000000000x better if we skipped the spin, put up the quote, and had a discussion of whether or not it was “to the right” of the rest of the party, or in reality all that different from Kerry’s position. Or if it was just a goof, as Kerry has had on numerous occasions.
<
p>Kerry’s stance on Iraq is going to mean that we’ll be there for at least 18 months, if not more, so I fail to see where it’s different. Your arguments are desperate and you appear zealous. I’m sorry, but that’s the truth. And this is coming from a freaking Kerry supporter! Stop making me question my loyalties. LOL.
Come on, that dog don’t hunt. Mr. O’Reilly said he was against a timetable today. He said it. It is not out of context. He said it. What the heck does that have to do with a bunch of jerks lying about Kerry’s war record?
<
p>Where did he do that?
<
p>It’s made to seem like suddenly he doesn’t want to get out of Iraq or something; that’s simply not an honest, non-prejudiced way of making that statement.
<
p>Here’s a much better way of putting it – while still being critical (yet fair).
<
p>
<
p>THAT is fair. THAT is critical. THAT would have been a much more interesting debate.
<
p>From there, we could have discussed whether or not that puts him out of the mainstream of the party. We could have discussed whether that’s was a goof, or what he actually meant to say (and, honestly, I’d lean with goof, because he has the political messaging skills of blogger who hasn’t seen the light of day in a month).
<
p>
<
p>Nice try. We’re not talking Kerry’s war record (which was exemplar), we’re talking about the fact that a bunch of people took tiny grains of salt and blew them way out of proportion. Kerry said he threw his medals away, but it was really his ribbons. EOR said he wants to get the troops out within 18 months, but also listen to military commanders. Kerry lied! EOR lied! All of it is BS. All of it is “swiftboating.” Speaking of dogs that won’t hunt!
<
p>Jesus… with friends like these, who needs enemies? You guys are doing everything in your power to make sure EOR cracks 40%.
about this comment. The ratings thing is out of control. Geez.
<
p>I wonder what this place would look like in the course of a day if the editors turned off the rating function? A ratings holiday along the order of the one death took once.
<
p>Because they’ll never do that, I’m turning mine off now. Your “6” is the last rating from me until this tempest blows over. Seeing cogent and respectful commentary branded “worthless” and truly worthless commentary labeled “excellent” makes my head want to explode.
Let me ask you this:
<
p>Do you think it is fair to point out a publicly done interview and to point out that this interview marks a change in position from other publicly posted interviews? Why do you object to vigorous questioning of the candidate based on what he actually said?
<
p>There are no made-up questions or shaky information. My OP thoroughly backs up what EOR said then and what he says now.
<
p>Do you want me to remove the facts from my post so as not to offend you? This is exploring one of the most important issues before the American people and what one candidate said about that. No reason to shy away from an honest debate, which O’Reilly has invited with his comments that his entire reason for running was because of Kerry’s IWR vote.
<
p>If not about the candidates’ stands on the issues, what should we talk about? Enlighten me, please!
I almost think you’ve convinced yourself that this was a solid diary; it isn’t. IN THE FIRST SENTENCE you skewed the diary.
<
p>
<
p>Pray, tell, where the hell did he do that. It’s your OPINION that he’s to the right of the party; that’s not what he said or intended to say, whatsoever. Feel free to try this “critical thinking” thing again; I’m sure you’ll get the hang of it.
<
p>By the way, I’m not saying you shouldn’t have been critical of EOR; by all means, let the facts reign:
<
p>-Prove to me how his proposal is significantly different from John Kerry’s. Kerry’s position is likely to keep us in Iraq for 18 months, at the least. EOR specifically said “18 months,” but said he’d defer to the military experts. Are you saying Kerry wouldn’t defer to the military experts, especially in an Obama administration (which it’s looking increasingly likely that it’ll happen)? Somehow, I doubt John Kerry will be ignoring the military commanders, nor would he want his strongest supporters making that implication.
<
p>
If 18 months and/or listening to our military experts is “to the right” of the party, are you suggesting it’s a bad idea? Would you want to pull troops out sooner than they could be pulled out safely? EOR specifically mentioned safety in his answerthe one you quoted. How does that show he has a lack of understanding on the issue, as has been claimed in this thread repeatedly and not denied by you.<
p>
Prove to me that he’s “to the right” of the party at all; not in terms of his rhetoric, but his entire statement. I don’t think 18 monthsor listening to military experts – is to the right of the party at all.<
p>Until you do all three of those things, your argument falls on deaf ears. It’s a complete hit job with few redeeming qualities. This could have been an interesting diary, but isn’t, because of your histrionics and zealous nature.
<
p>
<
p>The facts ain’t the problem. Swiftboaters had plenty of dem facts, too.
a strikeout appears through my text, but it wasn’t intentional and should be ignored.
You can now do some basic formatting without knowing any HTML.
<
p>This is *bold* –> This is bold.
<
p>This is _italic_ –> This is italic.
<
p>This is -strikethrough- –> This is
strikethrough.<
p>You can make sure the (asterisk, underscore, hyphen) is not misinterpreted by preceeding it with a backslash ().
<
p>You started a couple of paragraphs with hyphens, and then used a hyphen later on, and so this feature misinterpreted you.
<
p>IMHO, I think the bold and italic ones are useful, but the strikethrough one should be eliminated. Strikethrough isn’t used that much, and hyphens are used a lot. But for now, it is what it is.
Kerry has led the effort to set a deadline – since his April 2006 NYT op-ed calling for it and Kerry/Feingold in July 2006.
<
p>O’Reilly says that a deadline “doesn’t make sense to me”
<
p>That is a MAJOR difference.
<
p>There is also a more subtle difference. O’Reilly says “I can’t tell the troops or the professionals ….” The United States has CIVILIAN leadership of the military. The military simply implements the policy that are told to implement. They do of course provide input. Senator Kerry often speaks to military leaders and clearly takes their expertise into consideration.
<
p>That willingness to listen and his intelligence might be why that the Iraq Study group, a bipartisan task force picked by Bush, came back with recommendations that were closer to Kerry’s proposals than to anyone else’s.
<
p>It doesn’t sounds like O’Reilly sees that he would even try to play the role that Kerry did, but rather consider that it isn’t his job.
for taking his words out of context.
<
p>Example 1:
<
p>Example 2:
<
p>Heck, in this own thread (and before you made the comment I’m replying to), O’Reilly clarified that.
<
p>
<
p>How is that any different than what you said? In effect, EOR wants to set up the policy of totally withdrawing our forces, then leave it up to the generals to decide the safest and most expedient way of doing it. Civilian leadership of the military does not extend to actual plans for withdrawal; they set the policy, allowing the military to actually plan it. Careful where you go with this, because I highly doubt Kerry would disagree with how I interpreted the meaning of civilian leadership.
<
p>As far as I can see, the only difference between Kerry and EOR on what to do with Iraq from here on out is that EOR wants a total withdrawal, while Kerry wants to leave some troops in Iraq to protect key, strategic areas. That, by the way, is the more war-hawkish position… because it’s still going to mean 10,000s of troops. Heck, that was the entire premise of Governor Richardson’s campaign in the primary: Hillary, Edwards and Obama’s plans all called for keeping troops in Iraq. Kerry’s plan does too. EOR’s plan does not. And BOTH candidates will listen to military commanders on troop withdrawal: neither Kerry or EOR would force commanders to pull troops out sooner than safely possible. That would be disastrous.
I think your dairy is so effective, that it’s even better than the ultimate political ad I’ve ever seen!
<
p>
<
p>Keep up the good work! Yellow journalism is the best kind, really!!
When trying to fairly analyze the Iraq situation, it is important to separate the policy issue that got us into it from the strategic decision needed to get us out.
<
p>Whatever “evidence” was presented to support the pre-emptive attack on Iraq, it was a major policy departure for the U.S. That change in policy could be viewed as precedent-setting, thus raising it to the level of a doctrine. Thus, the Bush Doctrine is to attack anyone we’re afraid of (so long as we think we can beat them).
<
p>The previous overarching doctrine of fifty-some years standing was the Truman Doctrine of containment (of communism). That led to the firing of one of the most popular generals in American history, Douglas MacArther, because he wanted to pre-emptively move into China. President Truman was right to not allow that doctrine creep.
<
p>In voting for the invasion of Iraq, Senator Kerry shares in the responsibility for such a major change in American national security doctrine, one which took place without public discussion of the implications. He has not given an adequate answer for that, though I fail to imagine how he could.
<
p>Now, as to getting out. We have troops on the ground. The hornet’s nest is still alive with activity. It is one thing to want to get out “immediately.” That is my own snetiment, and I know it is Ed O’Reilly’s. It is quite another, and a sobering one to boot, to know how to effect that in the safest possible manner.
<
p>That a candidate might struggle a little to be true to the realities is reasonable. To expect a candidate to have a neat “bumper sticker” sound-bite is to invite pandering. Haven’t we had enough pandering in that Senate seat over the past 24 years?
is completely unfair and is in reality, a lie. The AUMF did set up a series of safeguards, and Kerry even said in a NY Times editorial as well as on the floor of the Senate that the weapons inspectors needed some muscle behind them in order to get the job done. Hell, even Kofi Annan was in favor of this vote because it slowed the process down and forced the US to make it’s case to the UN.
<
p>Hindsight is 20/20, and it is not surprising that people want to boil this vote down to black and white. But liberals ability to see the complexities of issues is supposed to be our strong suit in leadership. The reality is that President Bush lied to Congress, the nation and the world. Kerry himself has said the worst mistake that he has ever made was believing the President, and has worked harder than most Senators to correct that mistake.
<
p>No human being is perfect, and Senator Kerry is no exception to that rule. But the fact is that he is one of a few that has learned from his mistakes, and has put together a pretty impressive record on a number of issues of the utmost importance to MA. He’s Obama’s #1 surrogate and defender, and is working tirelessly to get a Democrat elected to the White House. And while a Primary challenge might be beneficial to bring the guy a bit further to the left on some issues, Mr. O’Reilly only seems interested in tearing apart a good Senator’s name and driving a wedge between the party.
pair of bifocals to see what happened.
<
p>I’m sorry, but the “safeguards” approach just isn’t going to fly. That resolution was a vote for war and nothing else. Everyone and their mother new what Bush was going to use it for – and Senator Kerry isn’t stupid. He made a politically calculated decision which cost him the presidency and has made him a ripe challenge even to this day. Thankfully, for him, a weak candidate took on that mantle… but even that weak candidacy – especially with the kind of raillery seen on this thread – will crack 30-40% on the ballot almost for sure.
I agree, and frankly, John Kerry agrees that his vote for the Iraq War Resolution was a big mistake. In fact, he has called it the biggest mistake of his Senate career.
<
p>But there is more to his record than that vote, and one major development was the Iraq plan that Kerry devised in the spring of 2006 to get us out of Iraq, and to right the wrong that was his vote. Did you know that the major anti-war Senators back from the Vietnam era ALL voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution? They should have voted nay, but they didn’t. Nevertheless, it was their leadership which ended our involvement in Vietnam. I think it will be the same for Sen. Kerry. After all, his plan was so solid that the two major Democratic presidential contenders co-opted huge swaths of his plan. The majority of Americans are for his plan.
<
p>I realize some will not be able to forgive him that vote. But I only ask that they consider the full measure of his career, and whether his unique leadership will help us extricate ourselves from this war.
<
p>Ed O’Reilly doesn’t seem to know what he believes, and he is only running to take pot shots at Kerry, not to lead.
A flip – flopper accusing someone else of flip – flopping
<
p>This is indeed entertaining
That was a right-wing smear that was not in any way backed up by evidence. They did a lot of clever editing of video to try to persuade people that JK was a flip-flopper. Why are you reduced to using right-wing smears against Kerry to try to defend your guy? If you’re an EOR supporter, how do you defend what EOR said?
for the ‘tude. I seriously need to stay away from the EOR/JK threads, because it’s like a bunch of children fighting over who can hold the ball.
You can’t defend what EOR said, so you don’t even try. Par for the course.
I try to limit myself to 6 and 0. Zero is for when it’s something like hate speech or a personal attack (as in, it uses personal information). I reserve 5 for teasing stomv and I have only used 3 and 4 when, through improper hygiene, I’ve been infected with pettiness myself.
<
p>BMG is not an opinion poll If 3,000 posters all, on cue, say negative things about O’Reilly, it does not reflect public opinion — or even necessarily progressive opinion. Ernie Boch III, bless his miniature heart, does not represent progressive opinion or even necessarily good table manners, but he’s often high up on the rec list.
I rarely give out threes, but they have their uses. His post was baseless snark. It was worthless. I graded it as such.
is more effectively ignored.
<
p>Furthermore, when discussions become polarized, it’s very easy to regard everything from the other side as baseless snark.
“I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”
<
p>and the only reason I bring it up is the poster’s use of the same “right wing smear tactic” as you put it, to hammer O’Reilly.
<
p>hypocritical
That was one of the right-wing smears that used video editing. They edited out the part where Kerry explained that he was talking about 2 different versions of the bill. He voted for $87 billion when it would be paid for by rolling back Bush’s tax cuts. When his amendment failed, and so the $87 billion would become part of the national debt, he voted against it. He explained all this to make clear to his questioner that he was in favor of the $87 billion, just not in favor of passing the debt on to our children. Republicans edited all of that out and left just the line that could give the impression that he’d changed positions, when in fact he hadn’t. Either you fell for it, or you know what the real story was and you’re assuming other people will fall for it.
“He explained all this to make clear to his questioner that he was in favor of the $87 billion, just not in favor of passing the debt on to our children.”
<
p>But that’s the point – his ammendment never had a chance and to use that as an excuse was even worse.
<
p>Do you really think that people are so stupid that they just believe everything they hear? That they don’t look for evidence and a track record?
<
p>If this is your logic, then explain to me how the left-wing smears work?
The argument was over whether there are any examples of John Kerry flip-flopping. The main one that the Republicans kept touting was this nonsense about how he supposedly changed his mind on the $87 billion. (They also chopped up a lot of his statements about Iraq to lie to people about whether he had changed his position on the war.) They played this one out-of-context quote over and over.
<
p>Now, your argument that Kerry really was flip-flopping is — what? I can’t follow your reasoning. He never meant to vote for it when there was an amendment? So he wasn’t flip-flopping, he just always meant to vote against it? I can’t even follow what you’re saying here. If this is supposed to be the clincher example of Kerry flip-flopping that you want to use to prove your point, could you spell out more clearly why you believe that Kerry was actually being inconsistent? Otherwise, all you’ve got is a four-year-old Republican smear job that has never proven what they said it proved.
His words speak for themselves;
<
p>Kerry’s Top Ten Flip-Flops
CBSNews.com Charts The Opinion Switches. Part 2: John Kerry
<
p>(CBS) In Part Two of our series examining how the candidates have changed their minds on the issues, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer David Paul Kuhn looks at John Kerry’s most notable flip-flops.
——————————————————————————–
<
p>Senate’s Role In Wars With Iraq
<
p>Following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in January 1991, Kerry broke with the majority of senators and voted against authorizing the first Gulf War. He said on the Senate floor, “It is a vote about war because whether or not the president exercises his power, we will have no further say after this vote.”
<
p>Kerry thus voted against war after Iraq took aggressive military action. He said a vote in favor of military action was tantamount to giving Congress “no further say” on the war.
<
p>In October 2002, he supported the current war in Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq took no aggressive action against its neighbors.
<
p>In announcing his candidacy for president, in September 2003, he said his October 2002 vote was simply “to threaten” the use of force, apparently backtracking from his belief in 1991 that such a vote would grant the president an open-ended ticket to wage war.
<
p>——————————————————————————–
<
p>Read Part One of our series:
President Bush’s Top Ten Flip-Flops
<
p>——————————————————————————–
<
p>If I Knew Then What I Know Now…
<
p>”We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today,” Kerry said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That’s plain and simple.”
<
p>But on Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.” Speaking to reporters at the edge of the Grand Canyon, he added: “[Although] I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has.”
<
p>The Kerry campaign says voting to authorize the war in Iraq is different from deciding diplomacy has failed and waging war. But Kerry’s nuanced position has contradicted itself on whether it was right or wrong to wage the war.
<
p>In May 2003, at the first Democratic primary debate, John Kerry said his vote authorizing the president to use force was the “right decision” though he would have “preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity.”
<
p>But then in January 2004, Kerry began to run as anti-war candidate, saying, “I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have.”
<
p>The $87 Billion Vote
<
p>In September 2003, Kerry implied that voting against wartime funding bills was equivalent to abandoning the troops.
<
p>”I don’t think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running,” he said.
<
p>Then, in October 2003, a year after voting to support the use of force in Iraq, Kerry voted against an $87 billion supplemental funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did support an alternative bill that funded the $87 billion by cutting some of President Bush’s tax cuts.
<
p>But when it was apparent the alternative bill would not pass, he decided to go on record as not supporting the legislation to fund soldiers.
<
p>Kerry complicated matters with his now infamous words, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”
<
p>On Wednesday, he acknowledged that his explanation of his Iraq war votes was “one of those inarticulate moments.”
<
p>The Israeli Security Fence
<
p>In October 2003, Kerry said Israel’s unilateral construction of a security fence was “a barrier to peace.”
<
p>”I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the decision to build the barrier off the Green Line,” he told the Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference. “We don’t need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis.”
<
p>But less than a year later, in February 2004, he reversed himself, calling the fence “a legitimate act of self-defense,” and saying “President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians.”
<
p>Patriot Act
<
p>Kerry joined with 97 other senators and voted for the Patriot Act in October 2001. Campaigning in New Hampshire in June 2003, he defended his vote, saying, “it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on Sept. 11.”
<
p>But last December in Iowa, Kerry advocated “replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time.”
<
p>Death Penalty for Terrorists
<
p>In 1996, then- Massachusetts Gov. William Weld asked Kerry, a longtime opponent of capital punishment, whether the death penalty should be applied to terrorists. Kerry replied that the idea amounted to a “terrorist protection policy.”
<
p>He said then that such a policy would discourage other nations from extraditing suspects because many U.S. allies preclude extradition to countries that impose the death penalty.
<
p>Kerry now favors the death penalty for terrorists, though extradition remains a problem.
<
p>Kerry still opposes the death penalty in general, but says if elected he would not interfere with state executions.
<
p>Releasing the Strategic Petroleum Reserves
<
p>In 2000, Kerry called the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve “not relevant” to solving the problem with high fuel prices.
<
p>But in recent months, Kerry has pressured President Bush to start pumping oil into the government’s emergency reserves. Kerry has called for the release of some of the reserves, as well.
<
p>In a switch from his earlier position, Kerry now argues that a sizable release would lessen U.S. demand and thereby fuel lower prices.
<
p>Affirmative Action
<
p>Though he has long supported affirmative action, in a speech at Yale University in 1992, Kerry called the program “inherently limited and divisive,” and said it had “kept America thinking in racial terms.” He added that it was failing those most in need of assistance: African-Americans.
<
p>At the height of the Democratic primary race in January, Kerry reiterated his support for affirmative action. Kerry’s critics question how he can support a program that he once called “divisive.” Kerry says he was speaking about racial quotas, which he opposes.
<
p>Trade
<
p>Kerry backed trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and Africa. In 2000, he voted to grant China most-favored-nation trading status.
<
p>Having supported the major trade deals of the last decade – including the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – Kerry was heavily critical of U.S. trade policy during the Democratic primaries.
<
p>As the primary race heated up against now vice-presidential nominee John Edwards, who criticized Kerry for supporting NAFTA, Kerry received the prized endorsement of the AFL-CIO by insisting he will insure “workers rights” in trade agreements. Kerry also blamed trade for creating “a race to the bottom” among poverty-stricken nations.
<
p>No Child Left Behind
<
p>Kerry voted for President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind Act” but now campaigns against it. He says Mr. Bush failed to adequately fund the legislation by not linking student-testing requirements with school funding.
<
p>Though the legislation requires rigorous testing in the states, Kerry said in August 2004 that the new federal testing mandates were “punitive.”
The vote was for the Authorization of the Use of Military Force. It was not a vote that said “Invade! Invade!” The Bush Administration claimed that they would only invade as a last resort, that they would use this resolution to force Saddam to do stuff. They were lying. I knew they were lying. Lots of us knew they were lying. But if you took everyone at their word, the Yes vote on the AUMF did not mean “Invade!”
<
p>Had Gore been President, a Yes vote on the AUMF would not have been controversial.
It’s here for your viewing pleasure. Let me note a few things about it.
Yes, force shouldn’t be the first choice.
Al Gore was one of the frontrunning and biggest, if not the biggest frontrunner in opposition to our war on Iraq well before we even invaded that country.
…but I will congratulate you on being the rare Kerry supporter who addresses the issues. Or even mentions them.
As you say, almost all Democrats have come around to this position, even those like Hillary Clinton who were initially against it. Since early 2007, she has said in repeated forums and debates, that only when the Iraqis know that we will be leaving will they make the tough political decisions needed – she nearly used Senator Kerry’s words from 2006 on this – because she clearly came to believe that he and Feingold were right.
<
p>One problem with O’Reily’s position is that it is so vague that it is impossible to know what it really is. I bet the PDA had no idea that when he said “withdraw troops immediately” he really meant something closer to the 2006 Levin/Reed that the more conservative Democrats pushed to give Democrats unwilling to commit to the better Kerry/Feingold plan cover.
<
p>Perhaps any PDA members should be asking that PDA reconsider their endorsement. After all, it is Kerry who was a leader in creating Democratic consensus around a concrete plan that would get us out of Iraq.
<
p>I guess saying that listening to military commanders is vague is one way of looking at it. Though I think most people would all that “the right thing to do,” including John Kerry.
Kerry really knows what the military commanders are TALKING about. He understands what it’s like to be on the ground in a foreign war and he’s spent much of his career dealing at the highest level with foreign leaders and diplomats and military advisers. He knows his stuff and he makes his decisions based on real experience.
<
p>You might want to consider that he had the idea for the American Security Project, which is a bipartisan think tank dedicated to examining our relationship with the rest of the world in a practical and thoughtful way and trying to undo the damage of the Bush administration. ASP was his idea! He’s not just a long-serving senator and member of the SFRC, he’s a leading national thinker on this stuff.
<
p>He’s a valuable asset to everyone in this country and certainly to MA.
have more merit if they were talking different time frames. Except, in this case, both roads are leading to the same place: 18 months. That’s what I’ve heard bantered about plenty of times and it sounds like a reasonable goal.
<
p>The only difference is that in one scenario (Kerry’s) some troops are going to remain to protect certain areas, which is something I honestly have mixed feelings about. I can see the rational, but I also doubt the fact that Iraq can become stable if there’s any presence of US troops there whatsoever, even just protecting the green zone or our embassy.
<
p>And I’m not buying the military experience bit; I’m sorry, but all that vast experience led him to believe it necessary to authorize the war in Iraq. To say Washington’s civilian military experts have been a disappointment thus far is the understatement of the year.
<
p>So far, I’ve been leaning toward Kerry because of some doubts I have with EOR, but I will say the people on this thread – and the arguments that have been made – have me thinking I’d be better off writing in Bugs Bunny.
My position on Iraq has remained consistent. Long before my decision to run for the U.S. Senate, I was a supporter of Howard Dean’s. This is evidenced by the significant financial support I gave to his candidacy. The main reason for supporting Howard Dean was his courage to stand up against a war that John Kerry voted for.
<
p>John Kerry’s timeline is no timeline at all. Here is some of the text of the Feingold/Kerry Amendment–
<
p>John Kerry does not support the total withdrawal of our troops and what does minimal number of forces really mean? Does protecting United States facilities mean protecting the Green Zone indefinitely?
<
p>The bottom line is that I am in favor of the total withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and always have been. I am also a firm believer that we need to do so in the safest manner possible. This has not changed. The simple truth is that I do not know how long it will take to achieve this goal and I will leave it up to our military leaders to accomplish the task.
<
p>This post is another attempt to distort the truth and I invite everyone to see and listen to the Emily Rooney interview.
<
p>This is also a coordinated attack by the Kerry campaign to get PDA to withdraw their endorsement of my candidacy. The attempts prior to the Convention did not work and I do not expect this attempt to work. At the same time that this post came out, Kerry’s chief of staff called PDA and the pressure is coming from a political machine that has a virtual endless money supply. However, over $6m of the Kerry Senate campaign war chest came from money that people donated towards the effort to defeat GWB in 2004. John Kerry left $15m on the table when he walked away from Ohio and is now using a whole lot of that money to distort the facts.
<
p>As an earlier post indicated, many of the bloggers here signed up on BMG at the same time. It was also within weeks of the Kerry campaign posting on BMG that they were looking to hire paid bloggers.
<
p>Lastly, John Kerry’s vote to authorize military action in Iraq was not a mistake. His chief political advisor in 2004, Robert Shrum, has stated that John Kerry knew the vote was wrong and still voted for it. In 1991, when John Kerry was not running for President, he voted no on a similar measure after Kuwait was invaded.
<
p>The role of a political leader is to set a goal and a mission. It is up to the military leaders to accomplish that goal. As one listens and watches the Emily Rooney interview, it is clear this is what I was saying.
<
p>Ed O’Reilly
<
p>
This is just false as I keep emphasizing
<
p>The Feingold/Kerry Amendment didn’t even pass! The point of authoring legislation is to get it passed! If it needs certain compromises to get to 51 or 60 votes, that’s what it takes. If Feingold/Kerry had become law, we’d be in a better place.
<
p>2. How does Kerry’s current view differ in substance from your stated view here:
<
p>
<
p>Seems to me that this is the prevailing view held by all but the most hawkish Democrats. How does your holding the view that seems consistent with the views of both Sen. Kerry and the rest of the sentient world make you more qualified to hold Kerry’s seat?
<
p>3. And this:
<
p>
<
p>You’re quoting Shrum as someone whose judgment we should trust??
<
p>The list of embarrassing statements are growing, you blatantly made up things in the Howie Carr interview (Kerry is stalking you, his campaign is going after you, etc.) now your are doing this?
<
p>For goodness sakes, stop! You are turning your candidacy into a sideshow act.
You wrote: “John Kerry left $15m on the table when he walked away from Ohio and is now using a whole lot of that money to distort the facts.”
<
p>Evidence, please? Such as ads that the Kerry campaign has paid for that you charge include distortions of facts? What dollar amount constitutes the “whole lot of that money” that you believe the Kerry campaign is using to distort facts, and where are you getting your information from? (By the way, some of the leftover money — though I don’t know the exact figures — went to supporting other Dems in tight races in 2004 and 2006. And it’s common for the losing candidate to have some money left over — Al Gore did too.)
<
p>I can see that your MO is to use a lot of innuendo and try to create an impression. Here you want us to believe the Kerry campaign is peddling distortions. Where are the facts to back up your claims?
<
p>Frankly, I find it rather insulting of you to assume that anybody who disagrees with you or supports Kerry must be a paid blogger. Senator Kerry has deep support in this state, as evidenced at the Lowell Convention when he was overwhelmingly endorsed for a return to the US Senate.
<
p>I am not now, nor have I ever been, a paid Kerry blogger. As Bob stated in the addendum to my diary, I am a Kerry supporter and co-contributor/founder of Kerryvision and use my real name both here and over at KV, so obviously am not attempting to hide anything.
<
p>I have responded to the wishes of the BMG editors that posters disclose any affiliation with a candidate they are writing about. (Several times in the thread, actually). This should be the rule for everyone. Campaign treasurers, a candidate’s former business associates, and even family, should all disclose. That is only fair and I don’t see how a candidate should have a problem with that.
Having compiled a history of these diaries, you will note that we experienced a lot of activity on this issue approximately a year ago. That would draw people interested in this issue into signing up and commenting. It doesn’t have to be something sinister, a cabal, a plan, a furtive email list, or the like.
<
p>Also some folks from Kerry’s campaign have blogged here and identified themselves. Those folks have been very careful and circumspect.
associated with the Johnkerry.com blog
<
p>if this is indeed the case, you have a formal association with a campaign and you need to disclose that whether or not you are paid.
or pick another:
<
p>
<
p>to think that someone who likes a particular candidate might actually post on the candidate’s blog about something as undemocratic as the Silent Spring Institute!
<
p>Seriously, are you buying into a vast LWC? Should we be paranoid that the bogeyman (played by John Kerry) is behind every closed door with a knife waiting to stab the unsuspecting victim (played by EOR)?
<
p>The woman has already clearly and avidly avowed her affection for John Kerry. It is just shocking that she didn’t reveal that she also posts in other places about her affliction. If she says that she is not employed by the Kerry campaign (a statement that I believe to be true), then you might want to come up with some evidence to the contrary other than a link to a post about something that many of us (who are not all John Kerry supporters by any means) might find to be an interesting interview.
<
p>May I suggest that you add a signature line as well so that all is disclosed:
<
p>Ed O’Reilly supporter and democracy believer except when there might be some slim chance of impugning and maligning someone as a John Kerry sock puppet.
if I were a blogger at EdOReilly.com or formally affiliated with his campaign (which I am not) I would post this information at the top of any post I make related to the race.
<
p>The idea is not only to disclose conflicts of interest, but to give readers some context behind your statements.
<
p>This is not an unreasonable expectation and is clearly stated in the Rules of the Road.
Well, Mr. or Ms. Rules of the Road, if the post itself didn’t clue you in about context behind the statements nor the subsequent detailed explanations on background as a Kerry grassroots supporter, what on earth would have? You and she have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as supporters. Apparently, you have a hard time accepting that fact. And, we have no proof that you aren’t posting elsewhere under a different user name. She has very explicitly done what was asked of her many times. Kerry supporters (which I am not) have equal rights. It would be a very dull world indeed if BMG became daily kos.
John McCain wants to withdraw troops from Iraq too. His timeline is the next 100 years, but hey he has a timeline.
<
p>If you leave it up to the military leaders completely to decide the timeline, does that mean that you would vote to fund the war until whatever time they decide to withdraw?
<
p>How exactly would your leadership work on that?
And you’re saying that if al Qaeda actually set up terrorist camps, we shouldn’t be bothered with it? It also appears that you are in opposition to our presidential nominee who also provides for these minimal non-combat forces to perform these duties as well as training Iraqi forces.
<
p>The truth is if you don’t have a deadline how are you going to get the Iraqi politicians to move forward on reconciliation? They still aren’t anywhere near doing that, and they won’t do it until they have a deadline.
<
p>As to your insinuation that somebody is being paid here, PUT UP OR SHUT UP. You’re just lying and making things up again, which is why you’re not particularly welcome on DailyKos anymore. Yes the #1 national progressive community blog has given you a big yawn, and front pagers have told you to knock off your behavior. So, you know, I guess it’s fun for you to sit there and make accusations up of sockpuppetry, but it is in reality quite pathetic and shows you have no real argument to make against what is in fact robust netroots support for Sen. Kerry.
Brian Young, Kerry’s Online Communications Director, posted a job listing for a specific staff position here on BMG. One job, one person, one hire, full-time, in-house. I know, because I was the person who got that job.
<
p>(Full disclosure: I had already been writing for Kerry’s website as an outside consultant via a DC-based media consulting group before they decided to take his internet operation in-house, so when I finally agreed to move to Boston and take the job as Kerry’s Online Content Manager it wasn’t exactly a hard sell for me to end up getting the gig.)
<
p>For the record, I no longer work for Kerry. My dad has been diagnosed with final-stage lung cancer and a thoracic aortic aneurism, neither of which are treatable, so I’m moving to Pennsylvania to spend his last few months with him while I can still do that. So I’m a private citizen again, not a paid staffer, not a shill, not a Kerry Flashmobber, not any of that pro-Kerry conspiracy crap some people seem to cling to here on BMG.
<
p>In any event, I can tell you in no uncertain terms — as, in fact, I and others have told you in no uncertain terms before, time and again,though you and your own sockpuppets and shills consistently refuse to acknowledge it — that Kerry has NO “paid bloggers” posting here on BMG or anywhere else. He had a four-person internet staff that is now a three-person internet staff, only one of whom ever posts here now and even then only very very rarely. That would be Brian Young, and when he does post here or anywhere else online, he very clearly identifies himself by title and role right from the get-go.
<
p>So, EOR, get the heck off of this bogus “paid bloggers for Kerry” smear you and your minions keep trying to spread on BMG and elsewhere, because it’s just plain flat slap not true. You know it’s not true, it’s easily-provably not true, and it’s low-grade bullshit character-assassination tactics of you and your sockpuppets to keep propagating it like this.
<
p>
Just making sure the facts are straight and all out in plain sight.
<
p>”TayTay” is Kerry’s Internet Outreach Coordinator, as her BMG profile makes very clear.
<
p>So as a correction to my previous post, two of the three remaining Kerry internet team members post here, albeit very rarely, and only with full disclosure at all times.
Why the hell would anybody want to vote for him, especially after this? Having said this, I say let’s keep John F. Kerry on the job.
You’ll hurt yourself.
I may not be the typical voter, but I found the flip-flop campaign offensive when the Republicans ran it and REALLY don’t want to hear it recycled by a Democrat.
<
p>If EOR is offering an alternative, he needs to change tactics, pronto.
This is a mostly good post, except for the criticism of O’Reilly for “yukking it up” with Howie Carr. John Kerry has been on Jay Severin’s show, more than once by my memory, who is arguably worse than Carr in terms of his overall bigotry. I don’t think either should be criticized for their appearances — candidates try to have their message heard, and appearing on a show isn’t an endorsement of the host’s views.
On to Iran.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wor…
This guy starts to look interesting. Then he publicly sells his soul to the devil. I would have given the guy a chance, based on the present complicity with the Republicans shown by our Democratic followship. {sigh}
<
p>Too late to help these poor souls.
is “what should the Iraq policy be?”
<
p>It seems that both politicians equivocate on the question of what we should do to disengage our troops. But our troops are only one element of a more complex policy decision. I think we do a disservice to the discussion with the intra-partisanship bickering.
<
p>Most would agree that it was a mistake to invade Iraq, I believe. If we were able to wipe the slate clean, then we wouldn’t be there in any position. Therefore, why isn’t our objective to reach that condition in the most sensible way?
<
p>To do so would require us to mostly abandon Iraq, hopefully to Iraqis who would serve their country well. No need for bases, no need of troops to protect those bases, no presence other than a diplomatic representation with protection limited to that mission.
<
p>So the question should not be just how to disengage our troops, but rather to set a policy whereby we limit our intrusion to a diplomatic mission only, and then establish a plan to get to that condition as expeditiously as possible. Is it a 6-month process? Or does it require 12 months, or more? The military may have to answer the partially answer the question of how to do it, but it should be Congress that establishes the policy that everybody works toward.
<
p>So far they are not doing a good job of it.
I think the kind of policy you’re talking about is usually done by the President, by the executive. The President then tries to get from Congress what s/he needs to implement it; Congress examines the policy and supplies necessary resources or refuses.
<
p>The current Administration does not, in fact, have a policy for Iraq — beyond staying long enough for their Fairy Godmother to show up and make everything all right. The history of Iraq does not suggest that it was meant to be a country and the current political situation does not look promising. Heck, the Kurds seem to be conducting their own foreign policy. So whatever happens will be result in some kind of terrible mess. The best we can do it to only have a medium large terrible mess as opposed to a huge one.
but that doesn’t always have to be the way. If Congress were willing to step up to its responsibilities, we may get a foreign policy that we could support.
<
p>http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/6172.htm
<
p>Of course they do. By saying, “Bush has no plan,” you’re just showing that you think the occupation is about what they say it’s about. It isn’t, and it never was.
<
p>Now that Halliburton, KBR, etc. have been enriched, it’s time for the rest of the oil cartel to wrap it up:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…
All the talk about democracy, terrorism, Saddam, supporting the troops, etc. is just smoke. Now that we have our military sitting on Iraq’s oil, ExxonMobil can assume control of it. Iran is a threat to that, so it’s the next target for our Heroic Troops.
<
p>Bush and his cohort don’t care whether any of our troops survive their tours in Iraq, as long as they can come up with enough of them for the next phase of the racket.
<
p>If John Kerry didn’t figure all that out in time to not vote for the AUF, he’s not as smart as you think. If he did figure it out, but voted for it anyway, he’s not the progressive you think he is.
<
p>Is he going to join a filibuster against the FISA bill?
Perhaps you misunderstand. By “policy”, I mean something with tangibly good goals and a strategy for achieving them. Saying they have no policy is fully consistent with your take on the situation, i.e., that they’re in Iraq for the money cronies can extract.
There’s evidence, certainly, that the Iraq war has proven beneficial to associates of Bush and Cheney. Yes, kirth, that is clear. However, there’s no particular evidence that what got us into Iraq was this side-line of corruption. That seems to have “blossomed” after the fact. Recall that they didn’t expect the occupation to last long. They were going to fly Chalabi in and the grateful Iraqis, by acclamation, were going to elect him leader. A corruption-rich occupation was not in their plans.
<
p>The committee of neo-cons that pushed hardest and longest for the war and the Iranian agents who egged them on did not seem to have a discernible financial stake in any of this. To them, it was all starry-eyed idealism about how they were going to turn Iraq into Belgium.
<
p>Personally, I take the evidence that the White House lacks policy interest or machinery seriously. I suspect — without much evidence admittedly — that the motivation for the war was to win elections for Republicans. By keeping the country scared and on a war footing, Democrats would have a harder time of it. I believe that explanation is even more cynical than yours!
I fully expect Kerry to support a FISA filibuster. Please look at my diary from February on this. The main problem is certainly not Senator Kerry!
That’s what they said. Did you think they believed it? Have they appeared to be surprised, or dismayed, or remorseful that the Iraqis are ungrateful and the occupation drags on? They have not, because they didn’t care about those outcomes, which were irrelevant to their aims. A corruption-rich occupation was not only in their plans, it was their plan. I’m afraid you still do not grasp the depth of their mendacity. That people like William Kristol performed cheerleading duties with no apparent vested interest does not bolster an argument that the actual policy makers believed the noise. From Bush and Cheney’s point of view, their plan has worked well.
<
p>Agreed, the main problem in the FISA situation is not Kerry. If he doesn’t actually stand up and add his supposed influence to oppose immunity, though, he’ll once again be part of the problem.
<
p>Thanks, by the way, for the “conspiracy theory” code. Always adds a lot to a discussion to imply that someone with a different view is somehow a loony, especially when you don’t even try to establish any support for that.
Where do you get that it was in their plans? Without citation, it sounds like a conspiracy theory.
What have they changed about their Iraq policy that demonstrates they wanted a different outcome? Stay the course! It’s probably comforting to think that they are stupid and incompetent, but the simpler explanation is that the current situation is what they wanted, and that they knew they had to keep talking about something else.
<
p>WRT Kerry, get back to me after he joins the filibuster. I have been looking at his voting history on stuff like the PATRIOT Act, and it’s not that great.
Voici
<
p>Voting against cloture were the following Senators:
I find Kerry’s vote unsurprising, actually, but I’ve been watching this stuff ever since I wrote a diary on it.
<
p>Needless to say, cloture won.
I’m glad he’s not consistently taking the hard-line law n’ order positions he used to favor.