Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Newburyport News Op-Ed: John Kerry stonewalling debates.

By

That rang hollow on its face, of course – very hollow. Yes, it was a long four years ago, but surely voters recall how eager Kerry was to debate when he was running to unseat President George W. Bush, and it didn’t matter whether the Senate was in session or not. When Kerry was just the presumptive Democratic nominee, in March 2004, he called for monthly debates with Bush. By August of that year, he was demanding weekly debates.

But this year, just a couple of days after claiming his Senate duties were too pressing even to discuss debates with O’Reilly, the senator famously found time to have dinner on Nantucket, where he posed with a number of tipsy coeds for photos, which made it to the entertainment-gossip Web site TMZ.com. The day after that, he spoke at Yale University, in New Haven, Conn.

And the Senate has now been in recess for more than a week. But according to the O’Reilly campaign, the only thing they have heard from the Kerry camp is, “We’ll get back to you.”

Kerry press secretary Brigid O’Rourke said this week that discussions with the O’Reilly campaign, “continue,” adding that, “people in Massachusetts are looking for a full-time senator, not a full-time candidate.”

Kerry and O’Reilly are, of course, merely playing the parts that all incumbents and challengers play. It is in the interests of the challenger to debate as often as possible – the incumbent has a record that can be attacked; it is always possible the incumbent could stumble or say something silly that would end up on YouTube, and the challenger needs the publicity, since he or she almost always lacks the name recognition of the incumbent.

The incumbent, meanwhile, has everything to gain by keeping the challenger as invisible as possible, all while looking “senatorial” – delivering speeches, posing with enlarged checks, attending major fundraisers – to project an aura of inevitability.

Nobody expects Kerry to debate O’Reilly 23 times. But it would do the senator’s own reputation some good to agree to a debate or two. He owes that much not to O’Reilly but to the voters. According to recent polling, the Kerry act – claiming to be vigorously serving the state while being largely invisible except when it benefits him – is wearing thin.

Kerry never tires of saying how proud he is of his record. So, let him defend it to someone other than campaign contributors.

O’Reilly’s email from 9/9/08:

Two days ago, Ed and John Kerry were at Lynch Park in Beverly attending a seniors’ luncheon.  Ed approached John Kerry and asked Senator Kerry if he was going to debate.  Senator Kerry quickened his pace towards the parking lot, told Ed to talk with his campaign manager,  Roger Lau, and hurriedly went to his vehicle.  Roger Lau then proclaimed that calls were made to Ed’s campaign office that very day.  This was absolutely not true.  

The last communication received from the Kerry campaign was that Roger Lau was traveling with the Senator this week and would get back to our campaign next week.  When does traveling in Massachusetts prevent someone from placing a call within Massachusetts?  Is this a lame excuse for ducking debates or what?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. It states that O’Reilly has asked for 23 debates.  He has actually asked for a handful of debates and televised appearances and the bulk of that number (14 to be specific) comes from the town hall style forums that he has been calling for.  I’m sure the writer meant debates as a generic term for a meeting between the two candidates, but I just wanted to clarify.

    <

    p>That may or may not be excessive to some people.  I’m fine with just 1 or 2 debates on tv, but would like to see several forums around the state for constituents to participate in personally.  

    <

    p>Regardless of how many meetings you think there should be total between the two, there hasn’t been a single one scheduled.  

    • Definition per Bob’s post:

      <

      p>

      a pernicious cancer in Massachusetts government: the belief, often shared with royalty, aristocrats, and other discarded political relics, that one is entitled to an office and does not have to answer to anyone, least of all the voters, for one’s actions.

      <

      p>Love the syndrome name!  And I didn’t know Galvin had used the same tactics.  tsk tsk

    • of being inaccessible to the people.  This is cementing that notion even further every day he doesn’t respond.

  3. are 46-42 according to the latest survey

    <

    p>I’m no Poliscientist, but I think the Senator’s got some ‘splaining to do.  

    • Well perhaps that explains why the Senator doesn’t want to go to debates.  Being called out on his record probably won’t help.

    • for very favorable through very unfavorable on Kerry, which amounts to 59/38 favorable.  The poll didn’t deal with the primary at all, just naming Kerry and Beatty as the two candidates.

      <

      p>http://www.rasmussenreports.co…

      <

      p>They also asked about Kerry’s status within the party:

      <

      p>23% A top leader in the Democratic Party
      22% An embarrassment in the Democratic Party
      49% An average Democratic Senator
      6% Not sure

      <

      p>http://www.rasmussenreports.co…

      <

      p>I was one of the “500 likely voters” polled for this one.

      • Interesting numbers there, thanks!  

        <

        p>Do you know if that poll was only land line owners or cell-only constituents as well?  I’ve been reading on dailykos how many pollers don’t take them into account.

        • My phone rang, and the machine-voice identified itself and started asking questions starting with whether I was over 18.  I actually don’t remember if it asked whether I was a registered MA voter, but when I said I was absolutely sure I was voting for Kerry and Obama that was probably enough.

          <

          p>Random-number dialing would get both cell and land-line phones, and political polling is not bound by the do-not-call list.  Or they might have a list of phone numbers with registered voters — I don’t really have much idea.

          <

          p>Anyone out there know their methodology?

          • A Pew Research July 17th 08 article I found:

            <

            p>

            Pollsters are continuing to monitor changes in telephone use by the U.S. public, since most surveys are still conducted using only landline telephones.

            <

            p>I also found a pretty thorough review of the methodology used here.

      • were right and some were wrong!  Jeesh, I wasn’t even the one who posted that other poll showing Kerry under 50%.  You may not like the results, but that’s what they are.

        <

        p>Also, do you think Kerry should agree to some debates and forums? (you know, the point of this post)  Or is it alright for him to completely ignore constituents and O’Reilly here?

  4. At the risk of repeating myself, I say this is a resource question.

    <

    p>Progressives could be busy defending the representatives that flipped the good way on marriage equality, or making sure Sciortino wins his sticker campaign, or undermining Senator Collins’ undeserved positives.

    <

    p>Instead, a lot of passion is going into a campaign that has only barely detectable chances of winning and is being run against a Senator who has been considerably better than an average Democrat since 2005. As an answer to “What should I be doing to advance progressive politics?” working for O’Reilly comes a ways after canvassing against Rep. Shays in Connecticut.

    <

    p>But let’s put aside the resource question and pretend there are an infinite number of progressives with an infinite amount of energy and potential campaign contributions. Pretend.

    <

    p>Even then, O’Reilly’s insistence on accusing Kerry of being of bad character is counter-productive. He just cannot stay away from the Republican narratives. Anything Kerry does that’s good is done out of “ambition”. Any compromise to political necessity is a sign of “lack of principal”. (By the way, if one doesn’t know how to do this, one shouldn’t be a Senator.) Any contribution to Obama’s campaign a signal that he doesn’t care about Massachusetts.

    <

    p>Why, when we could have a thumpingly large Democratic victory in 2008, when we could make Republicans run away from the conservative label, do we want to watch Kerry’s character being attacked now?

    • making sure our elected officials are responsive to our issues.  Kerry represents us and if people aren’t happy with his leadership then yes I do think it’s a worthy cause for them to get involved in.  There absolutely are other great races out there, ones that are more pragmatic at that (Allen, Shaheen, etc), and I hope people give those a look as well.  

      <

      p>And I disagree about the catch-22.  I think Kerry could most definitely show that it’s not just ambition if he were to put more effort in off-election years.  Run a constant campaign even when you’re not running, much like Deval has (think the volunteer corps, town hall meetings, etc).

      <

      p>At first I just wanted to see town hall style forums in addition to the regular debates that are always put on so constituents could get involved.  But now that he’s completely ignoring constituents calls for debates it’s really annoying as a constituent.  

      <

      p>

      But this year, just a couple of days after claiming his Senate duties were too pressing even to discuss debates with O’Reilly, the senator famously found time to have dinner on Nantucket, where he posed with a number of tipsy coeds for photos, which made it to the entertainment-gossip Web site TMZ.com. The day after that, he spoke at Yale University, in New Haven, Conn.

      <

      p>What is so difficult to schedule a debate?  A few forums?  That’s all we’re asking for.

      <

      p>And the article sums it up rather nicely:

      <

      p>

      Nobody expects Kerry to debate O’Reilly 23 times. But it would do the senator’s own reputation some good to agree to a debate or two. He owes that much not to O’Reilly but to the voters. According to recent polling, the Kerry act – claiming to be vigorously serving the state while being largely invisible except when it benefits him – is wearing thin.

      <

      p>(emphasis mine)  

      <

      p>He absolutely does owe it to the voters and this stonewalling is very off putting to say the least.

      • From the videos I have viewed of Sen. Kerry’s appearances in Mass., the topics du jour seem to surround the energy crisis, the housing crisis, getting out of Iraq, and the economy in general.  I have yet to see constituents running up to him demanding a debate with a primary candidate few have heard of.

        <

        p>Having said that, I am sure there will be at least one debate.  Kerry is one of the best debaters I have ever seen in politics, so it’s no skin off his nose to debate O’Reilly.  However, it’s not going to be on O’Reilly’s terms; it will be negotiated between the campaigns.  Something which is probably happening as we speak.  

        • several times and I know many others who have done the same.  You know, he may be up on his high horse there (using one of Deval’s lines) since he’s never been challenged before in a primary, but yes, he does owe it to the people to schedule a few debates and forums in a timely manner.  

          <

          p>You know, for someone who is oh so confident in the Senator’s abilities, every single post of yours has been on promoting John Kerry.  People can check that out for themselves here.

            • Not your comments.  If people would like to check it out as I proposed, every single one had to do with promoting Kerry.  Now I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, just thought it was relevant and would bring it to light.

              • fall back on O’Reilly’s favorite attack:  attacking Kerry supporters.  

                <

                p>Again:  why don’t you contact the O’Reilly campaign and find out where the debate issue is?  I mean, linking to an op-ed is well and good, but I have repeatedly asked you the question, and all you do is attack me, that somehow because I like writing diaries about Sen. Kerry, my opinion is suspect.  Well, it is my honest opinion that the two should debate 1 to 2 times, and that it will happen, but NOT on O’Reilly’s timetable or terms, because that is not the way it works.

                • have to do with promoting John Kerry an attack?  It is a very relevant factual piece of information.

                  <

                  p>It takes 2 to debate.  O’Reilly has agreed, Kerry has not.  I don’t even know where you’re getting this line of argument from that O’Reilly seems to be the one holding up the debates.  That’s ludicrous.  

                • You write what interests you and what represents what you feel.  But the basic premise is that some people lurk, some people post comments only–but their comments may range on topics, and some post comments only to their own threads.

                  <

                  p>I don’t see what the big issue is.  Isn’t that what the internet and webblogs are about?  you post wherever you feel like it with nobody telling you you can’t do that.

                  <

                  p>I think it’s wrong to hold anyone’s posts against them unless they contain FALSE information.

                  <

                  p>Like if I started posting here that John McCain is an honest and straight-talking young man when everyone knows he’s a liar, as crooked as they come, and he sure as hell ain’t young!

                  <

                  p>People should attack the argument, not the person.

                • of me pointing out a fact that some people are posting just to promote John Kerry?  It is a very relevant fact.

                  <

                  p>Furthermore, Beachmom was trying to insinuate that I was a “one hit wonder” and only discussed Kerry and O’Reilly which was a lie.  In actuality, she was the one that was a “one hit wonder”.  Every single one of her posts had to do with promoting John Kerry (some directly and others indirectly).

      • it’s a complete other argument that KBush brought up about whether people should work on behalf of a candidate running for U.S. Senate here in Mass (of which, I also gave my views on).

        <

        p>The issue and pertinent question here however is whether Sen. Kerry should be responsive and schedule some debates?

    • then blame Senator Kennedy.  Ted Kennedy set the bar high, and Senator Kerry hasn’t met that standard in all his years in office.  While Kennedy established a thorough, well-informed and responsive staff in both DC and in Massachusetts…Senator Kerry has yet to put anything like that in place.  We’ve seen a fair amount of Senator Kennedy; he’s come to town for school dedications, St. Pat’s dinners and the like.  The only time I have ever seen Senator Kerry in my hometown…was when Bill Weld ran against him.  I thought it was remarkable that the guy could find New Bedford this year, but then again, he probably has a GPS.  

      <

      p>I think competition is good, KBush.  Kerry may win again, but I hope it’s a squeaker for him, and I hope a good “near-death” experience will inspire him to be a better, more constituent oriented senator.  

      <

      p>I also found it interesting that you’ve claimed that the Senator has been a “better Democrat” since 2005…instead of a “better senator.”  Party affiliation aside, like most people, I just want my senator to be a good senator.  I want him to actually care about this state.   Apart from the fact that he should have been a good senator since the day of his first inaugural…he’s been woefully mediocre for a good many years.  He’s been little more than a parrot up there, squawking repeatedly about his record…while ducking a debate with a challenger.  

      <

      p>And while I don’t even know O’Reilly…I’ll probably give him a vote, just like everyone else in my house…because mediocrity should be challenged.  And no, I don’t care that Senator Kerry has seniority, and blahdy blahdy blah.  The guy shouldn’t be rewarded for ignoring his job for so long.  So – we’re sending him a message.  That’s five votes in one house.  

      • (1) All the evidence I hear is that Kerry’s office does not handle constituents well, Kerry doesn’t do constituent services that well, and he doesn’t look out for Massachusetts as much as Kennedy does. I accept that.

        <

        p>(2) Kennedy has been astonishing at building relationships across party lines to get bills moving. This is not something I’ve seen from Kerry. I also grant that.

        <

        p>(3) One argument I hear is that Kerry is somehow part of what’s wrong with Senate. The big losses in the Senate have been:

        • Not stopping the Iraq occupation.
        • Caving in on FISA
        • Caving in on three big nominations: Alito, Mukasey, and Roberts.
        • Caving in on some other judicial appointments.

        There has been a clump of Democrats that has been good on all the above. Kennedy and Kerry are in that clump. There has also been another clump that has been bad on most of them. Kerry is not in that latter group. It’s Reid’s job to keep the caucus as united as possible and with at least a third of the caucus unreliable on the key issues, that’s tough. O’Reilly hasn’t convinced me he has a plan or a unique skill that would help with the unreliability problem. I’ve written a couple diaries on the unreliability problem. It’s a problem for which I’ve seen no clear remedies.

        <

        p>(4) I’m really arguing that this is a resource issue. That’s because the central issues coming up are really important. Global warming is really important. We can’t fuck it up. So too are Iraq, return to constitutional law, the federal budget, the economy, and regulatory reform. Sure, on some issues, O’Reilly has clearly better stances. Given the political realities, those differences don’t add up to much difference in someone serving in the Senate next year and the years immediately following. Contrast Allen and Collins, or Sheehan and Sununu, or McCain and Obama, or Shays and Himes. Thought experiment. Which would you prefer?

        • Debate happens. Kerry loses 49%-51%. Collins re-elected.
        • No debate. Kerry wins 65%-35%. Collins defeated.

        I know this choice is in some sense false and unmeasurable, but, think about it, isn’t a victory by Himes, Sheehan, or Allen, worth twice as much as a victory by O’Reilly?

        • You really think that if two candidates get together to discuss issues (you know, the norm for statewide races) that this will somehow help getting a Republican elected in Maine?

          <

          p>I can’t imagine a situation where actually debating issues (instead of Sexy Party pictures) and giving voters an informed choice is a bad idea.  

          • I’m happy with debates on the issues.

            <

            p>Unfortunately, that’s not the only thing such a debate would foster.

            <

            p>I am talking about O’Reilly’s disreputable obsession with Kerry’s “character”. That makes it something worse than a debate. It makes Kerry the issue and temporarily undermines his ability to get better people elected.

            • then I suggest this isn’t helping.  Ignoring peoples’ calls for debates and forums only adds to that notion.

              • I hear your call for debates. I hear the O’Reilly campaign call for debates. I hear political junkies (yes, Sabutai, I’m looking at you) call for debates.

                <

                p>Who else?

                • and polls that show people are considering voting for someone else do indeed show that people want to hear debates and forums.

                • …to the list of people calling for debates.  It seems to me very basic to the democratic process.  This was a large part of the reason I voted for O’Reilly as a state convention delegate too.  The Kerry camp’s excuses for avoiding this race, whether it’s about even having the race to begin with, which they said prior to convention, or lack of engagement now that there is a race, sound lamer the more I hear them.

        •    
          * Debate happens. Kerry loses 49%-51%. Collins re-elected.
          * No debate. Kerry wins 65%-35%. Collins defeated.

          I know this choice is in some sense false and unmeasurable, but, think about it, isn’t a victory by Himes, Sheehan, or Allen, worth twice as much as a victory by O’Reilly?

          <

          p>That’s such a terrible causal argument, and at least you admit it.  People are going to volunteer regardless on the campaigns they want to and having a debate isn’t going to substantially change that.

          <

          p>I think the opposite could happen actually.  By ignoring constituents calls for debates and forums that will energize voters to work against Kerry and for O’Reilly.  If they just had their debates, then people could make their informed decisions.

          • Looking forward, i.e. to 2009 not back at 2002, on Iraq the differences between O’Reilly and Kerry seem to boil down to a question of residual forces. In the first place, this is something the President and no Senator is going to decide. Secondly, it’s a bit complicated. The next President should do this one right. It seems like a dumb thing to wrangle over now.  (I can expand on this one if you want.) Thirdly, I think O’Reilly overstates this difference by asserting that Kerry is not really for withdrawal or something like that.

            <

            p>But the final point is that, on Iraq, it would be a whole lot better to have Senator Collins out than whatever tiny, extra grain of liberalism O’Reilly is offering. I’d prefer to see Kerry campaigning than hearing him defend himself against charges of ambition, flip-flopping, not releasing his military records, and not contesting the Ohio 2004 results — and then watching him have to answer those questions all over again on Meet the Press, while campaigning in Maine, etc.

            • between the two now on Iraq, but I think pol’s past votes absolutely count.  He voted to authorize the war in Iraq when Ted Kennedy did not and I think that will be many people’s number 1 issue (probably along with constituency services) as to why they may vote against him.  

            • all the time, not just when he has a reelection challenge. This is the one time that comes around every six years when we can make him pay attention. It’s the only opportunity we have, and if we ignore it, he’s justified in ignoring us.

              • Absolutely, he needs to be running a constant campaign and we need to see him around Massachusetts at events, giving speeches, and meeting with the people.  

                <

                p>He could learn a thing or two from Gov. Patrick who I think has done a good job keeping the momentum going with such action items as the volunteer corps he introduced and the town hall style forums across the state.

                <

                p>Now that would be something I would appreciate….having forums when you don’t have an election.  Kudos Deval.  

          • There are two issues nationally prominent now. The marriage issue is at stalemate in the Senate. It might be possible to repeal DOMA with a sufficiently large Democratic majority so that it doesn’t get filibustered, but I wouldn’t be confident that Senator Johnson from South Dakota, for example, would even vote for its repeal. The politics of marriage need a few more years.

            <

            p>What is ripe is repealing “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Latest poll shows a majority of Republicans is for its repeal. This is one we should win. I bet you Kerry, with his military background, will be more effective on this than O’Reilly.

            <

            p>I am disappointed and appalled at Kerry’s waffling on the marriage issue. I’m confident he’ll eventually e v o l v e to the right position on it. Very yucky, but pragmatically, it’s not critical.

            • is a safe issue.  The vast majority of people support repealing it and it will get repealed in Congress.  Leadership isn’t easy.  You don’t support just the safe issues, you support what is right.

              <

              p>And I understand political pragmatism.  That’s exactly why I give Obama a pass on marriage equality.  

              <

              p>However, Kerry represents Massachusetts and there’s no political reason to be opposed.  On the contrary, there are many, many reasons to support equality.  It’s a rather safe issue in this state, now.  

              <

              p>The fact that he doesn’t support marriage equality tells me 1 of 2 things.

              <

              p>1. Either Kerry is still running for a national position and he views supporting marriage equality as a hindrance.  To that I say that’s too bad.  He represents us and if he wants to go run for a national position he can do so instead.

              <

              p>or

              <

              p>2. Kerry actually does have personal feelings against marriage equality and uses that to influence his public policy stances.  In that case I say that’s not good enough.  He doesn’t use his personal beliefs to sway his public policy stance on abortion and he shouldn’t hold marriage to a different standard.

              • First, let me admit that Kerry spends a lot of time — too much! — describing what is achievable or not legislatively, or what the American people are ready for or not politically. This drives me nuts. It’s what opens him to flipflop charges because he doesn’t derive his positions from values so much as from some complicated calculus of policy and possibility. He used to do this all the time. Result: very long-winded. He does it much less now.

                <

                p>Universal Spirit be praised.

                <

                p>That said, the O’Reilly campaign — including O’Reilly — takes a moral witness approach to these legislative questions. Thus, there was a big brouhaha about Kerry missing a very lopsided vote due to a prior commitment. Ed himself and his supporters told me about how a “real leader” would be there. The power of his orations or presence or something was supposed to change things. Or we hear admonishments to begin filibusters that would lose cloture votes.

                <

                p>Unfortunately, getting Congress to do the right thing is simply not an easy fix. Are you familiar with the Bush Dog campaign? (I hasten to note that there isn’t a Busch Dog campaign.) I think its the closest anyone has come to figuring out how to unfuck up Congress. (Excuse my profanity.)

                <

                p>Getting Senator Johnson to vote correctly involves pressuring him but it also involves making it safe for him. He represents South Dakota after all. I doubt it involves orating at him, or showing leadership by showing up, or pushing bills for the point of moral witness alone.

                <

                p>Until we have the votes of Democratic Senators like Senator Johnson, we’re not going to see much good come out of the Senate.

                <

                p>Returning to the question of marriage equality: it would be nice if some bills were filed to repeal DOMA. Repeal has to get on the national agenda. Its achievement lies at least a few years away. Without a President pushing it, the wait will be longer. Sadly, there probably will not be a President pushing for it.

                <

                p>Until then, Senator Kerry will get plenty of time to complete his, er, evolution.

                • …part of enabling red-state Democratic Senators to make the right (and tough) choice is helping them get re-elected.  Despite his mountain of cash, Kerry is not doing his share in directing money to their campaigns.

                • would push for the repeal, which could happen as early as 2009.   And I know Kerry voted against DOMA in 1996, kudos Senator!, but I don’t know if he would actually be the one to submit legislation to repeal it.  O’Reilly I could definitely see doing that.  

                  <

                  p>And as I’ve stated in the past, I think the time is now for that evolution.  There’s nothing holding him back except himself.

                • but now it’s actually safe for him to do so with just about every politician, of significance, in Massachusetts supporting it.  

                  <

                  p>It would’ve been nice to see that leadership back then (or at least inaction on it rather than him supporting the constitutional amendment), but he had a political excuse in that it wasn’t popular then.  Which of course that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t support it by any means, but there was a reason back then for him not supporting/working against marriage equality.  Whether those actions were justified in deference to that reason is for people to make up their own minds on.

                  <

                  p>I think the time is now because he has no reason at all anymore.  Not political, not constitutional, not logical, etc.  

    • is brilliant – the best explanation yet on the topic. I’m glad I’ve mostly stayed out of that race. Clearly, there’s a lot more important races and challenges that we can win, rather than taking on Kerry… who’s really not that bad on the issues, even if I’d like him to change a few positions (marriage equality, Lori’s posts, etc.)

      <

      p>I’m not sure I agree that Kerry’s primary will have any bearing on Obama’s race, but either way, the point is moot… because Sara Orozco, Carl, Sonia Chang-Diaz and so many other candidates are depending on us. If people are concerned about national issues – their energy would be far better spent making sure Sununu loses in NH and Collins in Maine, because ultimately that will have a far huger impact than Reilly over Kerry in Massachusetts.  

      • If people are concerned about national issues – their energy would be far better spent making sure Sununu loses in NH and Collins in Maine, because ultimately that will have a far huger impact than Reilly over Kerry in Massachusetts.

        <

        p>those will also have a far huger impact that Kerry over O’Reilly as well since there are those working on his behalf too.

        <

        p>Now for me personally, I haven’t put any effort into either campaign such as canvassing etc (besides posting on here for debates which I see as bi-partisan), but if this goes on for much longer I may do just that.

      • to Lori’s posts there.  That was the first time I read about H1B visa holders and the effect they can have.  Interesting stuff.

      • this isn’t even about working on someone’s campaign and the pragmatic issues that come along with it.  It’s about whether Kerry should actually answer (rather than completely ignoring) peoples’ calls for some debates and forums.  

        <

        p>I would think open discussion and debate is something every Democrat could get behind.  

        • is he worse, to you, than Collins or Sununu? Because we can replace them. I don’t see the same potential for replacing Kerry.

          <

          p>You could feel totally different, but I just thought Ken had a real good point. There’s an opportunity cost by getting so wrapped up in the Kerry race, when there are other races where the differences between the candidates are much greater and we have a better chance of winning them. I’m pretty sure we’ll win in NH, but it’s looking awfully tough in Maine because Collins has the reputation of a sweet angel who’s truly moderate. Sure, she’s moderate when the votes aren’t close and she’s allowed to break away, but anything the Republicans need and need her vote, she comes no questions asked. She’s far more dangerous than Kerry, yet so far winning her race according to the polls. We were able to beat Chaffee in Rhode Island with largely the same reputation, it was a  huge upset, so now we need to make sure it happens in main, too… and we can have a true regional block that can go toe to toe with the South and make sure that, finally, the Democrats have a better than even chance of being in power every major election season. Focusing our efforts on Kerry, when he’s not going to lose, is a colossal opportunity cost in that regard.

          • and helping Tom Allen win.  Absolutely!  I think NH is in the bag, but the polls in Maine are showing a more difficult race (as is usually the case against an incumbent).

            <

            p>But some people won’t travel to another state to campaign.  Some would rather work on a local campaign where they’ll have a direct effect.  I completely agree that the Maine Senatorial race is a great one and people should volunteer there if they can.

            <

            p>However, just because there won’t be just as big a difference doesn’t mean people shouldn’t work on this campaign.  

            <

            p>Also, this effort isn’t on ousting Kerry.  It’s on trying to force him to agree to some debates and forums and to be a responsive politician to the people.  I think that is absolutely worth putting some energy into.

            • And I honestly don’t think it’s a bad thing that you’re drawing a line over whether or not he agrees to a debate. We all have to draw lines somewhere.

              <

              p>On Collins vs. Allen, though, there’s a lot of ways you can help out without going to Maine. For members of this community, they could simply blog about the race and keep BMG abreast of what’s actually going on there. That in and of itself could lead to more volunteers and more donations. A second way to help, without going to Maine, would be to actually make a donation or a series of them. Finally, I’m sure they have some sort of system where you can make phone calls to ID voters from out of state, reporting the results online. At least, I hope Allen has that kind of a system. (Alternatively, I bet MoveOn does.)

          • You have a point Ryan about where to launch our efforts.  However, you know I run my politics on what I consider my personal standards.  If I had listened to others I would not have launched KnowThyNeighbor, if I had caved to MassEquality’s pressures I would not have kept it running, and regarding John Kerry and others, I will not vote for them if they are anti-marriage equality and I will let them and others know it.  

            • with launching KnowThyNeighbor.  It helped create a lot of needed discussion and also helped weed out forgery.

              <

              p>And hopefully you can bring up your views on marriage equality at a forum, if one ever happens.  I’ll be doing the same along with other issues I have.

              • We are at an interesting point in history now with blogs and internet participation in the political process.  I believe that we need to be very careful that activists remain activists and not quickly become strategic operatives.

                <

                p>If there are excuses for politicians like John Kerry and groups like the HRC equivocating, these excuses should not be being voiced by the grassroots activists.  It is very dangerous to do this.  And I question whether the blogs/internet are influencing this.

                • but to a degree.  (and I’m a poet and don’t even know it!…sorry, that was tacky)

                  <

                  p>I think your battles need to be chosen carefully however to balance the idealism and pragmatism.  The bar needs to continuously be set higher, but it can’t be just placed right to the top so to speak.

                  <

                  p>Marriage equality for example.  

                  <

                  p>I think John Kerry is the perfect target for his non-support of marriage equality.  We already have the support here in Mass from our legislators, Governor, attorney general, our other Senator supports it, etc.  The next politician on the ladder of equality should be John Kerry.  

                  <

                  p>However, I don’t think one should necessarily vote against Obama because he doesn’t support marriage equality.  He’s running for President and is actually the most pro gay-rights candidate we’ve ever had.

                  <

                  p>That’s my own view anyways on the best and quickest way to move forward on any issue.  

                • Let’s talk about sleeping well at night…

                  <

                  p>I will vote for him of course, however, everytime I am asked for money for his campaign I say, “he has my support at the polls, however, he will not get my money or volunteering time until he stands by me and my husband and considers us equal Americans.”

                  <

                  p>And I also marched in a few parades with “Americans for Obama.”  My sign read, “Gay 2nd Class Citizens for Obama”

                  <

                  p>Little things, I know, but it gets me thru it.  And I talk, Chad and Ann Gifford whose gay son Rufus is one of Obama’s biggest fundraisers get earfuls from me at these events.  

                • And actually I’m the same exact way with my donating dollars.  I set up a criteria that the politician must support marriage equality to receive $ from me as well (volunteering I still consider depending upon the difference of the candidates and magnitude of the race, but it’s rare….ex. Obama).  

          • are now trying to portray themselves as independent from Bushco but in fact their vote record is very much inline with his.

            <

            p>I know that Kerry has reached across the aisle to create bi-partisan bills with Snowe and Colins–though Kirk hasn’t reached across the aisle to anyone and yet is calling himself a ‘moderate’.

            <

            p>I realize that some of these names are in the House and not Senate; however, I feel that if I’m going to donate to the DNC or DLC or an individual–I have a limited amount of disposable cash.  Who would I like to bring down more?  Kerry or WALBERG or KIRK or Snowe?

            <

            p>For me, I don’t really give a crap about debates.  Most people don’t follow them and most people already have their mind made up anyways.

            • doesn’t mean others don’t.  Quite to the contrary, there are polls showing that many people in Massachusetts are dissatisfied with John Kerry’s leadership.

    • KBusch, your approach seems to me to be a top-down approach–someone is going to decide what’s “good for the Party,” and that’s the way it’s going to be. To me (and I say this as someone who intends to vote for Kerry), I think the party ought to approach this from the bottom up. O’Reilly had sufficient support to earn a place on the ballot, and he and his supporters are, in my view, entitled to an evening of the incumbent’s time. This seems like a no-brainer to me.

      <

      p>TedF

      • But we have to be rational. So let’s ask ourselves a series of questions:

        <

        p>Does Reilly have a shot at winning? Not really. It’s getting very close to the primary, and I’d bet 90-95% of the state’s population doesn’t even know there’s a race or who Reilly is or looks like.

        <

        p>Are there other, more important races out there? How do we define important? If you’re antiwar, important means finding a candidate more likely to get us out of Iraq. Kerry, at least since he lost his bid for the White House, has become solidly anti-war and one of the early pushers for a timetable attached to any spending bill. It would have been nice if he got it from the start, but at least he gets it. Knowing that, what race will help us get out of Iraq sooner? Getting rid of Sununu? Collins? Or Kerry? Do I really need to answer that?

        <

        p>How about GLBT issues – one of the key things that’s pissing off some in the progressive community about Kerry? The guy still won’t come out in favor of marriage equality – easily annoying and inexcusable. Yet, what races will have the largest meaningful impact on glbt equality? Replacing Sununu? Collins? Or Kerry? At least Kerry has done many solid, pro-equality things in the past. In a few more years, we’ll be able to get him to switch on marriage equality, especially as he realizes he’s not ever going to be President. Yet, even today, Kerry’s not going to vote to put the religious right on the supreme court bench, like the other two will, and he’ll vote to ban things like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

        <

        p>I know that Kerry’s pissed you off and he’s not leadership you can be proud of, but if we want to win the Senate to the extent that the Republicans can’t filibuster us – and we need to do that desperately – it means there’s absolutely, positively no choice but to win both the NH and Maine Senate seats up for grabs this year. If we can’t win both, I don’t see how we could possibly get enough seats to reach 60… and, in the end, that’s far more important than unseating Kerry.  

        • And I agree with you to a large extent.  Heck, I probably would’ve been silent on this race for the most part (except for maybe trying to push Kerry on his stance on marriage equality) and simply voted in September for whomever.

          <

          p>It’s the very fact that Kerry won’t commit to any debates or forums that’s really killing me here.  It is just so fundamentally undemocratic.  

          <

          p>I’ll hopefully be getting up to Maine sometime in the next couples weeks since I have time off from school and work and that’s one of the best races in the area that could make a huge difference.

          <

          p>However, with Kerry’s actions (rather, inactions) here I’ll probably also canvass Cambridge and get friends to come along too in support of O’Reilly one of these Saturdays.  

          <

          p>Oh, and as to O’Reilly having a shot…..probably not.  It’s definitely a David vs. Goliath sort of battle.  Then again only about 100K people actually vote in September so it may be more competitive than we think.

      • Reflecting on this a bit more, I think one could argue that all elections should have debates. It’s a sensible formal requirement. In an age of degraded discourse, we’re unlikely to see a Lincoln-Douglas debate anytime soon, but I don’t disagree with making it a formal requirement. In this particular race with the particular candidates running in 2008, I just don’t see it as ultimately useful for progressive causes.

        <

        p>I’m not sure quite what you mean by top-down. I certainly do not see this something Howard Dean or the DSCC has mandated. In my exchange with Ed O’Reilly himself, I urged people to contribute to the primary challenge to Rep. Lipinski and I’ve contributed a lot to Donna Edwards. I also think that the left blogosphere’s recent ad campaigns against Rep Hoyer and Carney are great ideas. None of those views have been mandated from above. Heck, I’m spending a lot of time on a local primary challenge where our very personable opponent’s socially conservative views are not widely known. A debate there would be a great thing.

        • especially when it comes to the the MA Democratic Platform.  Check out this post by Derrico.  

          <

          p>Heck, even if they were exactly the same when it came to policy stances I would still be calling on for debates.  O’Reilly worked hard, got his signatures, and his votes at the State Convention to secure a spot on the ballot.  The people deserve a debate between them so they can make an informed decision.

    • A senate vote to extend unemployment benefits was defeated 50-49. Every senator but one made it back to Washington for this important vote. Guess who did not? Yes, John Kerry. He was too busy running for president to worry about the “little people”. Dick Cheney cast the deciding vote. How any working person or labor union can support Kerry is beyond belief. I always thought democrats were for the working man? Somebody correct me please?

      • If Kerry was the only missing senator, a vote of 50-49 would not have required any vote by Cheney.  How about if you provide a link to the rollcall vote at thomas.loc.gov, so that people who are interested can verify the facts for themselves?  Especially since you seem to have gotten this one wrong…

        • Link

          <

          p>

          The Senate by a single vote rejected an effort yesterday to extend federal unemployment benefits.

          Democrats tried to attach the benefits to a corporate-tax bill. On a 59-40 vote in the Republican-controlled Senate, they fell just shy of the 60 votes needed to overcome objections that extending the benefits violated last year’s budget agreement.

          Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, was the only senator who missed the vote. Mr. Kerry was campaigning in Kentucky

          .

          The amendment would have offered emergency federal unemployment benefits for six months, temporarily giving 13 weeks of extra assistance to people who exhaust their state benefits — typically 26 weeks.

          <

          p>I don’t know about Cheney casting the deciding vote, but it got killed because Kerry didn’t vote since it wasn’t able to pass the filibuster vote which requires 60.

          • That’s a different story than the one billxi was telling – and there does not appear to be a vote from Cheney involved in that.  It’s a shame Kerry missed that vote, but politicians do miss votes from time to time, especially when they’re running for president.  The real problem wasn’t Kerry, it was the Republicans in Congress and their willingness to stomp all over us commoners as they dole out out their largesse to the corporations.

            • missing some votes when running for President.  I was just providing info there.  

              <

              p>However, the larger issue of being out of touch with the people I think is a very real concern.  As many have expressed on here, we only see John Kerry’s face when it’s re-election time.  

              <

              p>He should be coming to Massachusetts even in his off years and going around to town hall style forums, just like Deval, around the state.  Perhaps O’Reilly running against him we can push him to be more constituent friendly.  Either that, or we vote against him and for O’Reilly.

              • I was doing it from memory. The gist of the matter is that John Edwards thought it important enough to take a day off from the campaign trail and do his elected job. John Kerry thought of himself only. John Kerry was the pivotal vote. He didn’t show up for work that day and it hurt a lot of working class people. How anyone affiliated with labor can support him is abhorrent. I’m voting for O’Reilly.

          • In 2004, the Senate Republican leadership purposely adjusted the calendar so that it would be difficult for Kerry.

            <

            p>Furthermore, people really would be living in a much better country if Kerry had won in 2004. That includes little people as well as medium large people.

            • John Edwards was running for the same presidential nomination as Kerry, yet he thought it important enough to make his way back to Washington for this important vote. I am sure he would have given Kerry a ride if he needed it. BTW the vote was IN 2004 while they were both running for the nomination. If you’re going to run for president, at least pull a Romney and do it on your own time.

    • Regardless of who we support or want to elect, resources devoted to keeping them on their feet and answering their opponents are worthwhile.  I haven’t figured out any good reason to support Ed O’Reilly, except for this one: We need to push our incumbents to answer their challengers.  Kerry’s definitely strong enough to handle this one, and he’ll probably be stronger if he does it.  And better prepared for some other challenger who might have a more compelling message, in the future.

  5. …but has O’Reilly been running a campaign since the convention? He has seemed to have been off the grid for awhile now.

    <

    p>A good way to insure you don’t get any debates is to ask for so many. The 14 town halls plus debates was ridiculous, especially for someone who is turning out to be a protest candidate.

    <

    p>No one but a few insiders will take this seriously. Kerry romps in both the primary and the general. Then we can hope he gets an appointment in an Obama Admin and we can pick from some serious alternatives.

    • is to simply ignore the calls for them by constituents and by O’Reilly.  If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

    • of over-inclusiveness (because wanting to include constituents from all 14 counties is sooo crazy!) instead of non-inclusiveness (aka, ignoring constituents’ calls for debates) any day of the week.

      • there can be too many debates – making them all somewhat meaningless in the end, if they all drown each other out. I very much felt that way in the Pres primary and in several local races. 2-3 debates in a primary is ideal, or if there’s more, at least make each debate on specific topics.  

        • O’Reilly called for a few debates and television appearances.  I would be happy with 2 debates….say one a bit earlier on for those that are paying attention and another closer to the primary for the majority of constituents.

          <

          p>Now what he did call for in large numbers was town hall style forums where constituents can go and air their concerns and issues directly with the candidates which I think is a wonderful idea.  He called for 14 of those, 1 in each county.  The reason why I don’t think the Presidential primary race is a good example is because those forums probably won’t all be put on television (probably youtube) as compared to the primaries.  So I don’t think that would be too much (I mean having several forums in general, not the specific number of them).  Just ask constituents if they would like to see this.  And I don’t expect to see 14 of them.  Again, I would be happy with a good enough number evenly spread throughout the commonwealth where most people would be able travel to and attend if they so chose to.

      • The silent majority supporting Beatty keeps so silent that it cannot be heard by pollsters — or even by experienced birdwatchers.

      • The alleged silent majority is so silent that you can hear the crickets chirping.

        <

        p>Beatty will get some votes. The sacrificial Republican always does. But visualizing a win for him requires the injestion of some pretty powerful and illegal drugs — especially this year.

  6. I’ll take Kerry debating for Obama. Let the protest candidate get his own press if he can.

    <

    p>

    . . . the challenger needs the publicity, since he or she almost always lacks the name recognition of the incumbent.

    <

    p>The op ed had it right.

    <

    p>Disclaimer: My union has endorsed John Kerry and is proudly working for his re-election

    • Twenty-three is excessive.  Zero is anti-democratic.  There’s plenty of room in between for compromise.

      <

      p>I’m sure Kerry can take one night off from reminding American voters why they didn’t vote for him in 2004 to remind us in Massachusetts why we should vote for him in 2008.

    • As the op-ed also states:

      <

      p>

      Nobody expects Kerry to debate O’Reilly 23 times. But it would do the senator’s own reputation some good to agree to a debate or two. He owes that much not to O’Reilly but to the voters. According to recent polling, the Kerry act – claiming to be vigorously serving the state while being largely invisible except when it benefits him – is wearing thin.

      <

      p>The guy represents us, not Obama.  I’m glad that he’s working so hard on Obama’s behalf (or maybe he’s working on his own behalf campaigning for a position in a Obama administration, SOS anyone?), but his first priority is to the people.  

    • He came out on stage twice to speak for Deval Patrick and on the second time (when of course he was speaking more about himself than Deval) there was a considerable amount of “booing” at least coming from the balcony.

      <

      p>I personally have had it with him.

      • where he spoke for about half an hour longer than he was allowed to!  I even spoke with the woman who was the time keeper and she told me she was trying to let him and his people know that the time was up.

        <

        p>He had his speech prepared and he knew how long it would take.  It was rather sad to see that happen.

        <

        p>Not to mention all the tactics that went into trying to make sure O’Reilly didn’t get a spot on the ballot.  I would support anyone being allowed to run as long as it’s a serious campaign (think Colbert….even though I love him, it was obviously a goof).  

    • Please read my post a few paragraphs above. Then please tell me why? It boggles my mind how any labor organization could support Kerry.

  7. As I told you before, why don’t you ask Ed O’Reilly’s campaign manager how negotiations are going?  You throw this all on Kerry, but there is always a coming to terms between the two campaigns on these things.  Ed O’Reilly is NOT going to get 14 debates (or 23, whichever number you are going with), but he will most likely get 1 or 2.  This is all over semantics, and is a non-issue.  When are we going to hear from Ed O’Reilly’s campaign manager, on how it’s all going?

    • every single post you have made has been on promoting John Kerry.  hmmmm

      <

      p>Furthermore, I have said several times I don’t expect there to be 14 forums.  I do expect there to be a couple debates and a handful of forums spread throughout the state so people can join in them.  

      <

      p>Also, the Kerry campaign has not agreed to any debates or forums and trying to suggest as you have done a couple times now is simply false.  O’Reilly has said he’ll do them anywhere and anytime so the hold up certainly isn’t O’Reilly.  Heck, there are newspapers calling out John Kerry now for his actions because it’s so obvious that he’s stonewalling.

      • THAT is my point:  all you have been writing about in diaries and comments is how you want 23 debates.  THAT is being a one hit wonder.  

        <

        p>Again, you have not proven me false at all — debates actually have to be scheduled, you know (meet me anytime anywhere is a bit vague), and Ed O’Reilly’s campaign has given no indication one way or the other, whether they have started negotiating that.

        <

        p>From your own link, there is proof from the Kerry camp that negotiations are going on:

        <

        p>

        Kerry press secretary Brigid O’Rourke said this week that discussions with the O’Reilly campaign, “continue,”

        <

        p>So again, discussions are underway.  Your beef, is that Kerry isn’t going to follow O’Reilly’s timetable.  Frankly, if he had, I would think less of Kerry’s negotiating abilities.  O’Reilly will get his debate, but it will be largely on the encumbent’s terms.  And I will add, that that is more than Hillary’s primary opponent in 2006 got.

        • I have commented and written posts on numerous subjects including, but not limited to the National Popular Vote, the Democratic Party Platform, Republican scandals, and Obama events around the state.

          <

          p>You on the other hand have made every single one of your posts about promoting John Kerry.  Anyone can look for themselves and make their own judgment on that which I think is rather obvious.

          <

          p>

          all you have been writing about in diaries and comments is how you want 23 debates.

          <

          p>That is yet another lie from you.  I stated on the very first comment on this post (and have restated it several other times) that:

          <

          p>

          I’m fine with just 1 or 2 debates on tv, but would like to see several forums around the state for constituents to participate in personally.

          <

          p>So please don’t lie and try to make me seem as though it’s a “23 debates or nothing” type of argument because that’s simply not true.  I’ve been calling on Sen. Kerry to at least respond to our calls and get something scheduled.

          <

          p>And yes, discussions have been “underway” for well over 2 months now.  Of course a campaign isn’t just going to say I’m not going to debate you.  That would make them look really bad.  Even the media is starting to notice now and that’s why he’s being called out by them.

          • and put in off topic comments about the debate.  That is a fact.

            <

            p>http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…

            <

            p>”Pimping” your diary in my diary not about the debates:

            <

            p>http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…

            <

            p>Sneaking in “the debates” in another comment ostensibly about something else:

            <

            p>http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…

            <

            p>You have LATELY become a one hit wonder.  So let’s not divert ourselves from what you have been up to.  I didn’t mean forever and always; I am talking about ever since this issue hit, it is all that consumes you.

            <

            p>I make no secret by the fact that I support Kerry and like to write about when he is doing a good job, and even to criticize  as I did on his position on gay marriage.  I think readers on Kos and BMG overall don’t mind reading factual diaries concerning the junior Senator from Mass.  There are supporters of many candidates all across the country who do the same thing, including some fine diarists who blog about Obama.  It is not a big deal, except to O’Reilly supporters.    

            <

            p>And the downrating was really unsportsmanlike.

            <

            p>The point of this diary, as well as your previous diary on the topic, not to mention numerous comments is to put pressure on Kerry to score points for Ed O’Reilly.  You do not speak for the majority of constituents, let’s be clear about that.  So stop saying “our”:  you’re not in charge of a “Make Kerry Debate” movement.

            <

            p>And, again, there is going to be a debate.  Just not on O’Reilly’s timetable.

            • already brought it up and it seemed that post was really about highlighting John Kerry campaigning rather than the actual housing crisis.  And please don’t try to pretend that it wasn’t.  There’s a clear and obvious theme throughout all your posts and that one fits right in line with the rest.

              <

              p>

              You have LATELY become a one hit wonder.

              <

              p>Again, that’s a lie.  

              <

              p>

              And the downrating was really unsportsmanlike.

              <

              p>I disagree.  Lying is very unsportsmanlike and I’ll rate it as such.

              <

              p>Let’s see….the last 4 topics of my posts were this one, Obama events around the state, John Kerry ignoring calls for debates, and helping NPV get to the Gov’s desk.

              <

              p>hmmm, yes, I see how that’s a one hit wonder as of “LATELY”.  Not.  You on the other hand have always been a one hit wonder.  Just look at how every single post is about promoting John Kerry.

              <

              p>And that’s right, I’ll continue to post on this subject seeing as how we only have 4 weeks till the primary and not a single debate or forum has been scheduled.  Kerry is clearly stonewalling any debates and that’s why he’s being called out for it in the media.

          • last minute so no one gets branded a “chicken”?

            <

            p>It’s shocking she’s actually making the argument that Kerry isn’t stonewalling.  It’s perfectly obvious that he is.  Even Kerry supporters on here are saying that he should schedule a few debates and forums.

        • because every article/post (not comment) you’ve ever written was to support and promote John Kerry.  I guess I’m not the only one.

          <

          p>So – do you work or volunteer for the Senator?

          • So by that standard that must mean that Cambridge Paul is a plant. And Kbush is a plant. And I’m a plant. And you’re a plant.  Al Gore must be a plant for environmental issues.  Obama is a plant.

            <

            p>Why the Hell are the only plants missing in the current White House and the whole Republican Party?

            <

            p>  

            • but I’d still like to see Beachmom’s answer the question.  Working/volunteering for candidates, cougar, are supposed to be stated upfront.  Most of the posters do divulge that information.  Given Beachmom’s propensity to post solely about the Senator, led me to wonder about her status.  It would be nice to know.

              • Personally, I get tired when reading these blogs of seeing people always accused of being paid operatives or something.  I believe in full disclosure too.  Like I know at other sites, I’ve seen people post in their sig line if they are working for a candidate or cause.  For instance, like Peter Dauo (I dont’ know how to spell his name) write that he’s Senator Clinton’s online person.  

                <

                p>I suspect that beachmom would post that if she were paid too.  It’s really just common to do that now.  

                <

                p>Personally, I’m not paid by anyone to blog.  I wish I was, frankly.  Though given the stress and high emotions people have, maybe not.  

                <

                p>P.S. KBusch  sorry about mispelling your name above.  I tried to go back and edit but I couldn’t figure out how to edit comments.

              • someone who also posted just on John Kerry (can’t remember if it was beachmom or one of the others) in one of my previous posts and received no answer just fyi.

                • There are two bloggers from Kerry campaign:  Tay Tay and BriV.   They always self disclose.    

                  <

                  p>Persistently raising suspicion about anyone else that happens to like Kerry as Beachmom and I do — strikes me as a sideways tactic to stifle and stifle Kerry supporters.     I agree with Beachmom that I expect Kerry to agree to a debate, but on his timetable.    

                • just fyi.  I was and am curious about beachmom.  Suspicions are raised when every single post she has made has to do with promoting John Kerry.  Some of them are direct and blatant while others are indirect and try to pretend to be about some other subject such as the housing crisis, but they all have a single key theme in common and that is promoting John Kerry.  

                  <

                  p>Also, suspicion could be dropped if the question was simply answered.  I remember there was another poster in the past, Kerstin, who made a hit post on O’Reilly.  It was called out as such and suspicions were raised.  It was then disclosed after the fact that she was a Kerry support, co-founder, and contributor to KerryVision.  

                • Beachmom posts nationally at Kos and other places and Kerry is her favorite national figure.   That’s ok — I imagine if EOR was a national figure that he would welcome such supporters.  Kerstin is an ardent supporter who decided to go on personal crusade because of the persistent negative coverage Kerry was getting a couple yrs ago.   I applaud that–that is the kind of grassroots work democrats should be doing.   I met her at a Kerry speech.   I like Kerryvision although I dont have time to look at it much.   She never hid her identity.   She even uses her real name, which is a level of openness that I dont certainly dont have the guts to do.    I like a modicum of anonoymity myself.    

                  <

                  p>  

  8. the Kerry surrogates who come on this site to only talk about the Kerry campaign or bash anyone who disagrees with him in the slightest would realize how much they actually hurt Kerry’s efforts in this community. I’d be willing to bet he’ll win most of the votes from people who come to this site, but that’s in spite to his supporters who who come here solely to beat up someone who has the tenacity to say that they wish Kerry would agree to a debate or two on tv. Heaven forbid!

    <

    p>Now, I do appreciate people who come to this site on behalf of their candidates. Good examples of how to do that includes Cos when he blogged for Bonifaz – and eventually convinced this community, by and large, to support his candidate. Another solid example is David from the Speaker’s office and Doug from the Gov’s. In all three of those cases, if someone offered a challenging question, they didn’t try to shoot them down… they tried to take that challenging question and answer it. Or, heck, if they couldn’t answer it politely, they didn’t answer it at all.

    <

    p>My best advice to these people is to start acting like mature adults, stop accosting posters who have the tenacity to either disagree with a few issues or even support the other guy… and treat everyone with at least a modicum of respect. If you want to get by in this community and grow support for your candidate, that’s the best way to do it. You don’t win battles on BMG by throwing the most punches and being a bunch of cranks. You do it by engaging with the community, offering up fresh ideas and plenty of facts and being decent human beings as often as possible (even when we’re passionate about things) – at least when others are respectfully disagreeing, as opposed to being snarky or something. I know we can’t do all do that 100% of the time, but these Kerry threads are ridiculous.  

    • I see no signs of only Kerry people being the only ones to slam others.  I mostly lurk and I’ve seen it in other threads too.

      <

      p>Also…considering some sites out there…this one’s primary battles seem relatively tame.

      <

      p>It seems to me that both sides are arguing in defense of a candidate.  They’re pointing out the problems they have with one candidate over the other.  And they’re both passionate.

      <

      p>The only thing it proves, isn’t that one side is more vehement or mean than the other, it simply shows by their dedication and commitment and passion that they’re not dead but alive and speaking passionately for things that matter to them.

      • Also, I would never rate another poster’s comment OUT OF EXISTENCE.  Which is what Ryepower and Cambridge Paul did to my comment.

        <

        p>I consider that censorship of the worst kind.  Personally, I don’t believe in downrating as a rule.  I give high ratings to comments I like, but to delete a voice is not only unproductive but truly undemocratic.

        • Our so-called democrats don’t like positions that do not absolutely agree with their communistic beliefs. That is why they are headed for a big fall this November. I am unenrolled and proud of it. Toss me out of your little love fest and this is why you’ll lose big time in November!  

        • Your comment violated board rules and constituted a nasty personal attack. If you don’t want your comments rated out of existence, feel free not to use personal insults and attacks next time. This website has rules; if you violate them, there are consequences. This was definitely a case of the rating system actually working – as I said as a reply to your thread that was deleted, your post was the first I gave a zero to in months upon months. It got zeroes for a reason; you ought to take personal responsibility for that instead of blaming others for your own actions.

          • I name no one. Are we too full of ourselves to not want to hear the emperor is naked? Well the system IS broken. The state legislature consistently ignores the will of the electorate. The democrats in government welcome perverts and crooks. I’m sorry, you guys are going to get pounded in November. People are talking, and it’s not about how great the democratic party in Massachusetts.

            • Boston Globe article.

              <

              p>

              The Cook Political Report predicts a 10 to 20 seat House gain for Democrats, which is up from its prediction just a few weeks ago based on the Mississippi results and the disarray among Republicans.

              <

              p>

              In the Senate things look pretty good and Democrats could pick up four to five seats

              <

              p>As to Massachusetts, care to back up those assertions with some evidence?  The Mass legislature just had a fantastic session in which they accomplished a lot.  Sure, we still have lots to do (NPV, same-day registration, etc) but we’re well on our way.

              • It’s “accomplishments:
                Refuses to allow a popular vote on same-sex marriage
                Raised the cigarette tax $1.00
                But not on alcohol, because Reps. Binienda & Kujawski have relatives on the ABCC.
                Speaking of Kujo, he got DWI’ed, urinated on a female state trooper, and “Cinderella’d” his license back.
                Binienda fudges his per diem while he carpools to work.
                They allow perverts and thives to stay in office. Re: Kujawski, Binienda, Marzilli, Wilkerson, DiMasi.
                Sen. Dick Moore wants to raise the state income tax to 6%.
                Fantastic only if your special interest was served, or your friend or relative got a state job.
                Regarding the names I mentioned: It ain’t libel if it’s true.
                Everything I said has been reported upon by the news media.
                NPV is a waste, give it up.
                Same day registration only works if you’re running the election.
                Respectfully submitted…

      • there are plenty of EOR people, too, but a) I expect more from the Kerry surrogates and b) I think there’s some not so subtle differences between a poster like Beachmom and Alexander.  

        • of surrogate gets pejorative at some point.    I may be wrong but it seems Kerry supporters are called surrogates and EOR supporters called supporters.    

          • I think there’s some not so subtle differences between a poster like Beachmom and Alexander.

            <

            p>You may not like it, but it’s true and rather obvious.

            • should we  call you a O’Reilly surrogate or a supporter?  The distinction is really splitting hairs and I think people should speak for themselves.   I consider myself a supporter.  I think surrogate as it is used here has a lnegative connotation  like “The Democrat” part as opposed to “The Democratic Party”  

              <

              p>If I tip over from supporter to surrogate — which I feel like I may do–this will make posting here less pleasant for me.  

              <

              p>On the issue itself, I can relate — In the early days of EOR’s campaign most of his supporters/surrogates pretty much only posted anti-kerry/pro-oreilly stuff and I raised similar distaste.  I didnt push it, because that is what interested them, so really not my place to harp on their credibility.        

              <

              p>ps–I am pretty sure there will be a debate.  Like I said before my own preference is not for one but I do think it would be the right thing to do.    

              • someone who works or otherwise represents the campaign. I know Alexander and Paul do NOT work for EOR and probably haven’t even met the guy, save from maybe shaking his hand at some point. On the other hand, I feel strongly that at least some of these posters DO either work or otherwise represent the Kerry campaign. The very fact that they came here for the Kerry race and only write dairies or comments concerning Kerry and/or EOR bears that out. I do not know what the connection is, but these are not just enthusiastic supporters. I’ve been a part of the netroots for far too long, and seen the insides of far too many campaigns,  to fall for that.  

                • Ed O’Reilly a couple of times, but that’s just because he shows up to just about every Democratic event and meeting there is (state committee meeting, ward committee, and his campaign people were at a Cambridge city committee meeting).   And I don’t work for his campaign.  I just like the fact that he has been so out there wanting to speak with constituents and the fact that he’s a bit more progressive on certain issues.  The closest I’ve gotten to John Kerry was watching him give his speech at the State Convention, the one that went much longer than the rules allowed.  We would welcome John Kerry any time to come speak to our Ward or City Committee, but for some reason I doubt that would happen.

                  <

                  p>I will be calling Kerry’s planner today however and ask if he would agree to a forum in Cambridge.  I’ll say that I would plan it around Kerry’s schedule, since that was the excuse for not going to the Holliston forum.  I’ll let you know what his campaign says.

                • was a “we’ll get back to you” just fyi.  At least the planner said they were getting lots of calls for forums and debates.  Not much heed seems to have been taken to those calls.  

  9. The Holliston Democratic Town Committee is sponsoring a Candidates Night this Friday, August 15 at 7PM at Holliston Town Hall. This is not a debate — rather, an opportunity for candidates who will be on the ballot either the primary in the 8th Middlesex District to make a statement and take a few questions from the audience which will be screened by a moderator. (At the request of our Board of Selectmen, we’ve invited Republicans as well, since Holliston doesn’t have a Republican town committee.) This event is being covered by the media and will be taped for coverage on the various communities’ cable access station.

    <

    p>O’Reilly’s coming. The Republican is coming. All candidates for state rep and state senate will be there. Kerry? Nope.

    • I’m completely fed up with Kerry’s inaction.  

      <

      p>I wanted to have a town hall style forum put on in Cambridge, but quite frankly, I don’t think Kerry would agree to it just as he hasn’t for yours.

      <

      p>That’s really thoughtful by the way to include the Republicans.  That’s a great thing to be for open discussion.

  10. It’s a fact of political campaigns. Those who are unknown and behind clamor for face to face confrontations, debates, as often and as frequent as possible. The well known favorite tries to keep exposure to a minimum. This race is no different, and O’Reilly is looking for the face time. After a suitable time, there will be 2 debates, probably at 11:00 PM some Saturday night, on ‘GBH. No one will see them, no one will care, and it won’t have any effect on the outcome.

Archives