Democracy Lives! Ed O'Reilly is on the ballot and no one is happier than noted Democracy stalwart and progressive firebrand Howie Carr.
I’m sure O’Reilly is nowhere in the polls right now, but this is a perfect opportunity for mischief – this could become a Massachusetts version of Operation Chaos, the meddling of local Republicans in a Democratic primary, the way Rush Limbaugh tried to keep Hillary Clinton alive through April and May.
A lot of people on this site and 22% of the delegates at the Convention wanted Ed O'Reilly on the ballot. And the vast majority of those people were more concerned with getting someone, anyone on the ballot than actually considering just who that person was. I tried to warn you that Ed O'Reilly was running nothing more than a vanity campaign, that his progressive or even Democratic credentials were virtually nonexistent, that he was just pandering to progressives with all his talk about marriage equality and protecting the Constitution. Hell, even posters who I battled with on this site about Ed have come out and basically called the guy a fraud.
So where does Ed find himself today? As Howie Carr's new darling. Yup, Ed O'Reilly: A True Howie Carr-Approved Massachusetts Democrat. Congrats! Now that Howie is backing Ed's vanity campaign, Democrats will get the fun of watching Republicans from around the country funnel money into Ed's bank account! Yippee! Let's send a message to John Kerry because nothing says Massachusetts Democrat like getting funded by right wing Republicans.
Just off the top of my head, Ed has backed the Swiftboat lies. He's stolen the Karl Rove “windsurf” language. He paid Mitt Romney's old signature collecting firm to be his “grassroot support.” And now he's been endorsed by Howie Carr. Oh, and just “like animals before a tsunami,” Ed has the power to sense recessions before they hit.
I have no issues with someone working their ass off to get on the ballot. I'm all for this Democracy stuff. But maybe next time, people should consider the person they're actually putting on the ballot. Ed O'Reilly is on the ballot and when that makes Howie Carr happy then you know something ain't right.
UPDATE- I forgot to link to Ed's appearance on Howie's radio show the other night. Howie lifted the quotes for his article from his visit with Ed. So, while Ed can't control who writes about him, he can certainly control whose show he appears on. And I don't know many (if any) MA Democrats who go onto Howie's show, which makes sense since Howie is knuckle-dragging right wing lunatic who hates everyone who didn't pull their themselves up from their bootstraps and survive Deerfield Academy and the slums of Wellesley.
For someone who paints himself as the savior of progressives everywhere, Ed sure has no problem shooting the shit with the likes of Howie Carr. And he certainly enjoys hearing Howie cackle whenever he repeats the Republican talking points about John Kerry.
of impugning someone’s reputation by the mere association if his name in a column. If we’re going to start tossing out candidates by that fact – would there actually be anyone left to run?
<
p>Is this yet another one of those vaunted progressive values that I hear so much about?
<
p>And where’s the documentation for this?
<
p>
<
p>From what I’ve been able to discern, whether you like it or not, the guy is a Democrat. He’s not a guy who has ping ponged from party to party, looking for the right opportunity. He’s a Dem. And JFK does have his detractors; most notably with people for marriage equality, Clinton supporters, and people who actually like good government. The guy has been MIA for a while now…and people really do want to know what he looks like.
<
p>Now that is comedy. “Let’s see- I’ve only got $100 to donate- should I send it to John McCain, John Sununu, Susan Collins or that angry guy who’s going to lose the Democratic primary in Massachusetts? Hmm, decisions, decisions…”
<
p>If Republicans across the country have to rely on a fringe candidate in a Massachusetts Democratic primary to get their kicks, then they are in for a rough year. Hell, I hope they do send him their money!
GOP funders bankrolled the Green Party Senate candidate as part of trying to protect Sen. Santorum. This happens.
That’s in a 3-way general election race, where modest support for the 3rd party candidate could have actually swayed the election.
<
p>That doesn’t work in a primary where the incumbent is favored by 30-40 point. (Unless, of course, these national Republicans are going to send millions to O’Reilly and, let’s face it, if Howie Carr had that kind of influence, the Mass GOP wouldn’t be the smallest minority party in the country.)
putting his sorry ass on the ballot, Ed accepts the de facto endorsement of a notorious rightical chic columnist…and why? Because Howie has a radio show and Ed O’Reilly needs free media. After all there are only so many home equity loans he can take out to finance this crazy mishaugas of his.
From hour one I’ve called Ed an adventurer, and a cynical one at that. Last week he howled his adherence to the state democratic party’s platform, this week he happily accepts the de facto support of a columnist dedicated to overthrowing that same agenda.
<
p>Maybe Laura Ingraham can get Ed some precious national cable air-time on Fox News…a very welcome platform for Citizen O’Reilly’s progressive bona fides to be sure.
What do you mean by “accepts the endorsement”? Does he somehow control what people are writing about him?
<
p>And I didn’t see any “browbeating” going on in my district, which voted 40% for O’Reilly at the convention. We listened to both speeches, talked to people from both campaigns, and made our decisions individually.
If you listen to the interview – in which O'Reilly spouts an endless stream of right wing anti-Kerry talking points – to the choortling glee of Carr – it's hard to see the interview as anything but a cozying up to Boston's own Rush Limbaugh. Carr says outright that he wants independents and republicans to register to vote in the democratic primary, and I think he ought to be called out on that.
And O'Reilly was not talking like a progressive democrat in that interview. He can be called out on that, too.
Who knows how many people might actually do this? But there certainly are people who listen to Carr. He's got chis own show, and he has callers. He must have a following of some size, or he wouldn't be making money for WRKO.
that was supposed to read chortling, not choortling.
<
p>Must go get coffee.
No, he can’t control what people say or write about him. But he can denounce Carr and reject the endorsement, much as Obama did with Louis Farrakhan.
<
p>Carr/Farrakhan can continue to endorse, but it’s made clear by the candidate that they do not wish to be associated with the endorser.
who did the “browbeating”? I was harassed for two weeks by the Kerry people but didn’t receive a single call from O’reilly.
But I really, really don’t give a flying crap about what Howie Carr has to say. You shouldn’t either.
<
p>We don’t need to take ‘advice’ from Republicans.
<
p>I fully intend on voting for Kerry in the upcoming election, but I’m more than happy to see competition. Our Senator needs to move further to the left on issues that effect Massachusetts. A primary opponent who comes from the left is an excellent vehicle to do that. If John Kerry wants to make Ed O’Reilly disappear, he should do so by having a big mea culpa and coming out to support marriage equality, universal health care and by again apologizing (getting-on-his-knees, begging, really) for his vote on the war in Iraq. He could have had a huge vote in preventing this whole thing from happened, but his leadership failed there because of his presidential aspirations. His lack of courage then ironically cost him the presidential election anyway.
<
p>A vanity campaign ceases to be a vanity campaign when people actually vote for that candidate in large quantities. So far, it seems like O’Reilly will at least crack 30% on the ballot. If Kerry and his supporters want to label O’Reilly a vanity candidate, then they’re only going to make their margin of victory smaller. Let’s have this debate on the issues, okay? I want to vote for Kerry, but he needs to work for my vote.
I would only add that Kerry needs to shake up his staff. His constituent services are weak. Kerry is known as fiercely loyal to his staff. Many have been with him through thick and thin. Sad to say, that the voters deserve his allegiance, first and foremost.
<
p>Crack the whip, Senator. You’re people aren’t pulling their weight.
<
p>Your vote to lose,
John ‘Jack’ Mitchell
Lowell, MA
<
p>PS. The PR reads something like, “The office of Sen. Kerry regrets the resignations of __________ , ___________, and _________. They have opted to take on the honorable task of helping Bararck Obama become the next POTUS.” The good Dems that they are.
I noticed 6 people have recommended this diary, thus ensuring that it will stay near the top of the page for a couple of days. What exactly are you recommending? That you think Ed O’Reilly is in bed with Howie Carr? That he’s running a vanity campaign? What exactly?
<
p>I’ve seen a lot of good posts get less support than the ones that have attacked O’Reilly, but since most of these same folks never post in the comments, I’m curious as to why.
or else I’d do so here.
I’m not suggesting that you should or shouldn’t, but just FYI, there should be a gray “Unrecommend” button in the right column where the “Recommend” button was.
Ron could unrecommend the diary if he had previously recommended it, which he hasn’t. What he said (correctly) that he can’t do is cast a negative vote towards the diary being on the recommend list. That would be a potentially useful feature, but it doesn’t exist on BMG, MyDD, or Kos as far as I’m aware.
<
p>In the recent Obama vs. Clinton recommend wars on MyDD, the only way one faction could drive the other faction’s diaries off the recommend list was to recommend their own factions’ diaries in such numbers as to outvote the other dairies.
<
p>What the BMG rules say now is that if a lot of people want a diary on the list, it goes on even if a lot of other people don’t want it on.
You are correct. I misunderstood Ron’s point.
The response of right-wingers to O’Reilly’s challenge hadn’t occurred to me. I think the challenge is misguided as I’ve written often enough.
support…how it is that Howie Carr’s column translates into more than one right-winger? I’m actually suprised that this post was recommended when it isn’t linked to anything that actually supports a conspiracy beyond Howie Carr, a “group” of one.
<
p>JFK has more than one detractor, KBusch, and people who actually value marriage equality, the run-up to the Iraq war, and the fact that Senator Kerry has been MIA from this state can understand why Mr. O’Reilly has decided to take this challenge on.
I’m just saying.
I do care about all those things. See this comment.
<
p>Further, I wouldn’t criticize EOR for running a vanity campaign. Only egomaniacs get to be Senators. (The days of Cincinnatus are long past.) I think the huge overwhelming goal for Democrats in this cycle is to win 60 votes in the Senate.
<
p>If you look at the Senate, it’s difficult to make the case that Kerry is the problem. He isn’t. He’s been great the last couple years. Senator Feinstein, on the other hand, has been a terrible disappointment.
in the last 20 years, never mind the last couple of years? Really?
at least, so rumor has it: look forward to Gavin Newsom vs Arnold Schwarzenegger for US Senate in 2012
I was pointing to her as an example.
<
p>I detect a misimpression that Kerry’s activity in the Senate resembles Feinstein, Landrieu, and Pryor whereas Kerry has been acting more like Dodd, Feingold, and Leahy. To many, the vote on AUMF is salient. His attempts to impose a timeline on the Iraq debacle are not.
regarding several of his positions on issues that matter deeply to me.
<
p>What are my options? Vote for him because he’s the incumbent, no matter how many important votes he casts that I vehemently oppose? Vote for a rather questionable challenger?
<
p>I find this particular race rather depressing, and may end up blanking it, which seems somehow like the coward’s way out.
For some issues dear to me, like marriage equality, that’s not going to happen in the next six years.
<
p>However, we urgently need climate change addressed. Intelligent regulation needs to be reintroduced into banking, food safety, and other areas. The civil liberties undermined by the Bush Administration need to be restored. As for foreign affairs, we need a Congress that will either support President Obama’s initiatives or take away President McCain’s toys so he doesn’t blow up the world.
<
p>On all the stuff that really matters, where Congress can do good in the near term, Kerry is good enough. During the Reagan Administration’s interventions in El Salvador, Senator Kerry was terrible. He’s really much better now and in the Senate Democratic caucus, he’s a member of the angel contingent. He’s good enough for now.
<
p>Who isn’t good enough? (1) Every single Republican is not good enough. Every one of them. The more that can be replaced this cycle the better. And especially in the Senate.
<
p>(2) About a third of the Democratic caucus is unreliable. They’re somewhat afraid of the Rovebots running negative ads against them and throwing them out of Congress. Decisively defeating a lot of Republicans will help that. (Such a dynamic can be observed in the House already.) Further, there’s the South Dakota question. How does one get Rep Herseth and Senator Johnson to improve their votes? We should be grateful that such a red state has such a blue delegation, but we want them to be bluer after the Senate leadership is elected. There are too many such Senators.
who think that kerry has done a sorry job representing his district and the widespread will (ie standing against a bush war rubberstamp) of his constituents?
<
p>i’ll let some voter in missouri or alaska sacrifice the quality of their representation in order to achieve 60 dem votes in the senate. i’d like to have someone who cares more about the guy running the pizza shop across the street from me in massachusetts than how well they come off on the tim russert show.
<
p>parochial maybe. but what grand contribution has kerry made to our nations destiny that justifies his almost total disconnection to the state that he was sent to washington to represent?
<
p>
“parochial maybe” indicates maybe you should think about this more?
about the possibility of john kerry being a guiding and influential presence on the national level . . . . . .
<
p> . . . . .and still not able to picture it.
<
p>so in the meantime, how about a representative who can find athol on a map?
<
p>
Reference
<
p>Does Kennedy show sufficient local interest for you? What does that objectively mean, i.e., in terms of actions not in terms of how Kerry “seems”? What is wrong with this list?
<
p>Got it on the AUMF vote. Subsequently, Kerry has not been a “rubberstamp” on anything. If you go to his campaign website here, you’ll see that the front page is dedicated to issues on which I think you and I agree. It’s not just about him — as Eorites want you to believe
<
p>As I commented elsewhere, the Senate is only going to address certain things in the next few years. On which of them is Kerry so wrong that O’Reilly would be an improvement?
<
p>Voting is less like buying a hat than it is like buying a hammer. About a hat, one asks, “Is this hat me? Does it express my personality?” One asks no such questions about a hammer. One asks whether it does the job.
that his website is dedicated.
i would love to travel around massachusetts and point out evidence of a unique john kerry influence and effectiveness.
<
p>any idea where i can find some evidence that he has done something exceptional for his constituents that some other warm body in his seat couldn’t have done?
has failed at the Federal level. The more challengers from the left, the better. Throw them all out. Give some new blood a chance.
I’m sorry, but this is more about Howie Carr than it is about Ed O’Reilly. If you or I or any number of folks were running an upstart campaign against an incumbent Democrat, don’t you think Howie Carr would push it just the same?
<
p>You want to challenge Ed O’Reilly’s experience or his grasp of the issues- I think that’s all fair game. But these repeated posts attacking his character, alleging a “vanity campaign” or guilt by association are something else atogether. They’re cheapshots.
Kerry’s a delightful target for the Right. They get to reinforce their narrative about liberals being elitist. They get to damage the 2004 standard bearer. If he is damaged in the primary, that gives Testosterone Jeff some more traction for November.
<
p>Masshole’s point is relevant in that regard. Carr is not a trend yet. True. He’s a warning sign.
<
p>This is a resource question. Will EOR’s challenge help marriage equality more or will:
…and one I had with Ed O himself. But I think you are giving Masshole far too much credit on his original intentions here.
<
p>You can complain that ANY challenge plays into the hands of the Howie Carrs who want to “damage” Kerry and, if Masshole had stopped there, then I could better understand all the people recommending it. But he didn’t, he went on to attack O’Reilly himself- questioning his “progressive credentials,” accusing him of “pandering to progressives” and once again making the “vanity campaign” allegation, leading another poster to ask why O’Reilly “accepted” the endorsement of Carr. That’s an attack on the character of the candidate all wrapped up with an “I told you so” to the people who voted for him.
In earlier exchanges, Masshole showed some knowledge of O’Reilly. True s/he didn’t substantiate any of those other charges here.
<
p>Getting back to your original question: I often recommend flawed diaries that make a useful point.
<
p>Having contributed money to a number of primary challenges this year, I’m certainly not against every single primary challenge.
I would rather support someone who panders to progressives than someone who panders to warmongers and authoritarians, as Kerry did.
I’d prefer winning on issues over getting some sort of consumer pleasure out my vote.
<
p>That’s why this is a calculation of resource.
I have actually noted this before.
<
p>I’m not a fan of Senator Kerry at all because I think he is a squishy sail trimmer, and far too likely to cloak too-left-for-me voting in moderate packaging. I’m certainly not alone in this assessment.
<
p>Turns out he’s not super popular on the left either, as they think he’s a squishy sail trimmer all too eager to shiv the left wing in order to maintain moderate credentials.
<
p>So, here we are in a state that de facto has no right wing, and a sitting Senator who is mistrusted by moderates and liberals alike, but is 99.999% likely to retain his seat.
<
p>And the only guys running against him are (i) a first rate Torture a Gay Immigrant for Jesus Republican, and (ii) a guy who bears an uncanny resemblance to a famous political family to which he is not related, and slowly being revealed to be something of an [expletive deleted].
<
p>Nice.
I’d prefer winning on issues over getting some sort of consumer pleasure out my vote.
<
p>WTF does that mean – ‘consumer pleasure’? I’d prefer a Senator who consistently tries to do the right thing, regardless of whether it or he wins. Kerry has been playing Mr. National Figure for so long, he’s forgotten what got him elected in the first place. We need someone who can define ethical positions and stick to them. If O’Reilly isn’t that guy either, show us why.
I’m sorry. This is obtuse.
<
p>Progressives will not win arguments hiding in the corner. The Republicans have mastered the National Figure thing. That’s how McCain gets quoted so much. That’s how they drowned out the Iraq War opposition.
<
p>Again look at Kerry’s legislative record. Go to his site and look at it. Please. Then tell me what’s wrong.
<
p>O’Reilly’s narrative about Kerry is just plain make believe.
<
p>And I’ve written extensively about why O’Reilly is the wrong guy.
Who said anything about hiding in a corner? Where was Kerry during the opposition to the Iraq invasion? Was he against it by the time it happened, or was he still enjoying his cleverness in having helped authorize it? I am pretty familiar with his voting record, and with the very limited number of bills he’s actually introduced. For a guy who’s been there as long as he has, and who is supposed to be influential, that record is nothing to write home about. Name one politically risky or truly progressive bill he’s introduced, please. Maybe this will help you:
http://www.factcheck.org/just_…
<
p>
Why all this knowledge and concern about what Kerry is thinking? I suppose mindreading leads to worry.
<
p>Name one politically risky or truly progressive bill he’s introduced, please. Politically risky bills don’t get passed. It’s very difficult to get progressive bills passed because the Senate has a substantial block of Republicans supplemented by a substantial portion of the caucus that is unreliable. That’s why Senator Spector has a longer list than Senator Kerry. I’m not sure what that measures except, maybe, whether one is named Dennis Kucinich. Also Democrats haven’t even been in the majority that much between 2000 and now.
<
p>The problem is to change the balance in the Senate. That’s not down by some combination of visiting Massachusetts and modesty.
<
p>Think about it. Wouldn’t we be in a better state if Senator Kerry appeared on television as much as Senator McCain? If Kerry was part of Democrats controlling the national narrative, some of Rep. Kucinich’s bills would have a chance of passing.
<
p>Would you have the same objection to Senator Kennedy appearing as much as McCain? If not, why not?
atually working for the state of Massachusetts? You’ve got him running all over the place instead of doing the job he was elected to do. Sorry, KB; I don’t buy it. And BTW, what makes you think JFK, with his less than courageous position on marriage equality, is going to help with your second bullet point?
The point you make Justice4All is similar to one that EOR-ites make. Again, I return to the FISA and Mukasey fights.
<
p>Progressives wanted these things successfully stopped — with a filibuster if necessary. How do you win a filibuster in the Senate? You make it safe for red state Democrats to vote correctly and you make it dangerous for Republicans to vote wrong.
<
p>Do you do this by touring Massachusetts?
<
p>Or do you do this by appearing at a lot of places in the country? by getting a lot of media attention?
<
p>EOR-ites think that the latter is neglecting Massachusetts and displaying “ambition”. I don’t understand how one wins debates like this by staying home and being quiet. What they’re feeding us makes no sense.
<
p>I’d ask do they really want progressives to win these fights or do they just care about Kerry’s “optics”?
<
p>So when EOR talks about pushing Massachusetts Values, I ask you what does he propose to do to accomplish that in the Senate.
<
p>If he tells you he’s going to “be a leader” without explaining how, he’s bullsh*tting you.
I challenge you to come up with a better analysis rather than to hide behind the ratings.
how does he even begin to measure up to progressive values? It appears that you’ve got one yardstick for Mr O’Reilly and quite another for JFK. How progressive is Senator Kerry anyway? His voting record isn’t exactly true blue, starting with the war in Iraq and the marriage equality issue.
<
p>What you propose that JFK is going to do in Congress to accomplish pushing Massachusetts values? I mean, really – the guy has been on the job for more than twenty years, don’t you think it’s about time he’s actually done something? We’re not discussing a neophyte; JFK has had more than ample opportunity to prove himself.
<
p>As for questioning what Mr. O’Reilly will do on the issues, he’s outlined his positions on Iraq, education, the environment, healthcare and energy dependence.
<
p>I think touring Massachusetts is a good idea, KBusch. Given his voting record, it appears that the good Senator has forgotten what those values actually are.
No, I’ve been very consistent. Extremely. I’ve been more explicit than anyone pushing O’Reilly. I’ve said what’s wrong with Congress. I’ve pointed out what needs to be done. I’ve asked whether Kerry is doing any of that. He is. I’ve asked whether O’Reilly even understands the problem. He doesn’t.
<
p>Let me add another self-refuting O’Reilly-ism. He complains that Kerry is not a team player. O’Reilly makes a big thing about what a team player he, O’Reilly, is. But then he wanted Kerry to buck the Democratic caucus leadership and try to start a filibuster that’s sure to fail. So which is it? Is Kerry too much of a team player or too little?
<
p>O’Reilly really cannot explain what he’d do to make the Senate vote right on Iraq, climate, taxes, nominations, etc. other than to say he’d show “leadership”. Or he’d visit us more. Or he won’t draw attention to himself.
<
p>I submit that’s not a plan.
<
p>Contrast that with Kerry’s vigorous support of Ned Lamont (Tim Tagaris, Lamont’s campaign manager, singled him out for praise on a Daily Kos dairy.) Or Kerry’s campaign against Roadblock Republicans.
<
p>In terms of yardsticks, the O’Reilly folk have reduced it to checkmarks. Kerry has so many; O’Reilly has more. The other yardstick I hear is one of moral witness. We want a Senator to “do the right thing” even if it is ineffective or counterproductive, to propose “politically risky” legislation or to launch failed filibusters. To me, the first is to approach this race as if it were a matter of shopping and the second is to approach it as if it were theater. I think both are wrong-headed.
<
p>I’m suggesting the right measure is what will give us the best Senate in 2008 given the tasks and obstacles faced by the Senate in 2008.
I get that you’re a Kerry supporter and just so we’re clear – I’m not a supporter of either gent, but I am open to the possibilities. So – two questions.
<
p>1. What has John Kerry done for Massachusetts specifically in the last twenty years?
<
p>2. What issues has he taken the lead role/sponsor on?
<
p>Personally, I don’t give a rat’s patootie about JFK’s support of Ned Lamont. I’d like to know what he’s done for this state at the federal level. What’s he done on Medicare and Medicaid, for instance? How about that piss poor Part D? NCLB?
<
p>
My endorsement for Senate. That was from a discussion of the 2008 senate race back in 2006. You’ll note that my comments about Kerry on that thread were not friendly. Calling me a “Kerry supporter” is just not true.
<
p>My take on the guy is that he’s great leading investigations. (He was stellar during Iran-Contra, for example.) He is not particularly good at crafting compromises, alliances across the aisle, and that sort of thing at which Kennedy excels. On the other hand, the Senate is a hostile environment for most things I care about. (Look at how badly climate change bills fare there.) We’re at a period when Senators Lieberman and Spector can get lots of bills passed, but Senators Feingold, Boxer, Kerry, and Kennedy have to be very skilled to get bills passed.
<
p>(From where I sit, O’Reilly would be worse, not better than Kerry in this environment.)
<
p>I hear that Kerry’s not so good at local stuff. Looking at the legislation he’s recently pushed, some of it looks pretty local indeed. I’m more interested in making sure the Senate gets to the issues I listed — and not in specific benefits targeted to Middlesex County.
<
p>One problem, to my mind, is that we’ve been steeped for a while in Republican propaganda about Kerry. That’s why people imagine they know his motivations (e.g. ambitions) or his thoughts (e.g. condescension).
The AUMF vote was a mistake. However, do remember that Bush swore up and down that the AUMF was supposed to be a club to bring Iraq to negotiations. That’s how a President Gore would have used it. Too many Democrats believed Bush when there was evidence not to.
<
p>Since then, though, Kerry’s voting record — and advocacy of Iraq issues — have been excellent. Better than Feinstein, Landrieu, Pryor, Nelson, and Johnson. Don’t mistake him for one of them. Kerry is not a Liebercrat. He worked against Lieberman.
<
p>Did Kerry vote for DOMA? I don’t think so.
they are all kerry shills…
<
p>just look at their comments/posts – all pro-kerry and anti-Oreilly
<
p>they are the same people that come out like clockwork and promote this filth (thanks masshole!)
because I felt it would foster good discussion from lots of different folks with different perspectives on the matter.
<
p>But then, I often recommend [and ‘6’] comments which which I disagree. Go figger.
You 5 them.
I 5 when the sound points outweigh the unsound points, when the post is “pretty good”, or when it’s a great post but impolite [curse words, etc].
from Ed O’Reilly’s best friend, leads me to be politically incorrect (which I have tried really, really hard to be for a long time) and comment on this post:
<
p>
(I’m assuming your </blockquote> tag got messed up and I can figure out what is you and what is quote. You are responding to this.)
<
p>This sounds pretty awful and it hints at worse. As noted, I have not met lolorb, but the evidence is that she is a reputable source. This seems delicate. Some of the objections to Ed are personal. It’s hard to know how to handle material like that responsibly. (Hence, lolorb’s hesitation until personally attacked.)
to Peter Derrico, just to clarify. Yes, it’s usually best to preview to catch the missing or mistyped brackets. I’m not even upset by me being attacked (I have no doubt this will continue and I don’t really care). It’s more that people who’ve spent years and years working on progressive issues, have far more experience than EOR at such endeavors and really truly care about issues are so easily dissed and discounted, all for a vanity campaign where progressives who don’t know any better will be used and abused, probably resulting in less future involvement. Talk about a waste of good effort.
<
p>Peter – One of the reasons I quit Ed’s campaign in disgust was because your best bud continuously trashed you, your knowledge, your ideas, your input and your abilities behind your back. Don’t just believe me, this is the pattern oft repeated with many people (evidenced by your post above). Vindictiveness and anger Are Us. By the way, Masshole, you are a target of the O’Reilly clan and they have decided that you must be the guy that Ed can’t stand who works at some VW dealership. If you’re not that guy, then some poor soul is receiving a shit load of grief and has no idea what it’s all about.
<
p>I agreed with you, Peter, on everything we discussed initially: The need for EOR having a vision, mission and goals beyond the desire to attack John Kerry. The need to establish a progressive platform and to utilize the grassroots effectively, where they would be valued (and NOT abused). The need for a campaign structure other than Ed O’Reilly micromanaging everything to the point that he couldn’t understand the need for having an organization or campaign management (using a coffee table as a database of collected names and business cards). The list goes on. Suffice it to say that, in my experience, someone who treats his best friend and most fervent supporter with such deplorable dismissiveness and cruelty ain’t gonna do too much for constituents, grassroots volunteers or anyone who might think something different than EOR.
<
p>For the record, I invested over a month of time and thousands of my own dollars to help Ed by introducing him to progressive activists (Peter Vickery included). I never took a cent from Ed because I believe in supporting progressives with my heart, wallet and shoe leather. If I’m now being attacked for lack of work, I find that ironic, to say the least (especially after dealing with EOR day in and day out with his absurdities and desire to treat all women as his personal secretary).
<
p>If EOR must resort to having his best buddy (to whom he seems to have no loyalty, appreciation or respect) cast aspersions on those who tried to help him, he might benefit from a few sessions on the meaning of narcissism.
They couldn’t shut him up at the convention.
<
p>So they’re going to try to shut him down now, spending the money we donated to elect Kerry president in 2004 to attack a fellow Democrat. Because the last thing the Kerry campaign wants to do, apparently, is debate the issues.
<
p>They don’t want to explain why Kerry has notoriously poor constituent services.
<
p>They don’t want to explain why Kerry voted for FISA and the Patriot Act.
<
p>They don’t want to explain why Kerry opposes marriage equality.
<
p>They don’t want to explain why Kerry okayed the invasion of Iraq.
<
p>They don’t want to explain why Kerry voted for an unconstitutional education policy.
<
p>They don’t want to explain why Kerry claims to have “led” the fight against Justice Alito…after he phoned in his “leadership” while away in Switzerland.
<
p>O’Reilly is a for-real candidate. Ignoring him does not make him weaker. Attacks like this make him stronger. Sorry, Mr. Vickery, but I want to debate the issues.
<
p>
I’m not a Kerry supporter either. Please don’t try to misconstrue my comments as being pro-Kerry.
It was the totality of this thread. There is a case that can be made for Kerry over O’Reilly. I don’t think it’s convincing, but it’s there…I just wish I could see somebody making it, instead of what is passing for an argument lately.
<
p>I’m also getting tired of people screaming “SHUT UP” at the candidates I support. First Clinton, now O’Reilly. This isn’t the Democratic Party that I belong to.
I was hoping to be able to support Kerry, but I just couldn’t do it based on his glib answers on H1B’s. My vote for him would have been a vote against EOR (isn’t that ironic?). I want a candidate who has some leadership ability and is willing to go out on a limb for democratic values. Hence, my initial interest in EOR (resulting in my absolute disillusionment). Unless you really know the inside workings of a campaign, it’s very easy to think the rhetoric has some meaning. The only way to know for sure that someone has progressive values is to watch them climb the ladder. But, once someone is involved for any length of time, they become the insiders. It’s a conundrum.
On the FISA issue, I grilled these EOR folk on what their guy would do differently. I got pat answers. “He’d show leadership and vote!”
<
p>”Easily impressed,” I thought.
<
p>Getting the Senate to vote right on FISA minimally required lining up the Democratic caucus and pressuring or cajoling Republicans. Maybe something like Kerry’s fundraising against the Roadblock Republicans.
<
p>And EOR? Were I EBII, I’d say EOR was offering to grandstand for Massachusetts.
<
p>Awesome.
<
p>So if O’Reilly hasn’t really developed good positions on the issues — at least on the issues not faced by a school committeeman — on what is he going to base his campaign?
<
p>He’s going to base his campaign on being anti-Kerry.
<
p>We’re going to be treated the same old crap about windsurfing, flipflopping, Vietnam records, elitism, ambition, etc. In short, we’re going to get a replay of the Republican campaign against Kerry.
<
p>Do you really want this?
After listening to the aforementioned Howie Carr interview, it’s hard to see how anyone could come to a different conclusion.
<
p>It’s not remotely about whether or not Kerry should be challenged. No politician should ever expect to go unchallenged. But O’Reilly’s “challenge” is thin gruel.
<
p>Nothing but negative. He’s given me no reason to vote for him.
The calculus is all wrong. As I understand it, the figuring boils down to little more than this:
<
p>John Kerry is _________ (fill in string of negative adjectives). Ed O’Reilly feels the same way about John Kerry I do. Therefore, Ed O’Reilly would make a better senator than John Kerry.
<
p>While I acknowledge that intelligent people may be disenchanted with John Kerry, a case simply cannot be made that EOR is qualified for the job or that he would be more effective senatorial representation for the people of the Commonwealth than John Kerry.
What an embarrassment. Senator? Are you kidding me.
<
p>Have whatever feeling you want towards Kerry, that’s fine. But a vote for Ed O’Reilly is a vote for Ed O’Reilly, not a vote against Kerry, and this is for whom you would be voting for.
What exactly do you find embarrassing? I’m into the recording about 31 minutes, and still haven’t found anything embarrassing.
<
p>I think the guy acquitted himself quite well. He describes the antics of the DSC, which was pretty funny. Poor John Walsh! The nonsense with the rules, which were clearly bent for John Kerry, are even more telling when you consider that our party allowed a delegate to be physically removed by another delegate over the rules. I also think that he was spot on in describing the vote on the war and his vote to protect the tax benefits for hedge fund managers, money that could have been used to fund important stuff like healthcare for children.
<
p>So…thanks for posting the link. I hope all of you take the opportunity to actually listen to it. This is a clever guy who really “gets” the working class and the challenges they face because they’re not financially insulated from decisions made in Washington.
I would imagine that someone who actually gave a crap about the position they are running for would discuss how they would make the country better and discuss their positions and why they are the best candidate. Imagine of McCain gave this kind of interview about Obama. Or Obama about McCain for that matter.
<
p>You seem to have a fairly low standard for candidates. Good luck with that. Hopefully there are more people with a higher standard voting.
Your low standard for candidates allow you to rubber stamp a candidacy based on what exactly? You’re all good with the convenient tax cover for hedge fund managers? How about the marriage equality? Did you actually listen to the full interview?
<
p>JFK may “look” senatorial and sound senatorial, but this state needs more than a poster child for the Russell office building.
and that’s not even the point, and you know it. No one has stated that they agree with Kerry in every issue. It’s completely idiotic to even make that statement. The point is Ed O’Reilly and is he a serious candidate. It sounds to me that he’s running in the Democrat party rather than the Democratic Party. It’s not just a one shot deal, he has been routinely using right wing attacks on Kerry. From swift boats to interviews with the Washington Times, now Howie Carr. It’s pretty much his MO, attack Kerry then throw in some progressive issues at the end. Is it real, is is credible, that’s the question.
<
p>I wholeheartedly agree that a primary challenge would be great to bring Kerry more to the left on some issues. The question is if Ed O’Reilly that candidate or are people just waiting their time on this guy. Has he made the case? Has he made any kind of commitment on these issues prior to his candidacy? Had he worked towards marriage equity in any capacity at all prior? Anything?
<
p>He hasn’t, he’s done nothing. That is the problem, don’t confuse a Kerry protest vote for an Ed O’Reilly vote. IMO this guy is not worthy of the vote or the effort. He got his 10,000 signatures so no problem having him on the ballot. This whole notion that he’s bringing progressive ideals to the office is foolish.
O’Reilly is on record saying he voted for Kerry for President in 2004. Now he says he is running against Kerry because he voted for the war – in 2003! Was the vote ok in 2004 but not now? Are we supposed to take him seriously??
you know what I’m talking about, yet you provide nothing.
Is that the thinking here? Or is it snobbery?
<
p>I can’t figure out what the hell you’re so cheesed off about. I listened to the entire interview, and I didn’t come away with the sense that Mr. O’Reilly was hard wired with the right wing. I thought the majority of his arguments had merit. I didn’t hear him mention the swiftboat nonsense. I didn’t hear him use right wing talking points. I heard him criticize Senator Kerry for two things. His voting record and his lack of concern for working class people….which, after I heard about his vote to protect the tax bennies of hedge fund managers…well, that seemed legit. Protecting the tax benefits of hedge fund managers is right up there with protecting tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies.
<
p>And if we’re going to use the same yard stick for Ed, let’s apply it to John. What has John done on these issues? Has he made hs case? What has John done for Massachusetts?
one or two of them may even be tolerant of progressives but a need for “friendly” free media drew Ed to Howie Carr and his ratings as a moth is drawn to a flame.
Howie rants and raves all day either about stat workers or homosexuals or better yet homosexual state workers. Ed O’Reilly harangued the convention last Saturday about gay rights among other things, so permit me to express some puzzlement as what O’Reilly and Carr have in common other than a cynical hatred for John Kerry.
Howie is worse than a homophobe he is someone who profits materially from the promotion of fag-bashing, it gruesomely opportunistic that Ed O’Reilly would make his post convention media debut on the Carr program.
and it does not surprise me that a challenger with little money takes advantage of every media opportunity available.
you criticized Kerry for being one of Imus’s most frequent guests.
no gay democrat let alone any gay liberal democrat in the Commonwealth dares consider public office without first reflecting on whether or not Howie’s inevitable attacks will inflict any lasting damage.
Howie is an “equal opportunity hater” so if you are liberal or gay or a democrat he’ll find a reason to despise you.
That is Howie’s legacy and that is the character of radio talk show tyrant who is now promoting Ed O’Reilly’s candidacy.
Why do you care so much about Howie Carr? Do you listen to his show often?
<
p>I have some things in common with Kerry: we were both in Vietnam, both against that war, and both arrested Memorial Day 1971 in Lexington. I even worked for his campaign for the House. It’s become clear to me over the years that his focus was ALWAYS on becoming a National Figure, and once he obtained that status, he had no need for ordinary people any more. Now he’s an important part of the Establishment, and not interested in changing the system that’s so good to him.
<
p>I also have some things in common with O’Reilly, but those things are more related to what I’ve done for a living and what I see as needing change in the country’s direction. Maybe O’Reilly is pandering to me. Kerry sure as hell isn’t paying any attention to the things I believe are important.
<
p>All I’ve seen in this thread is stuff like, “I warned you about him before, and now Howie Carr has endorsed him!” You have some evidence that O’Reilly is a closet right-winger or something, let’s see it. His getting endorsed by Carr isn’t that.
but he is Bill Moyers compared to Howie Carr a man who has made it his mission to purge the Commonwealth of gays, liberals, democrats and especially gay liberal democrats.
<
p>Governor Patrick’s daughter who is what, 18 years old and freshly uncloseted can’t expect much mercy from Howie today.
The Herald columnist will glom onto this announcement as a means to get at the Governor just as he has glommed onto Ed O’Reilly as a means to tear down John Kerry…why? Because keeping homosexuality despicable and contemptible is a core item on Howie Carr’s agenda…it makes him feel all populist and tough.
It is wretched and pathetic but it is also the character of Ed O’Reilly’s highest profile supporter.
I can see why he is using Howie Carr though. Its apparent he is using his blue collar background to appeal to working class Democrats. Whats wrong with that, oh right I forgot working class means Nazi. Lets be honest, this guy doesn’t stand a chance unless he mobilizes people who feel that Kerry is an out of touch elitist. Do you really think that any progressive media outlet would even give him the time of day. He could be running on the same exact platform as Kerry and he still would be labeled a “Democrat in Name Only”. Cut the guy some slack, he got 22% at the convention. He must appeal to some Democrats.
<
p>Anyways, John Kerry represents what is wrong with the Democrats. He is someone who has never had to struggle or work a day in his life and think he knows what is best for his constituents who can’t even afford to live anymore. Kerry reminds me of all of the trustfund yeppies in Cambridge who talk a good game but rarely ever seem to walk the walk that they talk.
<
p>Ex) Cambridge, the most liberal city in the state yet most expensive to live in, people who care about public education yet never seem to send their kids to public schools, people who complain about gentrification even though their the ones who caused it, people who talk down to people who disagree with them and then have the nerve to talk about diversity, people who talk about diversity yet live in all white communities, people who want to give amnesty to illegal aliens because their not taking their jobs, people who talk about tolerance and they call people with faith stupid and crazy, people who make over $100,000 a year as policy consultants who replaced civil servants that used to get paid $30,000,the list goes on and one and on
Our other Senator has plenty of money, but has been one of labor’s best friends in Congress. The best friend the poor have had in the White House may well also have been the wealthiest President, namely FDR. In case you are wondering the 4 rating was for throwing every right-wing talking point at the residents of Cambridge. I don’t live there myself, but your negative generalizations are uncalled for.
I can’t believe anyone feels strongly enough in favor of John Kerry to want to throw mud at his opponent. His seniority is useful, but what kind of loyalty has he earned from anyone in this state?
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned O’Reilly’s convention speech. How easy it was for him to demean Kerry for being a weak #2 senator, as compared to our #1 senator, when the #1 senator couldn’t make it. O’Reilly doesn’t have the guts to make that speech is Kennedy introduces Kerry as he was supposed to. It was a gutless speech.
Hell it was fist waving demagoguery worthy of Mussolini…screechy shrill and malevolent.
…get your message straight, guys. It’s unseemly to argue with each other over the best personal attack. Accusing him of demeaning Kennedy (which he didn’t), or comparing him with Mussolini (which is a fantasy) don’t gibe.
Or you could debate the issues.
It’s all fun and games until somebody gets tazed.
The people of Massachusetts like to have a senator who believes in something. Especially, what they beleive in!
<
p>Sometimes the big picture is the little picture!
<
p>Ed O’Reilly passionately believes in something
<
p>!