The Senate adjourned last Friday, August 1st, and has the rest of August off. With just 5 weeks left before the September 16th primary (excluding the Convention week) against Ed O’Reilly, Kerry has yet to agree to any town hall style forums or debates.
Even though he has been consistently been called on to schedule such forums and debates since June and most recently since a week and a half ago, Kerry has not responded.
O’Reilly sent out yet another email today:
Many of you are asking if Senator Kerry has responded to Ed’s letter calling for debates. Well, today marks Day 12 with no response from Senator Kerry.
Hopefully, with the U.S. Senate on a month long vacation, Senator Kerry will appear with Ed at Town Meeting Style gatherings in each of the 14 Massachusetts Counties.
It is clear that the people of Massachusetts want an opportunity for true and open dialogue with their next U.S. Senator.. An effective representative listens to his/her constituents. Sound bites and photo opportunities are great marketing and packaging tools, but do little to develop relationships. Ed O’Reilly believes the next U.S. Senator from Massachusetts must have, and maintain, a real relationship with his constituents.
However, on a moment’s notice he will be attending a high roller fundraiser ($1000 minimum) for Obama tonight at the State House which shows the priorities of the Senator.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with attending high-priced fundraisers as long as you have your priorities in order and are making the time to schedule forums and debates that your constituents want to see and participate in (at least respond to such calls!). In addition to priorities (since the call for forums and debates has been here much longer) it also shows inaccessibility.
To Kerry’ aides (who also, as an aside, never reply to issues brought up here on BMG unlike many other pol’s; ex. Dimasi, O’Reilly, etc), the people of Massachusetts would like to be involved and have discussions on the issues and concerns that we have with both candidates for the Senate.
at 617-565-8519. Just ask to speak with the planner and suggest town hall style meetings and debates.
<
p>Also, just fyi, Kerry is campaigning now, but with just small campaign stops here and there for lunch breaks etc and to chat with people. The campaign might be planning a town hall style forum in New Bedford at the end of this week, but even that hasn’t been decided on yet. They also weren’t planning one for the Boston/Cambridge area, but rather just a campaign stop here. So please call and urge them to have more town hall style forums and debates with O’Reilly.
…with the Kerry campaign tonight. Notice the wording Ed used in his email – he hasn’t had a response from Senator Kerry. While that’s technically true, they have heard from Kerry’s campaign manager about scheduling debates, and they heard back from him within 24 hours of the first letter they sent to the Senator. But Ed wants to ignore the campaign manager and he’s insisting on talking directly with Kerry – and now he’s trying to score cheap political points off his own recalcitrance. If he was truly interested in arranging forums or debates, I’d think he’d have his campaign manager work with Kerry’s to get it done – what do you think?
<
p>The Senate has adjourned and they still haven’t heard back. Constituents have called and asked for town hall style forums and debates and we still have not heard anything either.
<
p>You know, you’ve got a point there about the campaign manager, but I think O’Reilly is trying to prove a point about the whole issue of inaccessibility.
<
p>He is a Senator and all, but I don’t think it’s too much to ask for him to agree to a debate or two and a handful of forums especially when he’s got this whole month off.
<
p>Also, I would love for them to compromise and get it done, but it really seems as though the Kerry campaign is stonewalling here.
<
p>That’s great that you were on a conference call with them. Did the issue of debates and forums come up at all?
…that Ed’s campaign has heard from the Kerry campaign – yet in your post, you give us Ed’s email where he says he hasn’t heard anthing from Senator Kerry.
<
p>Roger Lau told me tonight that they were in touch with the O’Reilly campaign over the weekend, and that debates are being ironed out. And Ed O’Reilly is lying when he emails his supporters and says he hasn’t heard anything about debates.
Yes, the subject of debates came up – I brought it up, and that’s how I got the response you see above, where I said that the details of the debate are being ironed out.
I do hope we get the schedule soon as there isn’t much time left. I’m sure they’ll schedule a debate or two, but hopefully they consider town hall style forums as well. I think it’s important to have the people involved.
How about this christmas?
<
p>:D
<
p>And if O’Reilly is supporting the ticket then why is he still trying to solicit support on the die-hard Hillary-or-Ruin sites?
seeing as how O’Reilly is the progressive one.
<
p>As to courting Hillary supporters, so what? Many are still angry towards Kerry for supporting Obama when the state voted in favor of Hillary and that’s their prerogative to do so. That’s not personally my view as Kerry had the right to choose who he wanted and he exercised that right as a superdelegate. But again, what’s your point? That’s one of the many issues that some people have. You’re trying to imply that just because a candidate is courting Hillary supporters (they’re Massachusetts citizens too!) that he won’t support Obama for President and that’s ridiculous.
in 2004 by diehard can’t-get-over-it Dean supporters. Dean himself was an excellent campaign surrogate, but the still-angry Hillary promoters remind me a lot of the Deaniacs who refused to get over the loss – the ones who groused about Kerry and damned him with faint praise after he was so rude as to defeat Dean in the primaries. They are responsible in some measure for the disaffection among the left end of the democratic voting ranks.
<
p>By pandering to those Hillary dead-enders O’Reilly is giving aid and comfort to the unreasonable and trying to have it both ways. I’d label O’Reilly as opportunistic, not progressive.
Unity much? Let’s see how far you guys get without Hillary’s what was it – eleven million votes? Call me a “dead-ender” – but I have far more political experience, Diane than you ever will. Even I know better than to call the 49% who voted for the “other guy” a “dead ender.” You’re in the business of making friends….don’t forget it.
their rationale that some voters don’t matter and should actively not be courted. Glad to see someone else actually speaking out on that specific topic as well in the comments.
and not politically smart. This line cracked me up:
<
p>
<
p>Aid and comfort? What is this, a charge of treason? I’d like Diane to explain to me how holding Ed O’Reilly accountable for giving “aid and comfort” to former Clinton supporters is any different than the Hillary supporters voting against John Kerry for endorsing Obama in the primary? I guess “unreasonable” and “opportunistic” cuts both ways, doesn’t it, Diane?
What’s next? Will the Democratic Interrogation Unit set up shop at one of these barbecues and roast O’Reilly supporters?
<
p>Cue up the scene from Guantanomo…with klieg lights and the spector of waterboarding. Picture a nearly apoplectic Obama supporter with a clipboard, tapping his/her pen on the board…as the questions drip venom through clenched teeth.
<
p>”It says here…that you are a former Clinton supporter”
<
p>”Why yes, yes I was.”
<
p>”Have you taken the pledge?”
<
p>”Erm…what pledge?”
<
p>”So….you haven’t taken the pledge? That can be “interpreted” in any number of ways.”
<
p>”What pledge? What do you mean?”
<
p>”Democrats are asked to pledge their life and lucre to Candidate Obama. Those who fail to take the pledge….are considered traitors.”
<
p>”WTF! This is America!”
<
p>”This was America. It’s Obamerica now. You will take the pledge now or the penalty will be swift and severe.”
<
p>”How the hell is this happening?”
<
p>”See your candidate over there? Mr. O’Reilly?”
<
p>”You mean the guy hanging upside down over there?”
<
p>”Precisely. He broke rather quickly. In fact, because he had the temerity to run against Candidate Obama’s good friend, John Kerry…we had to get very, very tough with him.”
<
p>Yeah. Good times in the party. I’ve been a Democrat for thirty years.
<
p>
They will not be backing the Democratic nominee, and are working to undermine him. Ed O’Reilly is catering to THEM. So since he is allying with McCain supporters, I think Elias is right to ask the question about Ed O’Reilly’s loyalty to the top of the ticket. It needs answering.
Ed O’Reilly has given no indication whatsoever that he is not supporting the election of Senator Obama. In fact even without an official endorsement everything he says about issues indicates he is in agreement with Obama. In political management classes we are taught that one key circle of potential supporters that is not only valid, but critical, to court are those people who have a beef with the other candidate. In this case he may very well be taking advantage of people upset with Kerry’s decision to support Obama rather than Clinton. I personally have always said that superdelegates have an independent right to support whichever candidate they want, but it would be unwise for O’Reilly to not seek the support of this crowd. I still have faith that most of the PUMAs will come around anyway, though this is an argument for making Clinton VP and settle this once and for all.
Pretend Uber-Machiavellian Anarchists?
Personally Unkind McCain Advocates?
Petulant Ultra-Maniacal Assassins?
Pretty Ugly Mischievous Antelopes?
If he’s up to debate Joe Lieberman at the MTP studio in Washington, it’s not much to expect a debate here in Massachusetts with his primary opponent.
<
p>Funny thing about that MTP appearance- the Senator again his support for preserving Lieberman’s power in the Senate:
<
p>
<
p>So what is it Senator? This is a chance to prove that you really do care about the State and the issues concerning state Democrats.
And this brings us back to the supposed motives of John Kerry running for a national position still. We actually discussed this in a post I made about how John Kerry does not support marriage equality and you said,
<
p>
<
p>He’s debating Joe Lieberman in support of Obama and going to high priced Obama fundraisers, but isn’t accepting the forums and debates requests here in the State. By his actions (or inaction rather), it sure does seem as though he cares more about his national presence rather than his constituents here back in the state.
The DSCC is doing the same thing. Kerry et al just better change their tune in January. I wouldn’t be surprised if newer Democratic Senators who hold party over yearning ambition — Begich, Tester, McCaskill, force the issue.
marriage equality or the being available to constituents issue?
Being nice to Joe as long as the Senate is 51-49…and not for one second after that.
I think being nice to Joe also requires at least pretending one will be nice to Joe after the elections. I was relieved to hear that the promises only go so far as to keep him in the caucus.
<
p>Chairmanships? There are fewer and fewer committees I’d like to see Mr. Lieberman chair.
… a million miles away from anything foreign policy related.
He hasn’t distinguished himself in other areas, either.
… close to Foreign policy… too many opportunities to complain about the foreigners he doesn’t like.
Well after November it should hopefully be a much bigger Democratic majority!
First of all, anyone who uses people’s emotions to garner power should never be trusted. Which of course means….Ed O’Reilly should not be trusted.
<
p>Second of all, anyone who puts their own ego above electing Obama should be drawn and quartered in the middle of Boston. If O’Reilly thinks it is a good idea to appeal to groups which are attempting to divide our efforts to stop John McCain from taking the reigns of power and continuing to deliver body blows to our country and our planet, then Ed O’Reilly better be ready to step up to the plate and take responsibility for that. And he better be ready to face the next soldier or marine’s family when they have to bury their loved on in a flag-draped coffin.
<
p>As an aside, it is too funny, I just got Ed’s latest email and I laughed my tail off at the inclusion of this:
<
p>Also, Ed’s daughter, Amelia, is home visiting from California and is expected to attend. As many of you know, Amelia is a chef at Alice Water’s acclaimed restaurant, Chez Panisse in Berkeley, California. She is a graduate of Bowdoin College in Maine and the California Culinary Academy in San Francisco. As many of you remember, Amelia was also on Broadway as a child in “Les Miserables”.
<
p>Ummm….what is this about? Progressive causes? Ha ha ha ha ha ha…ha
<
p>Just another phony egotist taking advantage of well-meaning people. What a shame.
I read my email.
<
p>An obnoxious braggart parent who’s leaning on his kid’s accomplishments in order to raise money – good luck to him.
that candidates shouldn’t court voters who voted for Hillary in the primary? That is such a ridiculous assertion. They are just as much Massachusetts citizens as anyone else and deserve to be counted.
<
p>
<
p>hmmm, that would’ve been some good food for thought when Kerry was voting to authorize the war in Iraq.
Sure, tell Ed to drudge the bottom of every barrel he wants! He’s gonna need it. But if he wants to cater to these groups who are trying to encourage people not to vote for Obama, then he’ll have to look at himself and deal with that if – god forbid – we lose this next election.
<
p>And yeah, I figured you would bring up Kerry’s vote. Not Vietnam and not the work he’s done to end this war since.
<
p>I have an honest question for you, what did Ed O’Reilly do during the lead up to the war? Did he protest? Did he write letters? Join groups? Any of the stuff that I, and you I’m quite sure, did to throw anything and everything we could at the effort to stop this horrible war?
<
p>And while you’re at it, I have seriously looked and I cannot find a progressive record anywhere near Ed O’Reilly.
<
p>George Bush said he was a compassionate conservative, but that didn’t make it true.
<
p>By the way, we’re on the same side in the big picture. But I’m really tired of seeing people ignore John Kerry’s years of service to progressive causes in favor of any person who comes along to say they would have done it better.
but here on BMG we like to actually discuss issues.
<
p>
<
p>Anyways, you says:
<
p>
<
p>First of all, a mid-July Quinnipiac poll said 1-in-5 Clinton voters would not vote for Obama. I think it’s still early on and that number will be much, much smaller as people realize voting for McCain would be another 4 years of Bush.
<
p>Also, the way we vote for President is through the electoral college and Massachusetts is safely Blue and will go to Obama. So what you say there is really a decoy. Not to mention that you attack the character of citizens simply for exercising their right to vote in February. tsk tsk
So I’m pretty sure a Democratic loss in November gets hung on the candidate.
They are PUMAs (Party Unity My A**) who will not under any circumstance support or vote for Obama. Many are actively helping McCain. They represent a tiny minority of Hillary supporters. They are extremists. People like Larry Johnson, inventor of the “Get Whitey” tape. Ed O’Reilly posted on one of their sites, asking for their support. It is a valid question. You know McCain’s position on gay marriage and gay adoption. These people are not your friends, and the question is why Ed O’Reilly is posting on their sites, and asking for them to help him. What will he owe them, if they do help him?
Let me preface this by saying that my opinion of O’Reilly is pretty close to LightIris’. I’m no O’Reilly supporter, but I want us to be fair about this.
<
p>Last time I hunted around I didn’t see much to substantiate the PUMA charge. Yes, there are maniacs who wish to “punish” Kerry for his support of Obama in the primary, but I don’t see O’Reilly encouraging them. Further, the idea of an alliance between Hillary Clinton supporters and Ed O’Reilly is odd on its face. A centerpiece of O’Reilly’s campaign has been the AUMF vote in 2002. Hillary Clinton voted the same way John Kerry did. You’d think that would make the ardent Hillary supporters a touch uncomfortable with O’Reilly hammering the AUMF issue, no?
<
p>So I’d like to see more evidence that O’Reilly has encouraged those who think the aggrieved should sit out the election, or vote for but not actively support Obama, or even vote for McCain.
<
p>Where did this charge come from? Is there anything to it?
as the media made a lot of stink how the majority of disgruntled Hillary supporters were older white wome, does it follow that many of the PUMAs are also Cougars?
I would like to see more evidence as well if such strong charges are going to be thrown around. I already mentioned the poll up above and I strongly believe those numbers will be even smaller the day of the general as time goes on. Even though you don’t care for him, thanks for being fair minded KBush.
I should back up my comment with the proof.
<
p>Here is his post:
<
p>http://www.hillaryclintonforum…
<
p>He just went on their talk radio program on Sunday:
<
p>http://www.blogtalkradio.com/N…
<
p>Poke around the PUMA sites. They are virulently anti-Obama. They wrote positive things about Ed O’Reilly because he is challenging John Kerry who endorsed Obama. That unto itself is not a problem for Ed O’Reilly. His going on their radio show and posting on their sites is a major problem.
I’m not sure I want to listen to two hours of Pumocity, so I’ll skip the radio show.
<
p>The Hillary post, though, is just plain boilerplate O’Reilly. In fact, its AUMF emphasis might remind people of things Hillary Clinton’s opponents said about her. So I’m not sure this was so warm and fuzzy for the monomaniacals. It seems to me as if O’Reilly is just trying to appeal to the Disgruntled. He’s disgruntled; they’re disgruntled; they have that in common, but it’s not much to have in common.
<
p>So I still don’t see what the big deal is. The worst one could say is that he’s “just encouraging them” or that he’s “lending legitimacy”. Hard for me to be upset at that.
You yourself state that they are a “tiny minority”. So perhaps when in actuality he is trying to court Hillary supporters, some may think he’s going after those that will vote for McCain instead.
<
p>
<
p>That’s too funny. You try to imply that he may give up his support for gay marriage and adoption (since you know I’ve posted on marriage equality before). I think that’s absurd. He’s probably the most outspoken Senatorial candidate on marriage equality I have ever heard.
Look forward to your input on the wide range of issues here affecting the Democratic Party in Massachusetts and beyond.
<
p>As to this first comment, I’d like to see some proof that O’Reilly wants McCain to win…and I’m not moved by the fact that he’s proud of his kids. I’ve heard Kerry talk about his kids on the stump all the time.
More like single payer health care, marriage equality, wanting all meetings with lobbyists open, and being opposed to the Iraq war. You know, those little issues.
I know what he says he’s for, but what can you point to that he has done?
<
p>I’m for free frostys at Wendy’s! And I’ve been for it longer than anyone!!
<
p>Gotta go, but I’ll check in later to see if you’ve posted anything. And I’m open-minded and geniunely curious.
Gloucester city council and school committee. However, I don’t think political experience is the end all be all (look at Deval Patrick!) especially if incumbents aren’t voting for the Democratic principles of the State.
<
p>Also, you’re attacking Ed O’Reilly, but you haven’t once discussed the actual matter of this post. Don’t you think John Kerry should pay attention to his constituents and schedule some town hall style forums and debates with his competitor? Instead, he’s playing politics on the national level and barely giving any credence to the people of this State and our needs and concerns.
…because he didn’t have time:
<
p>
<
p>Source: http://www.gloucestertimes.com…
<
p>That’s not a great resume bullet, IMHO, and you might want to get to know your candidate better…
<
p>No I did not. I said he was on school committee and city council. I also went on to elaborate on my views of political experience seeing as how here in Massachusetts we elected Deval Patrick as governor who also had very little political experience.
…the school committee and the city council. Did you know that he quit the chairmanship of the school committee for a lack of time before I just informed you of that fact? For an EOR supporter, your words imply a lack of knowledge about your candidate.
<
p>As for what you elaborated on, that has nothing to do with my post – it’s clear that I just educated you about a very salient point in your candidate’s political history.
As in O’Reilly was (past tense) on school committee and city council.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>Ah yes, go right ahead and answer your own questions. If on the other hand you would like to discuss, then yes I did know that about O’Reilly. I said “believed” because I was reciting from memory what committees he was on.
<
p>Also, he’s not my candidate. I’m still undecided, but I do have strong convictions when candidates don’t respond to constituents for open dialogue and debates. Our calls are going unanswered and that’s a huge red mark in Kerry’s column.
You’re saying that you knew he quit the chairmanship of a committee, citing a lack of time – but you weren’t sure that it was the school committee? You cited the school committee and the city council as to what you “believed” were his claims to political experience, but you made no mention of him quitting one of those two posts because he didn’t have time for it, even though you already knew about it? As I said, either you’re not not making sense or you were keeping a key fact about EOR to yourself, even though you knew it to be pertinent to your claim of experience.
<
p>As to Kerry’s lack of political outreach, if that’s a criteria that’s pushing you towards EOR, you should reconsider. At a time when we are about to lose Ted Kennedy, the last thing we need is two junior senators with no seniority, which is what we’ll get by electing Ed.
for just 1 term. And no, I don’t see it as a big issue that he stepped down as chair after a year since he is running as the newcomer with not much political experience and that’s exactly the case that I’ve made.
<
p>
<
p>You seem to think that he dropped out of the school committee altogether by writing that he quit “one of those two posts” when actually it was just the chair position. He stayed on the school committee.
…in the second quote where I said he quit one of those “posts”. Farther above, I noted that he quit the chairmanship – I did not mean to imply that he had quit the board entirely.
<
p>Be that as it may, your bias towards EOR is showing when you selectively talk about his political experience without mentioning that he quit the chairmanship of a committee for a lack of time. Stepping down from a position of leadership due to a lack of time doesn’t speak well of a senate candidate…
I have not made O’Reilly’s political experience any sort of reason to be supporting him. Quite to the contrary, I have stated that he has very little and is rather similar to Deval Patrick who also had little political experience who was elected Governor.
<
p>I merely stated that he was on city council and school committee in the past. You’re blowing it way out of proportion. Bias would have been to state that O’Reilly was chairman of school committee and then not mention that he only served half the term as such until he gave it up. I made no mention of it because I didn’t and still don’t see it as a big deal.
two elected terms on my school committee. I’m thinking I’m qualified to be president!
from the fact that you can’t or won’t own up to your own misunderstandings.
<
p>And we have qualifications that must be met to run for Senate and President (not to mention our own state party rules to get on the ballot that O’Reilly met as well). See our Constitution. And whether a candidate will be able to fulfill such position well is up to the voters to decide on.
What am I supposed to “own up” to? Please point out to me where I have made a factual error or imparted an “understanding” that was amiss. Thanks.
<
p>For your sake I hope this campaign ordeal is over soon, as you take everything much too seriously. Lighten up, Francis.
and JohnT001. I saw that snarky post about being able to run for president and thought it was JohnT001 replying since we had a dialogue going there. As to not owning up to the misunderstanding he has now stated that it was a poor word choice on his part so that’s rectified.
Who currently in the Senate is more “opposed to the Iraq war”? No one.
<
p>What I think you mean is “was more strongly opposed to the Iraq war in October 2002”.
Sorry about that, it should have read, “who was more strongly opposed to the Iraq war” [not just in October 2002 however, since he supported it for a few years there]. And I also view that vote to authorize the war in Iraq as a complete political move to seem strong on defense.
You certainly are the pleasantest person to disagree with.
I don’t know if we were necessarily disagreeing however (lol, now we are!). You pointed out how I misspoke there and so I fixed my statement and re-clarified my view on it.
<
p>I do have strong opinions, but I’m always open to changing them if the critiques/suggestions/etc can be backed up.
and it’s your fault Paul. Just look how you framed the post for goodness sakes, “high roller” and all that. Sounds like I’m reading Drudge. Don’t expect the comments to be constructive when you start throwing bombs about a candidate. Instead expect what you re getting as comments, and attack on the other candidate. If that’s all you want to do then just keeping going. This post has nothing to do with being progressive.
but I think the title is completely called for. Do you have any issue with the substance of my post or is it just the title?
<
p>John Kerry feels very inaccessible to the people of Massachusetts, myself included, and this post title reflects that. He has been called on to schedule debates and forums for over 2 months now (rigorously in the past week and a half) and there has been nothing.
<
p>All the while he is attending high priced fundraisers and I do think it’s relevant because of the whole issue of inaccessibility which illustrates that point rather nicely.
<
p>I also stated that there was nothing wrong with such fundraisers, but only as long as they are supplemented with reaching out to constituents who would like to be heard.
the reaching out to constituents is a lot of baloney, just something that get repeated that doesn’t make a lot of sense. But that being said I would be disappointed if he did not have a primary debate. Ed O got his signatures and his votes. He’s on the ballot and the people of the state put him there so that should be more than enough for a debate.
So I’ve updated the title of the post to put more emphasis on the ignoring of the calls for forums and debates.
<
p>Although I still stand for my example (and it’s still in the post, just not part of the title) of the high priced fundraiser showing inaccessibility and priorities being askew while no attention is being payed to the call for debates by citizens.
So is it only okay for Kerry to attend middle class fundraisers? If one wants to support the Obama campaign, shouldn’t one do what it takes to win? Isn’t raising a lot of money part of that?
We need to fundraise for Obama and we need as much money as possible!
<
p>However, with that being said Kerry also needs to spend ample time, especially when he has time off, to hear the calls of citizens and his primary opponent for such forums and debates. The issue that I have is that he isn’t responding to such calls on the state level, but is spending time on the national level and this fundraiser shows that he’s willing to make time for it at a moment’s notice, but not for the peoples’ call which has been there for much longer.
inaccessibility and lack of priority. The fundraiser shows both when compared to the call for debates and forums which is exactly why I chose that example.
that turned some of us against O’Reilly early on–with his negative attitude.
<
p>I actually prefer that Kerry does not do a debate or that he only do one close to the election — #1 because he has been an important surrogate for Obama, #2 because he and O’Reilly do not materially disagree very much on issues so that it would be an exercise in personality baiting, and #3 I dont trust the media post-debate spin. I disagree with Kerry on some issues but I have no doubt having him continue in the Senate — especially now that Bush is on his way out, is absolutely the best thing for Mass.
<
p>John K is quite right when you open negatively you provoke hostility toward your cause.
The most negative thing I see on this thread are two people mocking someone for mentioning the success of his children.
crack about Kerry aides not coming here to discuss issues seems gratuitous.
<
p>
that campaigns check blogs and I think it does speak loudly that his aides do not reply when many others do. And there is absolutely cause for that statement in that the whole post is about being ignored by John Kerry and his campaign.
with that I actually say? All I see is your opposition to the fact that I actually want to see open discussion in the context of forums and debates?
<
p>
<
p>You may not personally think the substantive differences between the two candidates are grand,
<
p>
<
p>but that the decision is not yours to make. That is the whole point of forums and debates so citizens can make an informed decision about that.
<
p>
<
p>And that’s irrelevant to the merits of having debates and forums.
<
p>As to my original title, I already explained my rationale for it and not to mention that it has been changed to emphasize the ignoring of calls for debates/forums. If you’re going to attack it, at least put some reasoning and rationale behind it.
whether or not they materially disagree much on issues.
<
p>Your crack about Kerry aides not coming here to discuss issues seems gratuitous
<
p>Sorry about posting about your OP tone after you changed your opening–I go back and forth between two different computers.,
but what I was trying to point out is that that’s your own personal opinion and others may or may not share it. As I said above, that is the whole point of forums and debates so citizens can make an informed decision about that.
<
p>And quite alright about the OP post.
<
p>Also, about the Kerry aides I discussed that in my post above. I think it is completely relevant and adds to the whole being ignored point of the post. While replies are not a must, it does add to the trend.
preference. I have made my mind up about Kerry and Obama and have seen enough. I also have noted many times in Dem primary season that I have had my fill of primary season after the prolonged struggle for pres this yr. I have seen two Kerry aides here on BMG before but I don”t see any on this on this thread unless you are saying that someone is posing.
I can’t wait for the primary to be over so O’Reilly can go back to doing whatever it is he does in civilian life and Kerry can get on with doing his elected job. The cannibalistic negativity is counterproductive and tiresome.
<
p>I generally believe that candidates’ supporters are often their own candidate’s worst enemies, creating enduring hostility among groups of people who should be united. This O’Reilly/Kerry thing is one for the ages.
“Party officials said this campaign is a nuisance. And it is. It’s a total nuisance,” O’Reilly said to the State Convention floor. “Democracy is a nuisance. People said the American Revolution was a nuisance – and it was!”
I suppose, but suggesting that people who don’t find a whole lot of constructive value in Ed O’Reilly’s campaign actually believe democracy is a “nuisance” is silly. People are still allowed to not value a candidate and still believe in the democratic process at the same time.
<
p>He can become the Harold Stassen of the Commonwealth for all I care–that’s his right. But, I will point out, no one is claiming that he doesn’t have the right to run. I know I’m not. I simply stating that I find his candidacy unproductive and a waste of time, that he’s completely unqualified for the position, and that he has created an unnecessary distraction at a time when we should be concentrating on electing a Democrat to the White House.
<
p>So I guess it’s sort of like the ol’ adage about not liking what one has to say but supporting one’s right to say it. He can run until the cows come home and I can say what I want about his decisions to do so. That’s the democratic process in action right there.
Did you even read what I just wrote?
<
p>Here, let me recap:
<
p>
<
p>Because you insist on using the word “nuisance,” let me work it into a simplified translation that might assist you:
<
p>The democratic process is not a nuisance–I like the democratic process and actually spend a lot of time working in it in a variety of capacities. Ed O’Reilly’s candidacy, however, is a nuisance, imho. IOW, love the process all the time but not the candidates themselves so much. Does that help?
You automatically assumed (and you know what they say about assuming) that the part of that quote that was referenced to you was the part about Democracy when in actuality it was the 1st part about this specific campaign being a nuisance. You even acknowledge that this campaign is such to you:
<
p>
<
p>And when I stated, “Well it sure sounds like you’re nuissanced;)” I even quoted you in reference to the campaign itself.
<
p>So don’t get snappy with me. Is that a translation that you can understand?
Well, if the first part of the quote was the only part of the quote that I was supposed to think pertained to me, I respectfully suggest you consider editing your comments more carefully. Might it have been prudent to trim the quote if you didn’t intend your reader to consider all of it? When someone posts a response to me, I generally “assume” that the entire comment is supposed to be relevant, that all the words are meant to be read, and that all the words, when considered together, are there to produce a cohesive meaning that I’m supposed to understand. If that makes me an ass, well, that’s okay.
<
p>
<
p>Oh, okay.
I posted the quote, yes, all of it, because your comment reminded me of it.
<
p>Then you got all offended and took the part about the Democratic process personally. After that I tried to point out that you were getting nuissanced by the campaign and quoted you to show as to why I thought that. And now we’re here.
<
p>Anyways, I will most certainly try to edit my quotes more carefully in the future. And while we’re at it, I would suggest that you not be so quick to assume.
<
p>Best,
Paul
actually making my point better than I did. Your application of a “worthless” rating on the comments of people who disagree with you validates the criticism you’ve received on this thread. You really are a perfect frontman for Ed O’Reilly both in style and substance. Congratulations.
as to why I think it’s a worthless response before you begin assuming again.
That really reminds me of the North Carolina Senate primary between Jim Neal and Kay Hagan. She was really cocky and actually stated she was the candidate before even winning the primary (which she did end up doing).
<
p>One great thing Jim Neal had said was, “We have primaries here, not coronations” and it applies aptly to this situation.
Hi Paul, I’m back to see some of O’Reilly’s progressive actions – not even necessarily political or legislative – but I see there aren’t any as of yet. Perhaps I’ll contact the campaign to see if they have a list.
<
p>I am honestly curious to know if he spoke out against the war publicly or protested or anything for that matter.
<
p>And also what progressive causes he’s been in the trenches for, beyond just saying he’s for it. (we both know how easy one is and the toll the other can take on one’s life)
<
p>As for the debates, it is of course always the person facing an uphill battle who wants more debates….see Mr. McCain’s current desperate attempts. Problem is, the opposition usually complains about the guy/girl with the advantage as being a ‘celebrity’ or ‘out of touch’ and yet they become desperate to stand next to that ‘celebrity’ in order to get some attention. There’s a lot about politics that I don’t like, and I’ll be the first to admit that. But it doesn’t do any good to be naïve, even if the alternative is a little more challenging.
<
p>Also, thanks for the welcome to the site. I’m not new, just having a few tech issues which very well may kill me.
<
p>Anyway, glad to meet you.
I hope you’ll stop by a forum (if they actually happen) and ask O’Reilly that. That’s exactly what the town hall style forums are for so that citizens can air their concerns, issues, and questions that they have for the candidates.
Two aren’t. I think there’s lots of room for compromise here.
<
p>As for asking O’Reilly a question, I’ve seen him six times since March, and I’m not particularly trying to track him down…he just seems to stop by any Democratic event that will gather 25 or more people. This isn’t a Naderesque case of getting on the ballot then sitting one one’s butt…O’Reilly is hustling, and is earning consideration and fair treatment.
I’ve met him a few times and he’s constantly out and about at Democratic events.
<
p>And some compromise would be more than welcomed. Heck, people are simply waiting for a response at this point.
<
p>And just a point of clarification, O’Reilly called for 14 Forums and 2 televised debates. I think 1 or 2 televised debates is perfect, but as to the forums there needs to be a handful of them (perhaps not 14), but enough spread out through the state that people could reasonable get to them and participate if they so chose to.
when you make millions as a criminal defense attorney- and make no mistake, Ed O’Reilly is a multimillionaire- you can afford to take a year off from working to launch a Senate campaign.
<
p>To say Ed O’Reilly is hustling implies that he actually has anything else to do. Some millionaires go to Florida and play with Red Sox legends, Ed O’Reilly is using his millions to play Fantasy U.S. Senate Campaign.
Since when does hustling imply anything other than someone who’s working hard? You’re creating your own definition and it’s not attractive.
<
p>And what is the deal with your issue with Mr. O’Reilly’s wealth? As if John doesn’t have his own multi-million dollar wallet or his wife’s, for that matter? As for leisure time to actually campaign – John hasn’t exactly engaged in a whole lot of heavy lifting…so of course, he should have plenty of time to campaign.
<
p>You may not like Mr. O’Reilly because he dares to run against Long (Yawn) Jawn….but it’s about time that someone did…if only to keep him on his toes. He’s been a lackluster Senator for years.
isn’t exactly all that inspiring. The guy is a candidate for US Senate- you and some other people in this thread expect John Kerry to do his job as Senator, meet with constituents, participate in about 20 debates and/or public forums and do his part to elect Obama/increase the democratic majority in Congress- and rip him when he doesn’t meet your exacting standards. So spare me the EOR as Rocky image just because the guy attends a few BBQ’s.
<
p>And my issue with Ed’s wealth is his non-stop portrayal of himself as being some sort of man of the people. I don’t fault him for having money- even though he made his money by defending drunk drivers and domestic abusers- but he does his very best to hide his wealth and act as if he just stepped off his lobster boat, The S.S. Perm. Give me a break. If you can afford to throw away $500,000 of your own money to run for the Senate, you’re no man of the people.
<
p>Oh and just to be clear, I don’t dislike Ed. There’s no patently unqualified goof running for the U.S. Senate that I like more than Ed.
<
p>Once this election is over, I’m gonna send him a friend invite on facebook.
Thanks for telling me “what I expect” because I didn’t know until you pointed it out to me.
<
p>I expect Kerry to take advantage of his 2-month upcoming vacation to come to raise his 2 non-fundraising events per 6 year average in Plymouth County.
<
p>I expect him to participate in a televised debate.
<
p>I expect him to stop attacking a fellow Democrat with the money he got from donors all over the country when he was running for president (just kidding– I don’t expect that).
<
p>I expect Kerry to go to maybe one-tenth of the events O’Reilly has.
<
p>I didn’t O’Reilly is poor. I know he isn’t. I also know he’s setting a torrential pace, hitting a large number of events, more than any candidate for office I’ve seen.
Because I won’t. He’s had two decades to meet with constituents, etc. He’s in a bind now because he hasn’t really done those things in quite a while; he’s like a kid cramming for the Trig final after goofing off for twenty years. So cry me a river.
<
p>Listen, Masshole – I’m a former supporter of John’s. I worked my butt off for him when he was challenged by Weld….at a time when few of my fellow city committee dems and elected officials bothered to help at all. No, because Weld was fairly popular then. And now I won’t lift a finger. Not a one. I don’t have “exacting standards” – I just expect the guy to do the job he was elected to do and is paid to do. He’s lazy , way out-of-touch, and the people of the Commonwealth deserve better. Tell me again why John’s qualified? Because he sounds senatorial?
<
p>You disparage Mr. O’Reilly at every opportunity…which is actually not a bad thing. You’re doing my work for me. I’ve never even met the guy, but all I have to do is point out the crap on this site as further evidence of the way the Kerry’s work. They can’t point to much that John has actually done with all his time in the Senate, but they sure can remind you that Ed O’Reilly is a defense attorney with a fat wallet and curly hair.
<
p>If John had spent his time campaigning and actually meeting with people instead of working to keep the guy off the ballot, he’d have been a powerhouse. But he’s just not that good; he’s been living off Ted Kennedy for way too long. He’s a Triple A battery when we need a high power grid.
Just thought I would check before bedtime to see if anyone has been able to tell me what O’Reilly has actually done in his life to earn this spectacular progressive status.
<
p>Looking forward to an answer.
<
p>Until then, sweet dreams….
<
p>And the progressive status comes from the policy stances he chooses to support and I’ve already listed them, but since you keep posting the same thing over and over again I’ll quote it for you once again.
<
p>
<
p>Also, you really don’t have much of a case if that’s all you can say……well he hasn’t been a Senator before and he could be lying!! Yeah, I like to give the benefit of the doubt unless there’s cause to believe otherwise. And did you forget that here in Massachusetts we elected Governor Deval Patrick?
whether or not you believe a candidate to be truthful has nothing to do with whether or not John Kerry should actually reply to 2 months of calls for forums and debates.
Um…of course it does.
The issue is whether or not John Kerry should respond to calls from both constituents and from his primary challenger who will be on the ballot come September for forums and debates.
<
p>Whether you like the primary challenger or not doesn’t matter to that central question.
I read your reply, but it didn’t answer my question.
<
p>I don’t think you have to be a senator to be someone who fights for progressive causes. For example, I myself, am not a senator.
<
p>I do, however, think someone running as a progressive should at least have some sort of history linking them to progressive causes. Such as speaking out – shouting out – against the war, for instance.
<
p>I can’t find any of that with Ed O’Reilly, nor have I found one supporter who can do anything more than throw bombs at me or tell me to find it for myself.
<
p>So, okay, I guess I will continue to research this until I can find an example (or not) of this person actually doing anything about anything other than making money for himself.
<
p>My great-grandmother taught me a lesson which is one of the many I live by…Actions speak louder than words. And they do indeed.
I voted for Deval Patrick for governor who was also politically inexperienced.
<
p>If it’s really that big of a deal to you you should call his campaign and ask or go to an event that he’ll be at and ask. However I’ve already stated this and you seem more prone to complaining about it rather than actually taking some action on it and call his campaign. What was that about actions speaking louder than words? hmmm
I’m going to try this one more time and then I promise to leave you alone.
<
p>I am not looking for political experience. I am looking for any indication that this person was committed to progressive causes (or any cause) before deciding to run for office.
<
p>Deval Patrick:
<
p>We have United Nations in Africa, The Legal Aid Bureau (he defended poor families) and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
<
p>From Wikipedia:
<
p>
<
p>There is nothing on O’Reilly’s website, I can’t find a supporter (not just you) who can tell me, so as I said above I will keep trying and maybe I will see you at one of those town halls.
<
p>Take care.
Governor Patrick had a significant assignment in the Clinton Justice Department.