Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Got questions for John Kerry? He’ll be in Boston on Monday! (Update: Event Postponed)

By

John Kerry is campaigning around the state, known as “Kerry on your Corner” stops and will be stopping by Boston on Monday (possibly in the evening….to be confirmed and updated tomorrow morning with time and place hopefully).

However, the events seem to be simply campaign/photo shoots because I asked the Kerry staff to place on his website where and when his stops will be (they only state where he has been).  They did no such thing and I even called a second time a week ago.  It seems to me that the campaign/Kerry is afraid of the difficult questions that Kerry would be receiving on marriage equality, single payer healthcare, etc. and so by not advertising, photo-ops can be held without the tough questioning.

Update: The campaign did put up info on the campaign stops (not including the Boston one) on the www.johnkerryforsenate.com site.  The site I was referring to previously was www.johnkerry.com which does not include that info.

As to the Boston event, the staff was very coy with giving out any details.   I called them Friday afternoon and was told the event details were still up in the air for this Monday.  It seemed as though the event would be in the evening, and absolutely no indication was given of the place where it would be held.  I was also told I would be called back this weekend with the details I was requesting and that never happened.

So if you have questions for John Kerry and would like to show up, please call Kerry’s campaign tomorrow morning at 9am at 617-565-8519 (ask to speak with the planner) or check back in here where I’ll update with that info.

Update: The Boston event is not happening.  A lot of local elected officials are gone today so it’s going to be rescheduled for after the Convention.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. However, the events seem to be simply campaign/photo shoots because I asked the Kerry staff to place on his website where and when his stops will be (they only state where he has been). They did no such thing and I even called a second time a week ago. It seems to me that the campaign/Kerry is afraid of the difficult questions that Kerry would be receiving on marriage equality, single payer healthcare, etc. and so by not advertising, photo-ops can be held without the tough questioning.

    It took me all of 5 seconds to visit his campaign website (and not his senate website) and what do you know, there's all the info on his Kerry on Your Corner stops planned for that day.

    Also, the phone number you're calling- that's his Senate office. Legally, they really can't engage with you about any sort of campaign events.

    Finally, did you ever think that on Friday afternoon maybe all of Monday's schedule hadn't yet been finalized? You're complaining about Kerry's staff being “coy” with you but you're not even calling the right people in the first place.

    So to summarize- you call the wrong Kerry office, you visit the wrong Kerry website, you want the exact details on Kerry's schedule 72 hours in advance– which obviously adds up to John Kerry is once again afraid of big, bad Paul.

        • empowered to zero out, i.e., delete comments if they had the power.  It’s not enough to let people disagree with you, you must either in practice or in theory register your desire to silence.  That’s why the zeros.  

          • I think the charitable interpretation is that the “zeroers” are regarding this conversation as being like an agenda item at a meeting. From that perspective, maybe, deleting things that are off-topic or down-rating things that don’t contribute to the narrowly defined business at hand constitutes good meeting management.

            <

            p>Trouble is, this isn’t a meeting; writing a post does not make one chair. At least, that’s my understanding of our social context at BMG. I don’t believe I’m alone in that understanding. Possibly, that is not the understanding of the two zeroers, who have been with us all of fifty days in total.

        • This diary had nothing to do with Bush.

          Your comment stated:

          In a Bush administration, what Paul’s done would be deemed “Terrorism” and he’d be sitting in Gitmo.

          (snarky comment meant against Bush not Paul.)

          That absolutely deserves a zero.  

          You can say that the comment was meant against Bush, but this diary had nothing to do with him or with Gitmo.  What is relevant to the diary is me and my actions and you make this outrageous statement.

          <

          p>How many more comments are you going to make about it?  You’ve already made 3.  I’ve discussed my rationale.  Simply because you don’t agree with it, well that’s too bad.

          <

          p>Are you going to call Z out for his worthless rating too?  Does his rating not meet your definition of what worthless is just as the zero doesn’t?  Obviously people thought it was a nasty comment and they graded it as such.  

          • and chose to comment on the zero, then it’s free speech.

            <

            p>So they disagree with you.  And they post and have a discussion about it.

            <

            p>Read the policy Paul.

            <

            p>There is no policy on number of comments allowed.  However, there is a policy against pushing the “zero” button when it’s only a comment you disagree with but not a personal attack.  

            <

            p>Here is the policy once again:

            <

            p>

            There has recently been a great deal of discussion  here about how best to ensure civility and constructive debate on this site, while not interfering with the vigorous exchange of ideas that we all want. We have reviewed everyone’s comments with care, and we have spent a lot of time discussing the matter amongst ourselves and reviewing practices at other sites. This is an evolving issue, and policies will no doubt change over time in response to conditions.

            Policy

            The purpose of Blue Mass. Group is to develop ideas that will invigorate progressive leadership in Massachusetts and the nation.  Robust debate is an important means to that end.  We welcome bold,  constructive observations.  To us, this means commentary typical of thoughtful discussion between acquaintances who may hold differing views on important issues, but who debate those issues in a respectful manner.  Insults, personal  attacks, rudeness, and blanket unsupported statements reduce the level of discourse, interfere with our basic objective, and are not permitted.

            We expect contributors to adhere to the fair use doctrine, which means at a minimum that all direct quotes must be linked or otherwise identified and that copyrighted works should not be reprinted in their entirety if an excerpt will suffice. A useful discussion about fair use can be found here on Wikipedia.

            Ratings

            The comment rating system has thus far been underutilized on this site, by us as well as by everyone else.  We would like to change that.  We encourage all users to rate all comments using the convenient drop-down menus that appear on each comment.  We have revised the ratings system so that The Editors, and certain Trusted Users we may designate from time to time based on their cumulative average comment ratings, can give comments significantly higher and lower ratings than those available for most users.  Comments that receive enough very low ratings will automatically be hidden.  By enabling the “hidden comments” feature, we hope that the community, rather than the three of us, will become the primary enforcer of this site’s policies.

            Penalties

            Users who consistently violate our policies will receive a warning.  Users who fail to heed our warning may be banned from the site.

            <

            p>See?  Nowhere in there does it state only one post per person per thread per topic.  Nowhere in there does it say you have to post exactly as the top diary has.  

            <

            p>They welcome bold, constructive debate.

            <

            p>So therefore a zero rating on my original comment, as KBusch and lightiris have discussed, is in fact a bold constructive debate.  It’s a debate on what is “delete-abuse” and what isn’t.  Perhaps the blog owners would welcome such a discussion so that they can determine what the readers and posters feel about comments being hidden.

            <

            p>For too long, that zero rating has been abused by some here at this site.

            <

            p>A healthy debate on this subject might be welcomed by the admins and if that’s the case, then I’m sure they have no interest in censuring the discussion or limiting the number of posts on it.

            • on me so it’s warranted.  Seeing as how it got a few low ratings others thought the same.

              <

              p>You comment on how there’s no post limit.  That’s right, there’s also no rule that states you have to be here for a certain length of time before you get to make comments as well.  Funny how you skip over that one.  

              • Bait and switch the game now?  

                <

                p>The admins would have deleted any comment they feel crosses the line.  

                <

                p>Read it:

                <

                p>


                We have reviewed everyone’s comments with care, and we have spent a lot of time discussing the matter amongst ourselves and reviewing practices at other sites.

                <

                p>You can rest assured that the site admins found no objection to my post and explanation as posted above or they would have deleted the comment and string of comments following it if they had.

                • Simply because they don’t delete it doesn’t mean anything.  First off, check out this post.  Ryan gets called a rather rude name and it’s obviously a personal attack.  I rated it as such there as well.  That comment hasn’t been deleted either.  So what?  Rating is subjective and that’s why you received 2 zeros and a “worthless” rating on that comment rather than 3 zeros.  Some may see it as a personal attack (which you also thought it may be construed as such which is why you tried putting that disclaimer at the end) and others may not or it can be somewhere in between and that’s okay.  That’s all a part of the ratings system.

                •  you.

                  <

                  p>I was trying to prevent misunderstanding right from the get-go.

                  <

                  p>If you didn’t get it.  Then say so.  It’s called COMMUNICATION.  DISCUSSION.  

                  <

                  p>Often times in discussions both verbally and in writing, the words are not heard or read as the author intended.  It’s why you ASK before you simply go all defensive and freak out.

                  <

                  p>I’ve cleared up my obligation on this subject.

                  <

                  p>Here’s your shovel back.  You can keep digging if you so chose.

                • Well here you go, “It’s called an attack on character. duuuh!  (0.00 / 0)
                  Imagine if someone went into a diary about any topic (let’s say taxes) and the poster didn’t like the diarist’s view on taxes.  Then they say something like Under Hussein’s rule, so and so would have been tortured and beheaded for a post like that.  Oh, by the way this comment is not snarky towards you and is actually towards Hussein.  I just felt like discussing a totally irrelevant topic right now that just happened to attack your character.  Come on now….give me a break.”

          • If you want to keep diaries relevant, rational, and on topic, don’t give out zeros. You’ll make your ratings the topic.

            <

            p>I think giving out 3s is almost always counter-productive, but Z’s use of the 3 is totally in line with the conventions at BMG. My understanding is that most would regard the zeros as ratings abuse.

            <

            p>I will resist the opening offered by “How many more comments are you going to make about it?”

            • zeros whenever I see an attack on someone or a comment that is so very offensive.  We have zeros for a reason.

              <

              p>And don’t chastise me just because you don’t agree with the rating on whether it should be a 0 or a 3.

              • Reminder: You’re the one giving out zeros.

                <

                p>And yes, we have a reason for zeros. You don’t appear to have learned it yet.

        • Imagine if someone went into a diary about any topic (let’s say taxes) and the poster didn’t like the diarist’s view on taxes.  Then they say something like Under Hussein’s rule, so and so would have been tortured and beheaded for a post like that.  Oh, by the way this comment is not snarky towards you and is actually towards Hussein.  I just felt like discussing a totally irrelevant topic right now that just happened to attack your character.  Come on now….give me a break.

          • “A Hail Mary”

            <

            p>Frankly, if you had watched and read this link, you’d have realized why your zero was unwarranted and you would have lightened up already.

            <

            p>

            <

            p>Secondly, you need to read further than the subject line… where my intent was made clear:

            <

            p>

            (snarky comment meant against Bush not Paul.)

            <

            p>That in itself shows no character assassination was intended which is why your current explanation is a Hail Mary.

            <

            p>BUT…even if you didn’t understand why I would have posted that comment, in a blog that encourages  rigorous discussion and debate, wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to simply ask, “What are you talking about?” and allowed me (or any other poster) the opportunity to respond and explain what they were thinking of?

            <

            p>And I did explain my comment later since it was clear that you weren’t understanding what I was referring to.  

            <

            p>
            Furthermore, once you realized that I was referring to Bill O’Rielly and the neocon’s ‘Guilty before proven guilty’ attitude, then you should have realized that it wasn’t an attack on you but was more intended as a sarcastic comment against our current Republican and Presidential policy where making a simple call to your Congressman can get you arrested.  Or by eating vegan food can put you can be illegally spied upon.  Or by telling the truth about Bush or other powerful people, you can be put on the no-fly list and have your jobs, your financial stability and reputation stolen from you– and I know many who did,.

            <

            p>Kapish on the whole ‘character assassination’ hail Mary for God’s sake!  

            <

            p>It’s been explained ad-nauseum at this point.  

            <

            p>

          • in that it makes no reference to anyone’s character. It’s not personal. It makes no reference to anyone’s personal information.

            <

            p>It seemed to me more as if Cougar, — and Cougar has done this before — is trying to point out what unites us by making a snarky anti-Bush comment.

            <

            p>In essence, you are handing out zeros as a sign of your humorlessness.

    • when I called I ask to be transferred to the planner, so yes I was speaking with the correct people.  So please don’t assume because you know what they say about assuming.  Then again, I guess you have that screen name for a reason.  Not to mention that they said they would call me back and that never happened.

      <

      p>Thanks for the info on the other Kerry website.  If you did look at the http://www.johnkerry.com website, you will see that there was only postings of past campaign events rather than future ones.  I’ll update the post accordingly with that info.

      <

      p>

      • First that is troll abuse.

        <

        p>Second, I purposely was making a comment against BUSHES BUSHWACKED  Justice system and I intentionally made my intent clear by pointing out that I wasn’t directing the comment to you but rather than the situation!

        <

        p>Maybe you need a review of the rules here at BMG.  

        <

        p>Because comments against BUSH ARE LEGITIMATE and frankly, repeatedly calling a public official, under Bush’s justice system, might be taken as stalking.  And if you were calling any Republican and doing what you’re doing, or heck..if you were calling O’Rielly, they’d have you on the no-fly list so fast, your head would spin.

        <

        p>So stop pushing the “troll rate” button before you even think about the actual comment or intent of the comment made.

        <

        p>  

        • Your comment stated:

          <

          p>

          In a Bush administration, what Paul’s done would be deemed “Terrorism” and he’d be sitting in Gitmo.

          (snarky comment meant against Bush not Paul.)

          <

          p>That absolutely deserves a zero.  

          <

          p>You can say that the comment was meant against Bush, but this diary had nothing to do with him or with Gitmo.  What is relevant to the diary is me and my actions and you make this outrageous statement.

          • every single Senator, Representative, and Congressman has been affected by policies enacted by the Republican Congress from 2000 through 2006.  And then later, by the filibusters and lack of accountability of the whole Congress since 2000 through now.

            <

            p>Things do not happen in an empty vessel.

            <

            p>John Kerry isn’t the end all and be all of what policies are created in DC.  John Kerry may have been the initial topic of this diary but you pointed out how you have called repeatedly.   And discussing how the Department of Justice has morphed into a system against average people who just participate in democracy is in fact absolutely appropriate for the topic at hand.

            <

            p>OH..and by the way…most blogs have a flow of free thought and posting on ideas based on someone else’s idea.

            <

            p>Are you now for censureship and a dictatorship?  Is that the style government that EOR advocates?  Should we all just sit down and shut up so that you and EOR can discuss ONLY what you want to discuss?

            <

            p>

            • You stated:

              <

              p>

              In a Bush administration, what Paul’s done would be deemed “Terrorism” and he’d be sitting in Gitmo.

              (snarky comment meant against Bush not Paul.)

              <

              p>If you don’t see how outrageous that is, then I have nothing more to say and my rating speaks for itself.

      • If you called the number you listed above, you were calling his Senate office. And yes, you may have been transferred to his Senate planner/scheduler.

        <

        p>So once again, while you may have spoken to a Kerry scheduler, you were speaking to the wrong Kerry scheduler. If you want information on his campaign, you need to call his campaign and not his Senate office.

        <

        p>Honestly, considering that your old tag had the Kerry campaign office phone number listed, I have no idea why you would have called his Senate office.  

        • So once again, while you may have spoken to a Kerry scheduler, you were speaking to the wrong Kerry scheduler.

          <

          p>that I was speaking to the wrong Kerry scheduler when I wasn’t.  I have spoken with the same lady several times.  

          • “Hi, this is Paul from the Ed O’Reilly campaign.  Can you please give us an advanced notice of everything the senator is going to say or do so we can engage in some street theater?  I would also love to take anything you say and trash it on Blue Mass Group.”

            • that I don’t work for either campaign although I lean heavily towards O’Reilly.  I wanted some dialogue, not street theater (which is also why I and many others advocate for a Democratic debate to be had).  And I was stating what happened.  They were scarce with any details and they did not call back when they said they would.

        • My question is whether Paul would have complained had the SENATE office given out campaign information. This would be using the Senate office for the campaign rather than to perform duties related to his current Senate job.

          <

          p>Senator Kerry has answered Paul’s questions before, with no difficulty or problem.  

      • You need to sharpen your debate skills:  attack the topic not the person.

        <

        p>Now I realize that my comment to you might be deemed a personal attack against you, but it’s not.  You called masshole a name and that’s a sign of a bad debater. I sure hope EOR doesn’t follow your lead when he gets his debates and when he finally arranges to call the correct person to make a debate happen!

        <

        p>However, here’s an actual link to help both of you out. I understand that EOR was a defense lawyer before he became a candidate, so he may think harassing the person and their supporters is a highly accepted debate skill.  It’s not.

        <

        p>Here’s something to help all of you:

        <

        p>http://www.ninjapirate.com/log…

        <

        p>

    • Both “John Kerry” sites provided in the links of this original post are campaign sites.  

      • might be confused to the reason why Kerry still has two different campaign websites- one for senate, one not

        • were questions about campaign involvement with the 527 and whether Bush or Cheney or anyone on their staff were involved with them too.

          <

          p>As investigations began, some people who had dual roles were discovered and forced to resign.

          <

          p>It’s just a no no to cross Senate (gov) where our tax dollars pay for their employment with campaign staff which is not funded by taxes but instead funded by donors.  The two are not suppose to meet.

          <

          p>That’s what ended up happening with the Bush and high officials in the Bush campaign is that they tried to fill dual roles.

          <

          p>http://graphics7.nytimes.com/i…

          <

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

          • The campaign for Senate is likely funded by the Senate campaign. The Johnkerry one is likely funded by his PAC and is used for somethings that are not related to winning the Senate race – such as supporting other Democrats. The JohnKerry.com one existed since before he was the nominee in 2004.

            <

            p>I am not sure – as I do not work for either – but is my conclusion looking at the content of both.

    •  He’s visiting Worcester at 11:00. Then Leominster at 1:30. Giving the 1 hour drive from Worcester to Leominster, that leaves an hour and a half for lunch, a speech, and nothing for Q & A. Don’t want to be caught slumming Senator? Personally, I’d vote for Osama Bin Laden before you!

      • yet you still complain?

        <

        p>Besides, what makes you think Kerry is stopping for lunch?  Maybe he’s eating fast food on the way to the next event and staying at the Worcester event until after the q/a period has ended.

        <

        p>And what is stopping you from attending one or the other event?  

        <

        p>It’s a shame that I don’t see you holding EOR to the same standards as you hold Kerry.

        • WHO:     Senator John Kerry
                       City Councilor Bill Eddy

          <

          p>WHAT:    Kerry on Your Corner Tour

          <

          p>WHEN:   Monday, August 18, 2008
                       11:00am

          <

          p>WHERE: Tour begins at the Webster House Restaurant
                        1 Webster Street
                        Worcester

          <

          p>Following a brief lunch and Q&A, Kerry will visit other businesses in Webster Square.

          <

          p> My wheelchair only goes 4 miles an hour. I can make it to Webster Sq. The Senator is not going to take a question from someone he doesn’t know at all.

          • The Senator is not going to take a question from someone he doesn’t know at all.

             

            <

            p>These are intended to be events for anyone to be able to ask Kerry questions. That’s why Kerry goes to public places and from what I’ve read from news reports about previous events, it seems pretty clear that it’s a pretty open exchange between Kerry and whoever shows up.

            <

            p>  

          • Also…there are certainly times, I wish I could self-edit or delete a comment or part of a comment.  (Regarding post upthread–so I understand your regret that you can’t edit the portion of your comment about Osama.)

          • HAHAHAHAHAHAH…

            <

            p>I hope he has his claw hammer to pull off all the plywood…

            <

            p>BUT – there IS an enormous senior cente jsut across the street…..

      • I apologize. That’s too extreme, even for me. But if the Senator has time for a question from a common citizen from the neighborhood, I’d welcome the opportinity.

  3. questions from his constituents.

    <

    p>

    <

    p>The gentleman midway through the video simply walked across the street and asked the Senator a question.  It was pretty easy to do, and he was given a thorough answer, and a promise follow up from his staff.  Kerry is quite approachable.  Frankly, the above video disproves the idea that he is only available for photo ops.  Hilariously, you actually LINKED to this video in your diary.  Anyone who followed the link would see a Senator doing his job and listening to and answering to his constituents.

    • Ask the Senator this question and act like you’re interested, and you can be on TV! I’m sure the unattractive parts, if any, were edited out. This is America, you can’t get ten people to agree on anything.  

      • He asked pointed questions, and then asked follow up questions.  It is unfortunate that the gentleman is not here to defend himself from your insinuations.  I mean, for God’s sake — his family has worries, and don’t have time to think up such pettiness.  Some people actually worry about whether they can afford to heat their homes this winter.  Not everything is a political game to them.

        • I just spent two months in a nursing home to avoid homelessness. Disability services are totally lacking in this state. What we need is more building and much less talking.  

  4. I’ve called Kerry’s office and have never had a problem getting answers.  I’ve never been treated rudely. And I have had them directing me to other offices, such as different committees and so on.  Then I’ve even had them call me back and make sure my questions got answered.

    <

    p>So I can’t figure out why people complain about the people at the Senate office.

    <

    p>I also want to point out something else.  A year or so ago, a group of anti-war activists were going to camp out in Kerry’s office–expecting that he wouldn’t talk to them.  Instead from my recollection, Kerry alloted hours with them–and I think even provided donuts.  

    <

    p>I’ll see if I can find the link.  It’s from so long ago, I can’t remember where I saw it.

    <

    p>But I bring that up because in other meetings with other Senators, those same anti-war activists were thrown out, period.

    <

    p>So I doubt that Kerry is worried about a few questions directed at him from any corner in Boston.  

    <

    p>But if I had time to go there, I’d ask him what a Democratic Congress will do with the Iraq occupation and Afghanistan War next year if McCain gets elected or if Obama gets elected.  What would be the short term goals that would lead up to the eventual long term goal of getting them out of Iraq.

    <

    p>I’d ask what would be the role the US Senate/Congress will have in Middle East peace talks as well as issues like N.Korea and Iran—what will be different under a McCain or Obama presidency.

    <

    p>I’d also ask what would be the difference in environmental policies under Obama v McCain.

    <

    p>The last question I’d ask is what specifically the Congress and President will do to get jobs back to the US.  Are they really serioius about bringing jobs home?  

    <

    p>And ok..one more question…on a more personal note…
    What will they do to prevent these student loan companies from behaving like loan sharks on all these new graduates or current students?  This generation will likely graduate with between 50-120,000 in debt with little chance of getting a good paying job.    S0 what will the Congress do to help our struggling families and what will the outlook be like if McCain wins vs an Obama win?

    <

    p>OMG..another question…What can Congress do to clean out the DOJ from their partisan hacks and will there be punishment against Bush and others who set up an illegal/corrupt DOJ?

    • anti-war protesters at Sen. Kerry’s office (in Boston, I believe) in Feb. 2007:

      <

      p>

      <

      p>I got the pic from DUer unhappycamper who was at the protest.

      <

      p>http://www.democraticundergrou…

      <

      p>

      His staff was really nice & let us all in, considering they were only going to allow five of us into his office. The lady on the right is with MFSO; her son is currently stationed at FOB Liberty, Baghdad. The other 12 old coots were VFP.

      Our conference call was scheduled for 20 minutes; Sen. Kerry gave us 25 & then he had to leave for a vote on the floor.

      • I thought there was someone who gave the protesters donuts and spent an hour with them.  

        <

        p>But I appreciate the link and the truth from those who were there.

  5. It seems to me that the campaign/Kerry is afraid of the difficult questions that Kerry would be receiving on marriage equality, single payer healthcare, etc. and so by not advertising, photo-ops can be held without the tough questioning. <<

    <

    p>Oh my, that is too funny.

    <

    p>The dude pulled people out of the water in Vietnam while he was under fire, faced congress and later protested said war, survived cancer, and ran a national campaign against a socio-pathic cabal and their monkey war-time sitting president, after the worst terrorist attack on American soil, faced millions of dollars thrown at him from a bunch of no-soul-havin’ nutbags, and he is afraid to answer Paul’s question about….healthcare and gay marriage.

    <

    p>Good one.

    <

    p>

      • Why won’t the O’Reilly campaign sit down with Roger Lau and arrange a debate?  If the O’Reilly campaign will not do that, then he and his supporters ought to stop complaining.

        • I wouldn’t know the name of his campaign manager- from what I’ve heard around here, he does not have one. My guess is that you know that.

          <

          p>So when and why is having a campaign manager a precondition for having a debate? What other preconditions are there that have yet to be rolled out from the Kerry campaign?

          <

          p>All I know is that one campaign wants to debate and one does not. Ed O’Reilly accepted an invitation to debate on NECN, on air, and John Kerry has not.

          <

          p>

          • and have a reaction!

            <

            p>I’m sure John Kerry has been a little too busy working on Senate bills, and campaigning, to be tuned to every hour of NEON in case his opponent decides to challenge him.

            <

            p>Ok.

            <

            p>Listen.  A little advice.

            <

            p>Ed O’Reilly needs to follow business procedures if he wants to have a debate with John Kerry or anyone else.  And he very well should know this by now.

            <

            p>He never just got to pick a day and a time for a court case battle and announce it on NEON so why would he think it’s appropriate to do a shout out for one on some radio station.

            <

            p>There’s something called protocol.

            <

            p>This isn’t it.

            <

            p>And in the Senate, there’s more protocol.  It’s called Parliamentary Procedure.

            <

            p>Ed, if he’s sincerely serious about running for office and having a debate, needs to behave the same way he would behave in a business situation, in the Senate, and in a court.

            <

            p>So far, he’s chosen to make a circus announcement and rile up some support for his waning campaign.  However, if he can’t follow business protocol then how will he follow parliamentary protocol in the Senate?

            <

            p>He can’t shame the Republicans and others by just grabbing a mic out of turn.  He has to communicate with other staffers and other legislative aides.  He needs to understand that in his law office he may be king, but in the Senate and in a Senate race, he’s not king.  He has to follow the same rules that every Senator follows, and that includes contacting the  offices of the Senator before making grandeos announcements.

            <

            p>Also, nobody in MA wants to have a Senator looking as foolish as Jean Schmidt looked calling out Murtha from the House floor.  

            <

            p>Right now, EOR is embarrassing himself and his supporters by making such clownish challenges.

            <

            p>Call HIM and tell him to DO IT THE RIGHT WAY or STFU.  He’s making all EOR supports look bad.

          • First off, if O’Reilly doesn’t have a campaign manager – HE is the campaign manager and he should get on the phone and set up the debates with Kerry’s campaign manager.

            <

            p>In his professional case, how would he have reacted if his client in a civil case was told that the other party was representing himself therefore they were refusing to deal anyone other than the client?  

            • From what I’ve heard, he has called Roger Lau several times without response.

              <

              p>At this point, I am more inclined to believe that the Kerry campaign is stonewalling than the other way around. It makes sense that Kerry doesn’t want a debate- It makes sense that O’Reilly does.

              <

              p>In the end, the he-said-she-said doesn’t matter. If Kerry does not feel inclined to defend his performance in the Senate in a debate setting, than I will certainly not be inclined to vote for him come Sept. or Nov. And I can guarantee that I will not be the only one.  

              • Every time Lau contacted the O’Reilly campaign (which apparently just means Ed O’Reilly), the talking point is “No, I don’t want to talk to the campaign manager.  I will ONLY negotiate a debate with John Kerry”, which is NOT going to happen, as a Senator does not do his/her own scheduling.  This was the game O’Reilly has been playing, and I have a feeling he will garner little with this line of argument.

      • O’Reilly has refused to have someone from his campaign meet with Kerry’s campaign manager to set it up. If O’Reilly really wanted debates he wouldn’t have refused to meet with anyone other than Kerry. From his initial demand that there be 23 debates, it was clear that there had to be negotitations to get it to a reasonable number. Even Kerry/Weld was only 9 debates – and they both had a reasonable chance of winning.

  6. Voted for Kerry and worked the presidential campaign for him and his, wife cheating when she had cancer, career down the toilet, vice-presidential choice John Edwards.  However, never received any assistance over the years for family needs.  He was present for high profile events that touch our lives but that was frankly more for his purposes than assisting us….the residents of the Commonwealth.  Seriously don’t feel that he has earned the salary over the many years he has served.  
    Campaigns are extended job interviews and I would not hire him on his laurels or work ethic.  The options however are an untested Democrat and well, there is no other choice.  This is the fetid smell of incumbency….it rots the system and society.

Archives