Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

  1. The two statements I heard from Kerry’s spokeswoman re: debates are unnecesarily offensive . Your editorial, as well as well as O’Reilly’s call for debates, do not call for ad hominem attacks.

    <

    p>If Kerry has been such an accomplished Senator, he should be comfortable in front of a debate audience. The fact is, all the pieces of legislation that Ms O’Rourke listed were sponsored by Kerry this election season (one might reasonably ask if he would have sponsored them at all if he were unchallenged).

    <

    p>If the Senator is unwilling to debate candidate-to-candidate, then I don’t feel particularly inclined to support him in Sept. or Nov.  

    • …Kerry’s a good debater.  We saw that against Bush (admittedly, not a high bar to clear), and against Mitt Romney.  I can’t imagine O’Reilly beating him on style.  I suspect that it’s simple incumbent inertia; Kerry isn’t exactly a risk-taker, even when the risk is tiny.  Even if O’Reilly has him beat on policy, the style advantage is Kerry’s, so it wouldn’t help O’Reilly that much.

      <

      p>I just wonder…if Kerry won’t take a small political risk like this, what happens when a vote comes up that has a chance of a big political downside.  Does he still make the right call?

      • Kerry, more than anyone else is the person who first defined the current Democratic position on Iraq. As to taking a risk, Kerry fought for setting a deadline at a point where only 13 people were behind it. Yet all the Presidential candidates in 2007 were very near that postion.

        <

        p>On how to deal with terrorism, te recent report by Gates sounded like Kerry had written it in 2004. He was among the most prescient on this issue – and had already written the legislation needed to get sufficient transparency in international money flows before 911 that was then passed.

        <

        p>On the environment, there is no one in the Senate who has worked on global warming longer than Kerry. He was the sole person from Congress who went to go to Bali. At an earth day SFRC hearing: Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat (around 4 minutes in) said:

        <

        p>”The fact that we had a treaty was significantly due to the fact that Senator Kerry was there. He was a virtual part of our negotiating team, without his day and night support and lobbying of the EU. we would not have gotten a treaty.”
        http://www.kerryvision.net/200…

        <

        p>Kerry is also good on other environmental issues – which is why he had a 96% League of Conservation Voters score.

        <

        p>On healthcare, he and Kennedy sponsored the precursor bill to S-CHIP and Kerry was an original co-sponsor to Kennedy and Hatch’s bill that retained some parts of the earlier bill.

        <

        p>On veteran’s issues, Kerry has been their best ally in Congress.

        <

        p>On housing, the affordable housing trust was sponsored by Kerry as were 3 other provisions of the housing bill.

        <

        p>It was not just style that Kerry brought to the debates with Bush – it was an unusual depth of knowlege on a very broad array of issues.

        <

        p>As to not being a risk taker – name a Senator who took more risk than Kerry did when he continued working to investigate BCCI even after both Jackie Kennedy and Jimmy Carter asked him to stop and when no Senator supported him. Another example is that he fought to investigate the illegal arming of the Contras – Reagan was extremely popular and many Democrats were in favor of funding the Contras. Then there was his Vietnam testimony.

        <

        p>I have yet to read anything about the accomplishments that O’Reilly had in his career. Nor have I heard anything he did as an activist. It is strange that a man running for Senate has more information on high school and college jobs than his professional career.  

        • Kerry wanted to invade Iraq.  O’Reilly didn’t want this obvious quagmire.
          Kerry wants to dictate which couples’ love counts.  O’Reilly is for marriage equality.
          Kerry wants private industry to run health care.  O’Reilly wants a single-payer system.
          Kerry wants the federal government to break the Constitution by running education under NCLB.  O’Reilly believes that education should be responsive to local control.

          <

          p>Kerry does have a good record on the environment.  But what about these priorities…which incidentally align O’Reilly with the Democratic Party platform?

          • You have no idea what Ed O’Reilly actually thought about the decision to go to war with Iraq. Or his true feelings on marriage equality. Or his actual plan to achieve single payer health care (let alone if he actually really believes in it). Or O’Reilly’s actual plan to improve public education.

            <

            p>And why don’t you know those things- because either (1) the only witness to Ed believing those things is Ed, or (2) Ed’s policy proposals are, and I’m being as nice as possible, unpolished.

            <

            p>Sabutai- for a year, Ed O’Reilly has been running for Senate and in that time have you ever seen him or his campaign discuss any of the following in even the slightest detail (and if I’m wrong, by all means, prove me wrong) LIHEAP, social security, economic development, foreclosures, immigration, WEP/GPO, homeland security, AMT, fishing, bank liquidity, access to college, net neutrality, broadband access, public transportation, public infrastructure, agriculture, biotech and robotics, veterans, military families, the underground economy, the employee free choice act, casinos, public housing, tax code, public safety funding or appropriations.

            <

            p>Ummm…when he is going to start talking about this stuff? This is the U.S. Senate we’re talking about.

            <

            p>And if an issue like marriage equality is important to you, why not just ask the O’Reilly campaign- what did Ed do to help the cause? Did he donate money? Was he meeting with his buddies at the State House? Was he writing emails or making phone calls?

            <

            p>I mean, I was outside the State House on June 14th and I saw a lot of people- including those lunatic Eastern European kids- but I don’t remember seeing Ed O’Reilly. When he did he start believing in marriage equality- before or after he announced he was running for the Senate?

            • It’s better to pick Kerry who’s against something than a man who you believe isn’t enough in favor of it!!!!  I’m not even going to address you laundry list, or that “post” where you troll for people to attack.    

              <

              p>You can ignore Iraq and education if you want.  

              <

              p>You can try to pretend that the fact that a brief public record for O’Reilly is worse than a long record that is so often wrong.

              <

              p>You can insult anyone who doesn’t agree with you.

              <

              p>You can pretend that we don’t deserve a debate.

              <

              p>What I’ve yet to see is a reason that Kerry has made use of his last six years to ask for another six.

              • wants federal control of education. NCLB is Kennedy’s bill – do you have a problem with him too?

                <

                p>The problem with O’Reilly’s public record is not just its extreme briefness, but that he quit mid term from his position on the school board.

                <

                p>As to the debate, what Kerry’s spokeswoman clearly says is that O’Reilly’s people have NOT contacted Kerry’s campaign manager to set it up. Were you upset when HRC refused to have her campaign even discuss having debates with Tasini?

                • Education is a state competence…NCLB awards it to the federal government, hence it violates constitutional federalism.  Kerry is a big fan of NCLB.

                  <

                  p>But keep digging up nits to pick on O’Reilly.  I’m sure next week we’ll hear about how he doesn’t floss often enough.  Maybe that’s something Kerry can bring up in the deba — oh, right, Kerry’s too good for a common debate.

                • when he spoke to the SC Education Association in November 2006.  Nothing he said there – or anything he said in the Senate match your comment that he wants to take away local control. Most Democrats voted for NCLB, it was Kennedy’s bill and HRC, who you seemed to support, was on that committee, not Kerry. Almost everybody – in both parties – as criticized how it was implemented and the fact that it was not funded. All I know on O’Reilly’s position on education was that it was not important enough for him to serve his entire time on the school board he was elected to.

                  <

                  p>As to O’Reilly, there are few nits to pick, because after over a year of running he has not made any effort to define what he did in his professional career or as an activist or advocate.  He has spoken more of his high school jobs than his legal career. I have read more of Kerry’s excellent career as a lawyer than of O’Reilly’s, though that is what he did his entire life.

                  <

                  p>In addition, he is running a thoroughly negative campaign. He seems to want to run just attacking Kerry, even descending to acting as though the SBVT had some merit.  Anyone who goes there is NOT a Democrat.

                • Most Democrats voted for Iraq, and the Patriot Act, too.  Does that make those good ideas as well?  It’s pretty clear you’ve never actually heard O’Reilly, because he is very clear on the effects of NCLB and how it narrows educational opportunities for many students, particularly for those needing multiple intelligence approaches.  He’s also spoken about his career as a lawyer and his work as a firefighter.  But it’s tough to hear something when you’re desperately trying not to listen.

                • Kerry has also spoken out on the problems. I can’t find a link to the video of the SCEA speech, where he spoke of it in 2006, but here is a link to Kerry speaking of some problems at a Finance committee seeing in March 2007. Here’s a link: http://finance.senate.gov/hear…

                  <

                  p>Kerry starts speaking at 1:13;59, as you can hear Kerry is not saying that NCLB is working. The deal of NCLB was that the funding, the remedial effort would be there and the intervention would be there.

                  <

                  p>One reason given by him of a school not functioning well was that in some cases was because the school committee wasn’t functioning and there was an absence of leadership. Now, this comment itself shows he knows the importance of local, not federal control. Now, I wonder what happened to the leadership  from the school board when O’Reilly quit in the middle of the term he was elected for. He should have thought of how much work it would take before running for the position.

                • I meant to say that O’Reilly quit the Chairmanship of the board mid term, not the board itself – sorry.

                • Not to get sidetracked, but according to NCLB, every single American student must be proficient in all areas by 2014, or there will be strict punishments for the child’s school.  For much funding do you think would be necessary to bring every single American child to that level?

            • I have known Ed O’Reilly for a long time, and I can attest to the fact that his positions on issues as stated on his website, in his literature and in his speeches are consistent with his long-held convictions.  

              • Since you’ve known Ed for a long time, I’m sure you can let me know what Ed accomplished as a Gloucester City Councilor and School Committee Member because no one else seems to be able to answer that question.

                <

                p>And hey- the fact that you posted that you’re Ed’s longtime friend and can assure us that of course he’s always been the progressive firebrand he claims to be- that was awesome.  

          • I have yet to hear Obama even endorse our nominee. If he has time to echo right wing attacks on Kerry on a PUMA site, he could have found time to endorse Obama. As the PUMA position seems to be that they will vote for McCain, shouldn’t he, as a Democrat running for high office, made the case that they should support Obama, as HRC herself does?

            <

            p>As to your list, how does “don’t rush to war” translate to wanted to Invade Iraq. In early 2003, Kerry’s comments against invading were strong enough that he was singled out by David Frum, a Bush speechwriter, in a National Review op-ed.

            <

            p>”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.

            <

            p>snip

            <

            p>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.”

            <

            p>http://www.democraticundergrou…

            <

            p>Kerry has said his vote was wrong and as said, he has led the Democrats on an exit strategy.

            <

            p>On gay marriage, Kerry never voted against you and even Kerry’s position of equal federal rights for civil unions is to the left of most Senate Democrats. As the only liberal member of the Finance committee if Obama is behind this, he would be the logical person to push this where needed – in the Finance committee, which handles tax legislation. Kerry’s said that MA law is settled on this.

            <

            p>Even the Mass legislation is not single payer. If MA’s very Democratic legislature can’t pass this – it is DOA in the US Senate. Kerry is fighting to improve what is there rather than insisting on something that has no chance.

            • On gay marriage, Kerry never voted against you and even Kerry’s position of equal federal rights for civil unions is to the left of most Senate Democrats.

              <

              p>Two Things:

              <

              p>1. Kerry supported a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality just a few years ago.  So that’s a bit misleading to say he “never voted against you” to make it seem as though he hasn’t done any harm.  To the contrary, he’s done plenty.

              <

              p>2.  He may be to the left of most Senate Dems, but it’s a good thing he doesn’t represent the U.S. and actually represents Massachusetts!  Here, he is to the right of most people.  Our other Senator, Ted Kennedy, supports marriage equality as does Governor Deval Patrick, Attorney General Martha Coakley, and over 75% of the legislature.  Again, that argument falls flat too.

        • And if the above is true – which I do not concede – WHY WONT KERRY DEBATE O’REILLY??

          <

          p>He has more excuses than a twelve year old with a broken curfew. No way am I going to vote for Kerry in September – we have held our noses on enough occassions to vote for this fraud. It will be nice to vote for a real Democrat.

          • Seeing that O’Reilly people posted the phone number of Kerry’s campaign manager – maybe they should post the name and number of O’Reilly’s. It seems that as O’Reilly has been working on this campaign for over a year, he should have one.

            <

            p>If he wants a debate that is the way to get it – if the Kerry people then refuse, you can complain. That is the way things are done. What is O’Reilly excuse for being unwilling to speak to anyone but the Senator.

    • It sounds like O’Reilly is unwilling to have his campaign manager call Kerry’s campaign manager to set dates. This is how it is normally done.

      <

      p>What I’ve seen is that O’Reilly initially requested an absurd 23 debates. Other than the Presidential race, there is no race with near that number of debates. Couple that with the fact that O’Reilly told the Boston Globe that the SBVT charges hurt Kerry’s credibility, there may be a reason that Kerry’s team may find his behavior appalling.

      <

      p>As to the bills Kerry sponsored this Congress, many were on issues that he has fought for for years. One example is the Afordable Housing Fund. This was introduced in 2000, and re-introduced with more co-sponsors a few weeks after it failed to pass. In succesive years, he re-introduced it getting more co-sponsors, until he had 23 this Congress and it became a provision in the big banking bill that was recently signed into law.

      <

      p>His bill with Obama in closing the Cayman Islands loop hole that the KBR subsidiary of Halliburton was using to both evade taxes and to cheat its employees comes out of Kerry’s arguments for transparency in international money flows – and issue that he has fought for at least since his work on BCCI. (The current tools to follow the money used against non-state terrorists was Kerry’s. Republicans and some Democrats fought teh passage in 2000, but it became law in 2001.)

      <

      p>The claim that Kerry did nothing in the Senate was as much a lie as the SBVT smears on his war service.

      <

      p>As to being comfortable as a debater, I remember one 2004 comment that Kerry looked most at home debating. He was the best in the primaries and blew Bush away in teh general election ones. He also was very successful debating Weld in 1996.

      <

      p>There is at least one precedent for not debating – Hillary Clinton didn’t debate Tasini in 2006 – and he was at about the same level of support.

  2. Wait- let me get this right-

    <

    p>Tony, you’re the editor of the Belmont Citizen and you wrote an oped ripping Kerry and now you’re posting it here for what reason? Props, kudos, high fives?

    <

    p>As the editor of any publication, shouldn’t you be expected to remain more or less objective? Obviously, if you write an editorial you’re going to have an opinion, but by posting your oped on BMG aren’t you basically promoting yourself and trying to turn your oped into a political statement on behalf of a candidate?

    <

    p>Ahh, screw it. You know what I love, Tony, google searches. I mean, there’s no way I’m going to turn up you ripping on Kerry and praising O’Reilly or Beatty on your blog or on the Belmont Citizen blog am I? That would seem crazy coincedental, Tony. Obviously, you’re a serious journalist and an editor, you wouldn’t have ripped Kerry for years on some crap blog and then tried to slide some crazy oped by everyone, would you have?

    <

    p>I mean, if I go back a few years and find out that you were writing the same stuff about Kerry back then- like do you think I could find you using the exact same language- wouldn’t that suggest that you’re a complete fraud?

    <

    p>Wow, I like this challenge, Tony. Are you a big fraud? Are you some wannabe Howie Carr/Jon Keller who also happens to think that Ted Kennedy should resign immediately?

    <

    p>Hold on- when the news came out that Ted Kennedy had cancer and everyone, and I mean everyone, offered their prayers and best wishes, you wouldn’t have been so heartless as to demand he resign?

    <

    p>Tony, I am so excited to find out everything there is to know about you. And even more excited to make sure that everyone who reads BMG knows who the real Tony is. Yippee!

      • Irish Fury, I like your name, and if you thought was harsh, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Stick around, friend, because, wow, there’s a lot to discover about Tony online.

        • There’s no place for ad hominem attacks on this blog.  Calling someone out for an undisclosed conflict is one thing, but the smear you levelled at Tony a couple of comments ago was uncalled for.  As to why he posted his own editorial, why not?  It’s perfectly legitimate to try to reach a wider audience and possibly get feedback.  Please leave the dirt-digging to the Swift Boaters of the world.

    • Some answers to your questions here. I will also post some below to your other rant:

      <

      p>1) I posted it because I thought BlueMass folks might be interested in it.

      <

      p>2) As an editor, I wrote opinion pieces, so I’m going to have an opinion on things.

      <

      p>3) Google is a great thing, isn’t it? Did you enjoy the reading? Did you learn anything? Sure you did.

      <

      p>4) You will notice from reading that we publish a lot of stuff we get via email on our blog – from Beatty, Markey, and O’Reilly. Strangely, we’re not on Kerry’s campaign email list. So, he doesn’t get anything on the Belmont blog.

      <

      p>5) Disclaimer: I worked as the college coordinator for Ted Kennedy in 1994. It was a paid gig. I’m not happy with many of the man’s votes, but I did work for him and put in a lot of hours on that campaign. It was, however, before I became a journalist.

      <

      p>6) Since you’ve done numerous Google searches – I assume you’re the guy from Charlestown that was up late last night Googling, right – you know that when Ted had cancer, I suggested people pray for him before his surgery. Did you not see that?  

  3. about John Kerry not debating O’Reilly, the masshole cynic in me has to disagree with the sentiment Tony expresses when he says:

    Just because Kerry doesn’t take O’Reilly’s challenge seriously doesn’t give him the excuse to not show up.

    <

    p>It kinda does.  I’m not saying its right or that he should or should not debate, but being the heavily favored candidate with more money and resources and votes does have its advantages.  ONe of those is that Kerry can afford to ignore calls for a debate as long as he wants.  

    <

    p>Without getting personal feelings about either candidate involved, isn’t it understandably pragmatic for the senator to ignore the other candidate?

    • is the same as ignoring the voters.  We have a right to hear the candidates, and Senator Kerry is preventing that from happening.  

      <

      p>I’m not voting for a lazy, presumptuous candidate.  We deserve better than this.  

      • for weeks, in a completely political move, it’s the Kerry campaign’s fault?

        <

        p>Justice4All- who is Ed O’Reilly’s campaign manager? I ask because you seem to be an O’Reilly supporter and I’m more and more convinced that the entire O’Reilly campaign staff consists of Ed and his family.

        <

        p>Anyone with a cup of coffee in MA politics knows that debate negotiations are the domain of campaign managers. We know Kerry’s campaign manager- who is O’Reilly’s?

        <

        p>And if it does turn out that O’Reilly has no campaign manager or any actual campaign staff- and at one time Ed did have several legit campaign staffers- doesn’t that raise serious questions about O’Reilly’s legitimacy? Why does it seem like Ed O’Reilly’s entire campaign staff has quit?

        • await the answer.

          <

          p>Who is Ed O’Reilly’s campaign manager, and what is his telephone number?  I think Cambridge_Paul had a good idea there about calling campaign managers; only problem is he just listed ONE campaign manager.  It seems to me that we need TWO names and numbers — Kerry’s AND O’Reilly’s — so that us intrepid bloggers can get to the bottom of this.

        • I’m an EOR voter by default.  I have nothing to do with his campaign.  I just don’t think we should reward mediocrity by dressing it up and calling it effective representation or even competence.  The man’s track record is tepid at best.  

          <

          p>And another thing, Masshole, you’re starting to sound like a rigid little Beltway bureacrat…because “everyone knows that debate negotiations are the domain of campaign managers?”  So?  And your point is what?  Is the good Senator too much of a stiff to hit redial and call EOR back?

          <

          p>If Senator Kerry actually wanted a debate – it would have been scheduled by now.  As a voter, I’m offended that this guy doesn’t think my vote is worth a debate.  I bet I’m not alone.  In fact, if the lunchroom at work is any indication…I am not alone.    

          <

          p>Whether you like it or not, Senator Kerry is not going to get lovebombed by the voters.  Oh, the Dems may rally to save his sorry rearend….but the guy isn’t “beloved” and the voters are in the mood for “change.”    

      • It is entirely possible for any candidate to spend his/her time campaigning, meeting people and speaking to them of the vision they have or what they have done. That is the opposite of ignoring voters.

        <

        p>There have been times when candidates have opted not to debate , when it is to their advantage. Here it is O’Reilly who needs the debates, so he should stop playing games and have his manager meet with Kerry’s. My guess is that between this absurd temper tantrum of refusing to speak to anyone but Kerry himself and his excessive demand for 23 debates, that he wants the issue – not the debates.  

        • You see, debates are a fundamental part of our democratic system.  The people will have 2 choices come September, not 1, and they deserve to have a debate/forum where they can see the candidates’ opposing views.

          • They could then work out a reasonable number of debates. Even if Kerry agrees to one, it will be one more than HRC gave her equally behind challenger.

    • isn’t it understandably pragmatic for the senator to ignore the other candidate?

      <

      p>Have we really got to the point that what’s pragmatic for keeping an incumbent in office is a principle worth anything?! If that’s where we are, Rove has won.

      <

      p>The only pragmatics that matters is what’s pragmatic for democracy.  

      • its already been said above but I think its worth mentioning that an absence of debates in a campaign is not the death knell of of democracy that some people are making it out to be.  It’s just not the simple.  I look at the majority of debates that occur today as simply two people talking at each other reading parts of their campaign stump speeches.  The idea that debates are the most useful and reverential part of democratic campaigning is pretty ridiculous.    

        <

        p>Debates are more highly useful for challengers than incumbents not because the challengers are more in favor of a democratic system or less “rovian” than the incumbents. It gives them face time, plain and simple, that candidates such as EOR can’t get anywhere else.  It gives them legitimacy by putting them visually on par with the incumbent and not based on any of their ideas or qualifications.  That’s why McCain won’t want to have too many “traditional”debates with Obama and why Obama doesn’t want to have too many “town-hall” style face-offs with McCain.  Both want to avoid situations that either play to their weaknesses or don’t give them an advantage.  

        <

        p>And really, when you said:

        <

        p>Have we really got to the point that what’s pragmatic for keeping an incumbent in office is a principle worth anything?! If that’s where we are, Rove has won.

        <

        p>it shows that you misunderstood what I wrote.  I thought I made it clear that I wasn’t defending debating or not on principal, but that, from the point of view of an incumbent enjoying all-but-certain victory, there is no upside to a debate for all the reasons listed above. I know a lot of people, especially Kerry detractors and EOR supporters, vehemently disagree with that sentiment on “principal” but if EOR was in Kerry’s shoes, no way would he be calling for the amount of debates that he is right now.

  4. Tony Schinella is the editor of the Belmont Citizen and also an absolute fraud. Recently Tony wrote an editorial for the Citizen which can best be described as a Karl Rove Dadaist factual nightmare.

    <

    p>I made some claims about Tony earlier in this thread and now that Michael Phelps and the US female gymnasts have romped, it’s time to talk some Tony.

    <

    p>Here’s the skinny- Tony has had a hate boner for John Kerry since 2004. How do I know this- because he wrote virtually the exact same article four years ago as he did this week in the Belmont Citizen. So in summary, back in 2004, Tony Schinella hated John Kerry, and in 2008, as the editor of the Belmont Citizen, he still hates him but now the powers that be have taken the training wheels of his keyboard.

    <

    p>Haha, I love the Internet. Here’s the link to the 2008 Kerry editorial- http://www.wickedlocal.com/bel… and here’s the line to Tony’s 2004 article on Kerry- http://www.magic-city-news.com…

    <

    p>Want to follow along as I expose Tony for being a complete and total hack?

    <

    p>Tony in 2004-

    For the most part, Kerry has had a safe seat in the Senate. Politicians who have safe seats are the ones who are supposed to be the visionaries. They can afford to take chances as big thinkers and float the new ideas. Despite the opportunity to forward meaningful legislation and really affect people’s lives in a positive way, Kerry hasn’t done the job.

    <

    p>Tony in 2008-

    For the most part, Kerry has had a safe seat in the Senate. Politicians who have safe seats are the ones who are supposed to be the visionaries. They can afford to take chances as big thinkers and float the new ideas. Despite the opportunity to forward meaningful legislation and really affect people’s lives in a positive way, Kerry hasn’t done the job.

    <

    p>Tony in 2004-

    Kerry voted for Bush’s war resolution but now attacks it. Kerry fell for what looks like a lie that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the definite falsehood that Saddam Hussein – contained between the 33rd and 36th parallel – was an imminent threat to the United States.

    <

    p>Tony in 2008-

    Kerry voted for Bush’s war resolution but when things went bad, he attacked it. He fell for the lie that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the falsehood that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States.

    <

    p>Tony in 2004-

    Kerry assisted in President Bush’s – and President Bill Clinton’s – assault on the Constitution by voting for the PATRIOT Act and voting for the anti-terrorism bill in 1996. Kerry also voted for Bush’s unfunded federal education mandate “No Child Left Behind,” which he also now attacks. Kerry has supported wasteful government programs like foreign aid, hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare every year, IMF/World Bank’s enslavement of the Third World, etc.

    <

    p>Tony in 2008-

    Kerry assisted in President Bush’s – and President Bill Clinton’s – assault on the Constitution by voting for the Patriot Act and voting for the anti-terrorism bill in 1996. Kerry also voted for Bush’s unfunded federal education mandate “No Child Left Behind,” which he then attacked as a presidential candidate. Instead of funding NCLB and other initiatives, Kerry has supported wasteful government programs like foreign aid and hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare every year.

    • or are you merely trying to e-lynch someone for holding a negative opinion of an unpopular US Senator.  

      • I don’t have the finger strength and rip apart Tony’s rambling recyled diatribe point by point but let’s look at one of the passages I quoted.

        <

        p>

        Kerry also voted for Bush’s unfunded federal education mandate “No Child Left Behind,” which he then attacked as a presidential candidate. Instead of funding NCLB and other initiatives, Kerry has supported wasteful government programs like foreign aid and hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare every year.

        <

        p>1. NCLB was authored by Ted Kennedy. Referring to it as “Bush’s” is clearly an attempt by Tony to tie Kerry to a fictious Bush-Republican NCLB. Either Tony is unaware that Ted Kennedy was the author and primary force behind NCLB or he chose to ignore that very relevant fact.

        <

        p>2. Kerry has repeatedly called for full federal funding of NCLB and implying otherwise is factually incorrect. Further, the suggestion that Kerry alone, since in Tony’s mind John Kerry has sole control over the entire federal budget, is responsible for underfunding NCLB is patently false and shows an either complete ignorance to how the federal government works or a willful distortion of the facts.

        <

        p>And if you don’t believe that evil John Kerry isn’t the reason NCLB is underfunded, let’s see what Ted Kennedy has to say about that, shall we-

        <

        p>

        A key component of the No Child Left Behind Act was not just requiring more of schools, but giving them the resources needed to put these reforms in place. Unfortunately, the last six years have shown that many schools lack the support and resources needed to be effective. The Administration has failed to invest sufficiently in public schools and the President’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget proposal continues that unacceptable trend. The budget provides no increase in overall education funding and underfunds the No Child Left Behind Act by $14.7 billion.

         

        • everyone knows that. But, if I were Senator, I would have never voted for it knowing that it would not be funded. That was just stupid. That’s the point.  

          • Are you suggesting that the Senator who has been a key player in almost every piece of liberal legislation is less smart than you?  87 Senators voted for it, including people like Kennedy, Dodd, Clinton, Boxer and Corzine.

            • I would have said “Where’s the funding? I don’t see it …” and insisted it was in the bill before approval. It really is that simple.

              <

              p>The entire Senate sans one – Sen. Russ Feingold – voted for the Patriot Act. They were all WRONG, weren’t they? Those of us out here in the real world knew that was sham.

              <

              p>Most everyone in the Senate voted to approve Bush invading Iraq, even Sen. Paul Wellstone !!! if I remember correctly. They were all WRONG too. They should have known better and those of us out here in the real world knew better about it.

              <

              p>Before the vote for the invasion, our entire editorial board met with Rep. Ed Markey and told him, point blank, invading Iraq was a mistake. He listened to us and then kept going on and on about “Saddam Hussein is Hitler incarnate …” Had Kerry bothered to meet with any of us once and a while, he would have gotten an earful about it too. In the end, most of us endorsed the “fringe” primary challenger to Markey that year, Jim Hall, who didn’t win but put up a good fight and showed that he clearly knew more than Markey did on the issue.

              <

              p>And, most importantly, as it turned out, a whole bunch of newspaper editors knew better than someone in the thick of it all and another who was sitting in the intelligence committee briefings. Jeez, imagine that?!  

    • I said Kerry was dead meat way back when he said he wanted to give Reagan “another chance” on his war against democracy in Latin America.  K has been a disaster for a long time and in the same ways.

      <

      p>If Tony’s quotes showed changes of position, I guess you’d attack him for that instead of for his consistency.

      <

      p>BTW, what’s with your juvenile rhetoric? “hate boner”?! I guess that explains the weird screen name you gave yourself.

      • Yes, I suppose because this editor has not changed his position when the wind blows, the Kerry people must not be fans of his. Say it out loud : “Tony S. – he is NO Flip Flopper!!!”  

        <

        p>BTW, Why won’t John Kerry debate?

      • I was going to use my last name and just remove the apostrophe but someone else beat me to it.

        <

        p>And I do apologize for my juvenile rhetoric. I didn’t have the advantage of attending Yale like you and John Kerry and so my vocabulary rarely rises to your lofty level. In the future, I will refer to Tony’s “hate erection” rather than the juvenile “hate boner.”

        <

        p>

      • Latin American wars. He was the only Senator willing to investigate the illegal arming of the Contras. This was actually an extremely risky thing to do.

    • What, I can’t steal from myself when the first column was so dead-on correct? Every four years, an editor should be able to phone one in. Gee. Sorry. I’ll make sure I check with you before I write another thing about John Kerry again. Not!

      <

      p>Your Googling actually didn’t work very well because you should have come up with an editorial I wrote in 2002, suggesting voters should cast votes for Michael Cloud, Kerry’s Libertarian opponent in 2002, who he also refused to debate, in protest.  

      <

      p>That said, in the 2004 final, at the repeated insistence of my wife, I voted against my own interests and voted for Kerry. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t totally regret that vote because I didn’t do what was true to my heart. I won’t make that mistake again.  

      <

      p>Have fun!  

      • It is easier to see why some one who voted for a libertarian in 2002 and is now unhappy with having voted for Kerry vs Bush is attacking Kerry in 2008. I hope the 2004 comment that means you are saying you wished you stayed home – because at this point it would ba mindboggling for someone who voted for Kerry to wish they voted for Bush – the trend is very much in the opposite direction.

        <

        p>What’s curious is that you are not attacking O’Reilly as well. Or is it your hope that the combination of some on the left and many Republicans voting in the primary will give you the incredibly weak O’Reilly against Beatty. Who are you really for getting the Senate seat?

        • I would have voted for Ralph Nader, as I did in 2000 and 1996. I voted for Jerry Brown in 1992 and Mike Dukakis in 1988.

          <

          p>I think O’Reilly is doing a great service to the Commonwealth by running and challenging Kerry. He isn’t perfect, but at least he is trying. And many other people appreciate the fact that he is running, so they have a choice in the primary.  

  5. The scuttlebutt that I’ve heard is that the EOR campaign sent a letter addressed to Sen. Kerry concerning debates.  Kerry’s campaign manager responded the next day with a letter.  The EOR campaign waited a week to respond to that letter and refused to communicate further with JK’s campaign manager, noting that the original letter was addressed to Senator Kerry and that that was the only person with whom they wished to communicate with concerning debate arrangements.

    <

    p>Now who’s being petty and ridiculous?

    <

    p>The only person who can set a date and make arrangements for the debate is the senator himself?  

    <

    p>Come on.  

    <

    p>The EOR campaign is pulling this crap just so they have something else to whine about.

  6. What part of “democracy” is the Kerry campaign having difficulty with, or you for that matter. It appears to me that the reason O’Reilly wants a response from Kerry is because his campaign manager gave a non-response. If Lau’s response had been to the effect that Kerry is willing to debate as soon as the details can be worked out, his involvement in working out those details would have been welcomed. What O’Reilly deserves, and the rest of us for that meeter, is an answer from Kerry as to why he refuses to debate.  

    • He asked the campaign manager to meet with him. In addition, the proposal sent called for 23 debates! Kerry and Weld were considered to have many debates – when they had 9 – and both were viable candidates.

      <

      p>The real question is why the O’Reilly campaign didn’t cal to set up a meeting. Had they done this, then you would have a point, but they didn’t.

      <

      p>

Archives