Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

No Debate About It: He’s Chicken Kerry

By

Oh, that’s right, I posted it!  Enough time has passed that Kerry is now officially chicken!  Cluck-Cluck

John Kerry just responded to O’Reilly’s charges that he has been ducking debates.  You might be asking yourself, but Paul, what’s changed?  O’Reilly has been saying this for a few weeks now.  Ahah, right you are, but this is the first time O’Reilly has made those charges on television!

Via Politicker O’Reilly had this to say on NECN last night:

“It’s not just an insult to me that I haven’t gotten a response from John Kerry, really it’s an insult to the people of Massachusetts and also to the Democratic process,” O’Reilly said. “John Kerry should let me know…I’ll do any number of debates he’d like to do.”

The Kerry campaign’s reply?  

O’Rourke (spokeswoman for Kerry) said O’Reilly’s charge is simply not true and that it has been O’Reilly, not Kerry, that has been dragging his feet in organizing the debate.

Riiiight.  I’ve personally spoken with the Kerry campaign’s planner and they have dodged every request for a forum or debate even considering that we would work around Kerry’s schedule.

This is getting ridiculous.  You know how Kerry should respond?  By saying when he’s available for a forum or debate.  

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. and call Roger Lau (Kerry’s campaign manager) at 617-248-0284 and urge John Kerry to agree to a debate and or forum!

    <

    p>or

    <

    p>Call his campaign at 617-565-8519 and ask to speak with the planner and let her know you would like to see a debate or forum put on.

  2. i have to say that from here, it does look like o’reilly has been disingenuously setting up kerry to look bad.  i don’t know the truth of the matter, only that this is how it looks.  for me, it all started with o’reilly landing in bmg with little more to say than, in a nutshell, “john kerry stinks”.  somehow, when politicians start out like schoolyard mudslingers, i’m just not apt to take them at their word later on.  and so this kind of chicken suit stuff really is not convincing me that o’reilly is taking the high road.

    <

    p>please take the comment above for what it is: an honest observation from someone unable to vote in this race.

    <

    p>please do NOT take it for what it isn’t: an endorsement for any candidate.

    • I don’t know where you come up with the idea that O’Reilly started as a mudslinger. He announced his campaign at the MA Dem Issues Convention in Amherst in May 2007 with a hard-hitting, factual critique of Kerry’s Iraq war vote.  His campaign quickly broadened to include all the major MA Dem issues — single-payer health care, marriage equality, fair taxes — on all of which O’Reilly pointed out that Kerry refuses to support the Dem platform and resolutions.

      <

      p>That’s as basic and real as issues get. No mudslinging at all. Strange you wouldn’t see this….

      • as i said, i’m not in ma, so wouldn’t have heard any convention speeches.  all i know of him is what he’s said here, and how some of his supporter behave here.

        <

        p>i don’t care if you take or leave my comment.  it was given in good faith from an unaffiliated outsider.  although, being an outsider hasn’t prevented me from heavily criticizing kerry for his bigoted views on marriage equality.  i just thought you all should know how poorly the o’reilly campaign comes off in some people’s eyes.

    • Laurel, that doesn’t make sense for O’Reilly to pretend that Kerry is the hold up.  

      <

      p>If that were really the case all Kerry would have to do is say when he’s available for a debate.  Tell the public that he has told the O’Reilly campaign that he’s available on such and such date and the ball would be placed in O’Reilly’s camp then with no way to refute it.

      <

      p>And not to mention that I’ve spoken with the Kerry campaign and have been given the brush off (albeit a well mannered brush off, but one nonetheless) about scheduling a debate or forum.

    • Just curious, what makes you so interested in MA politics if you don’t live here?  

        • And what about my other post there?  If it were really the case that O’Reilly was lying, all Kerry would have to do is make it public when he wants a debate.  Since that hasn’t happened I find it highly unlikely that that is indeed the case.  And again, there’s also my experience with Kerry’s campaign directly.  Response?

          • i’m not engaging you in further debate.  i was just dropping off a friendly observation.  if you think i’m off-base, so be it.

            • You brought up your opinion on the situation, which is completely valid for you to hold.  However, I don’t think it holds much weight because if that were truly the case then it could be debunked quite easily by the Kerry campaign stating when they’re available for a debate.  It would make sense for them to do that (and I would welcome them to do so), but they haven’t.  

              <

              p>And I don’t take what you said as an endorsement for anyone.  However, I bring up a valid point that basically deconstructs your argument that “o’reilly has been disingenuously setting up kerry to look bad” because Kerry could disprove the notion he’s ducking debates if he wanted to by simply stating what date(s) he’s available.

              <

              p>Don’t reply if you don’t want to, but that just makes it seem as though you concede my point just fyi.  If there’s something I’m missing or misinterpreting please let me know, but I can’t fathom any reason why Kerry wouldn’t release that information if it were indeed the case.

              • If you don’t think it holds much weight, fine.

                <

                p>However, Laurel has had an account here since November 2006, she has been a frequent contributor.  She was around when the O’Reilly stuff first appeared here in June 2007. There was a small torrent of it with O’Reilly himself posting a lot. We welcomed you into our ranks on July 2 — just over a month ago. In some respects, then, she was a witness to those discussions and you were not. She was a witness to them when the candidate himself was posting and commenting.

                • That’s fine to think he’s a protest candidate.  I’m not arguing that point at all on whether he is or isn’t.

                  <

                  p>My issue is with the fact that it doesn’t make sense for O’Reilly to be lying.  If that were indeed the case then Kerry could simply call him out on it and say that he’s proposed to have a debate on such and such date.  That would effectively null and void O’Reilly’s argument.  He has not done that.

                  <

                  p>Oh, and nice diversion there!  You talk about how long each member has been on here, but not a single word about the substance of the argument that I brought up.

                  <

                  p>And Laurel can say “take it or leave it”.  I also have the right to point out that it seems as though she is merely conceding my point because she has no rebuttal to it.  Also, seeing as how this is a forum for debate I think it’s rather proper to give a reply to a valid point that is brought up.

                • You’re raising questions like, “Why is Laurel commenting?” “How much weight does her opinion have?” If you’re going to make metacomments like that, it’s surely legitimate to receive “metaresponses”.

                • Please don’t put words in my mouth.  I never stated or implied “Why is Laurel commenting?”

                  <

                  p>To the contrary I stated:

                  <

                  p>

                  You (referring to Laurel) brought up your opinion on the situation, which is completely valid for you to hold.  However, I don’t think it holds much weight because if that were truly the case then it could be debunked quite easily by the Kerry campaign stating when they’re available for a debate.

                  <

                  p>I stated that it was completely valid for her to have her own opinions, but I don’t think her argument there made sense and I gave rationale as to why.

                  <

                  p>As to: “How much weight does her opinion have?”  You’re trying to make it seem as though I attacked her which is further corroborated by the fact that you were posting about how long she has been here on BMG (which is a defense of character which implies that you thought I was trying to attack hers).  

                  <

                  p>What you stated there is completely misleading.  I never tried to attack her character as you seem to be trying to imply.  I didn’t think her argument, not her, that she was making held much weight and I gave valid reasons as to why I thought her argument did not hold up.

                • Words in peoples mouths?

                  And I don’t take what you said as an endorsement for anyone.  However, I bring up a valid point that basically deconstructs your argument that “o’reilly has been disingenuously setting up kerry to look bad” because Kerry could disprove the notion he’s ducking debates if he wanted to by simply stating what date(s) he’s available.

                  It wasn’t her argument; it was her impression that O’Reilly was disingenuous — and not on the topic of debates.

                  <

                  p>You answer almost every comment on this topic. You’re as prolific as Telemann and Schubert put together. Not everyone shares this passion. Please, Paul, let that be okay.

                  <

                  p>If you go back to the history of posts, you can verify that Laurel’s impression actually resembles comments she made at the time in mid 2007. On a number of those threads, I used the word “disingenuous” more than once.

                  <

                  p>And no, something got caught between the lines. I didn’t raise the longevity of Laurel to defend her against an attack. I raised it because she participated in discussions you didn’t and can have impressions you didn’t. Possibly there might be something to her impressions.

                  <

                  p>Maybe I should add that my opposition to the O’Reilly candidacy dates from those older exchanges. It was from what Ed O’Reilly himself wrote.

                • it does look like o’reilly has been disingenuously setting up kerry to look bad.

                  <

                  p>I did take it to mean on the topic of debates seeing as how this post is about that (and I see now that it can be taken either way actually).  She also did not state anything to the contrary when I presented an argument showing that it isn’t plausible that O’Reilly is lying because if it were Kerry could merely have stated what date(s) he was available. It sounded as though she had feelings about this guy from the past and so because of that, now in the present, in reference to debates, she doesn’t think he’s being genuine.  

                  <

                  p>And what does me posting comments on my own diary have to do with absolutely anything?  I responded to Laurel’s comment and a discussion ensued between her and I until you cut in.  In the future, if you have an argument to make, then make it and make it alone.  Don’t add in that snarky little comment about trying to compare people in a derogatory manner.

                  <

                  p>Listen, that’s fine to think O’Reilly is disingenuous or Kerry is disingenuous.  People are entitled to their own feeling about candidates.  I was talking however about the logic of actually lying in this instance of debates.  It does not make sense for O’Reilly to lie as Kerry’s campaign states because if that actually were the case then to disprove it all Kerry would have to do is say when he’s available.  And somehow that got lost through translation as that was the actual argument that I was trying to convey rather than what this has become.

                • I’m very interested in having some sort of debate between all the candidates so I may be a little biased since I support Cambridge Paul’s efforts here.

                  <

                  p>But I do think he brings up a damnn good point about the motives of lying and people seem to be evading that.  It does not seem to make a lot of sense to lie about the debates for the reasons he stated.  I totally agree that JK could just say when he did want to debate if he were telling the truth about EOR lying.

                  <

                  p>You don’t like EOR Kbush, but what’s your opinion on that issue he brings up?

                • is that the zero you gave me above constitutes ratings abuse and I wish you wouldn’t use zeroes, which are usually reserved for bigotry, personal attacks, and serious trolling, to express disagreement — even if passionate disagreement. I don’t even have a clue as what you disagreed with. I thought my comment was innocuous. Let’s not go there, though.

                  <

                  p>Also I’d appreciate having my handle correctly spelled. (You’re #6 this month to drop the “c”.)

                  I think that debates should be formally required in all elections.

                  <

                  p>However, I think that O’Reilly has been disingenuous, i.e., misleading, on a number of issues particularly on the FISA vote. I don’t like O’Reilly’s pushing the flip-flop meme, reraising Vietnam era questions about military records, and indulging in criticism of Kerry’s personality and motivations rather than actions. I stand by what I wrote back in June and July 2007: O’Reilly wasn’t convincing at all on his key issues: he was either not thought out or self-contradictory or disingenuous. From that I conclude, that a debate, while formally the right thing, is not going to be helpful in pushing the country in a positive, progressive direction.

                  <

                  p>I understand and sympathize with the frustration with Kerry. IMHO, he was a worse Senator in the eighties and nineties than he is now. He didn’t get a serious challenge then because we had Republicans back then.

                  <

                  p>I don’t understand the mechanics of the communications between the campaigns. If it is true that O’Reilly lacks a campaign manager for Kerry’s campaign manager to even call, I have to say that that is very odd. It is not hard to put together an argument that his inability to have a campaign manager indicates an unreadiness for Senate work.

                  <

                  p>Finally, I think this whole thing is consuming way too much attention.

                  <

                  p>That includes way too much attention from me.

                • As I believe someone may have mentioned in another one of the approximately 75,000 debate threads on BMG at the moment, for weeks Ed was insisting on speaking directly with Kerry about debates.

                  <

                  p>He flat out said that Roger Lau had contacted him but that he had written to Kerry and not Lau. Now for Ed to think that it was going to be him and Kerry who were going to hammer out the debate details is at best naive. It doesn’t work that way at the State Rep level; it sure as hell ain’t working that way for a US Senate race.

                  <

                  p>Demanding to speak with Kerry- and not leaving the negotiations to campaign staff- certainly seems like political posturing and fits in with most of the anti-Kerry themes of Ed’s campaign. And it seems very reasonable to assume that Ed’s demand to speak directly with Kerry- a position he seemed to hold to for several weeks- played a role in the current situation. To me, it’s another example of Ed’s bipolar campaign- demand to be taken seriously and then turn around and act like a complete and total political novice.

                  <

                  p>Or it could just be that Ed doesn’t even have a campaign manager anymore. Most of his paid staffers did abandon ship months ago.  

                • political posturing?  Perhaps/probably.  He was trying to point out the issue of inaccessibility that many people feel with regards to Senator Kerry.  

                  <

                  p>Regardless though, it doesn’t take long to schedule a debate or forum.  And O’Reilly wasn’t the only one calling for them.  Many constituents have as well and these calls have been going on for more than 2 months now, with the strongest calls in the past 3 weeks.

                  <

                  p>Even the media is noticing and they aren’t buying it either.

                  <

                  p>

                  First it was an allegedly torrid Senate summer schedule that Kerry said made it impossible for him even to think about debating his Democratic primary opponent, Edward O’Reilly, before the Sept. 16 election.

                  O’Reilly, a Gloucester attorney, had asked Kerry for a series of 23 debates in public forums and television appearances. That’s obviously excessive, but wouldn’t one or two be a good compromise?

                  Apparently not. Roger Lau, Kerry’s campaign manager, said on July 28 that Kerry couldn’t even discuss debates until he knew when the Senate would recess.

                  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.”

                • He can’t use the “I want to talk to Kerry and no one else” for weeks and dismiss the Kerry campaign’s offer to have the campaign managers meet to score political points and then suddenly expect his opponent to take his demands seriously.

                  <

                  p>Ed had weeks to have his campaign sit down with Kerry’s campaign and negotiate (and Ed’s ridiculous initial demands made negotiations absolutely essential) but he refused to do so. To score political points. Who knows- if Ed hadn’t played politics early, a debate or debates could already be scheduled.

                  <

                  p>If you’re familiar with Ed and his style- like sponsoring a float of Kerry windsurfing in a local parade- it’s clear that he has absolutely no qualms saying or doing whatever is necessary to score cheap political points.  

                • link.

                  <

                  p>found it using this gizmo called “the google”.  mccain is right, this thing’s magic!  give it a try, paul! ;D

                • Hysterical. (sarcasm)

                  <

                  p>Anyways, I think it’s been pretty well established on here that when people make certain assertions they’re expected to provide a link.

                  <

                  p>And I didn’t know about that.  That’s a pretty low move.

                • yeah, that’s pretty much the case.  but everyone forgets them from time to time, or is just too rushed or lazy (that would be me sometimes) in include them.  in any case, masshole answered your call.  all’s well that ends well?

                • He’s showing that image and running in a Democratic primary. How large is the masochist vote, one wonders?

                • Paul, I live to make people happy. From the article on Ed in MA Lawyers Weekly. You can also find the article at http://www.edoreilly.com, proudly displayed on the front page. Paul, is this someone you trust to represent your interests in the U.S. Senate? 

                  <

                  p>

                  Though not nearly as scandalous as the Beverly Farms Horribles Parade, which made national headlines earlier this month by lampooning teen pregnancy, Edward J. O’Reilly’s float in neighboring Gloucester’s 4th of July parade raised a few eyebrows nonetheless. O’Reilly, a criminal defense lawyer and first-ever Democratic challenger to U.S. Sen. John Kerry, enlisted a friend to rig a windsurfing board to the back of a truck. Blowing in the breeze was a sail with the word “Flip” on one side and “Flop” on the other, while a figure wearing a John Kerry mask and T-shirt balanced on the board. “People were yelling at him, giving him the finger,” O’Reilly recalls a week after the parade. “It was great!”

                • issue is that the people need to be making up their own minds on that for both candidates.  

                • But I don't think informing people about the candidates is a bad thing. I would politely offer as information what former O'Reilly supporters lolorb (RIP) and Peter Vickery have to say about Ed's progressive credentials.

                  Actually, I don't want to hijack this debate debate thread. Looks like I need to write something for derrico to get fired up about.

                • A forum would certainly help that along however.

                  <

                  p>As to:

                  <

                  p>

                  But I don’t think informing people about the candidates is a bad thing.

                  <

                  p>lol, I would certainly hope not!  I actually take it one step further and think it’s a good think.

                • While he was busy campaigning on Nantucket, one of the coeds hanging out with Kerry was sucking a beverage through a phallus-shaped straw. Completely ridiculous that he can’t make time to debate O’Reilly.  

                • that the more I read from EOR and his supporters, the less I believe.  Moving the coeds from a photo-op to an entourage makes EOR look worse, not Kerry. Add in the float, the silly “chicken kerry” post, EOR’s refusal to meet with Kerry staffers, and EOR’s behavior on this blog, and Kerry’s refusal to debate with EOR starts to make sense.  He’s just not a credible candidate.

                • The Kerry TMZ pictures were debunked long, long ago. You may have missed all the stories on what really happened when you were cutting and pasting editorials you wrote 4 years ago for another newspaper and trying to pass them off as new.

                  <

                  p>Here’s the link to a story from the Nantucket newspaper in which some of the girls in the photos explain Kerry’s completely innocent role in the pictures.

                  <

                  p>http://www.ack.net/073108Kerry…

                  <

                  p>

                  The girls said they called to Kerry from the boat, the name and owner of which they didn’t remember, asking to take a photo with him. He agreed, and several of them climbed onto the dock to pose for pictures with the junior senator and 2004 presidential candidate, who’s seeking reelection to his fifth term in the Senate this November.

                  “He was professional,” said one of the girls who agreed to an interview at The Inquirer and Mirror Wednesday on the condition she remain anonymous. “There wasn’t anything inappropriate about it at all. He didn’t make any lewd comments. He was just being nice, taking some pictures with his fans. It lasted maybe five minutes, then he went on his way and we went back to the boat.”

                  <

                  p>In the immortal words of Mike McDermott- Are you satisfied now, Tony? Because I can keep busting you up all night if you like.  

                • … for better or worse as campaigns go, Ed has consistently rejected efforts to get him a manager. He is used to running a solo practice and he doesn’t like being ‘handled.’ Some people say this is a fatal flaw for a politician. Some people say it is a measure of how real the grass-roots label is for Ed’s campaign.

                  <

                  p>As for paid staffers, my impression (that’s all I have since I am no longer treasurer, having turned that volunteer [!] position over to another volunteer) is that may be slightly more paid staffers now than earlier, for whatever that’s worth to your argument.

                • I think you’re reading with way too much haste. I cannot possibly straighten all this out. We’ve reached the right margin.

      • So I wouldn’t be too skeptical of her posts. I actually do see her PoV on EOR, though I’m convinced that there’s no ‘right answer’ in this election. I don’t know what I think about it at all, which is why I’ve mostly stayed out. I think I’m going to maintain that to election day, not getting involved with either campaign.  

        • she did mean what she said in good faith.  And I can see her point of view on O’Reilly especially in regards to the float he made.  However, I was trying to make a distinction from that topic and was actually trying to talk about how it wouldn’t make sense for O’Reilly to lie (this was the argument I was refuting) because it could be easily debunked by Kerry, if that’s what happened.  That was all.

  3. The NECN interview can be seen here.

    <

    p>It is quite obvious, to this observer at least, that Kerry campaign is dragging its feet. O’Reilly has an interest in debating, Kerry does not (although he has an interest in appearing as though he is not ducking one).

    <

    p>And check out this garbage:

    <

    p>

    “We’d like to have a conversation rather than litigating this through the media in a cheap ploy for attention,” O’Rourke said. “But every day that this character invokes the smears of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and channels the Massachusetts GOP in his personal attacks, you wonder more and more whether his campaign is based on anything but character assassination.”

    <

    p>Maybe Kerry campaign can explain why being a litigator is so offensive? And if they are in fact being honest, this problem would be easily solved by setting up a time and a date themselves.  

    • would this be the same “character” that duped about a fifth of the democrats at the state convention to support his candidacy?

      <

      p>

    • And if they are in fact being honest, this problem would be easily solved by setting up a time and a date themselves.

      <

      p>Spot on, you’re absolutely right.  It does not make sense.

  4. or a duck?  You make both allegations.  Logic tells me that you can’t be both a chicken and a duck.

  5. What next, a guy in a chicken suit?

    <

    p>Look, that’s a cliche, and cliches are simply too easy to ignore.

    <

    p>Also, calling Kerry a coward recalls the whole Swift boat smear, which your guy has unfortunately entangled himself in once too many times already.

    <

    p>I really would prefer (a) if incumbents would debate their challengers and barring that (b) if they payed some political price for not doing so.

    <

    p>So please drop this stupid chicken thing. It makes you more ignorable, not less. There are lots more effective (and honest) lines you could take.

    • and will make a reappearance in the next few weeks…

      <

      p>

      I really would prefer (a) if incumbents would debate their challengers and barring that (b) if they payed some political price for not doing so.

      <

      p>I agree- the chicken is one way- albeit not the only way- to accomplish (b).  

      • Don’t let up and definitely post more as the time draws closer.  This is not right what he’s doing.

        <

        p>Funny thing is I was going to vote for JK, but then I started reading articles on the lack of debates.  Debates are so fundamental to democracy.  It’s really saddening.  

    • this tactic has been used in the past by none other than Bob of this very blog in a post titled “Lynch Joins Galvin in the Chicken House”.  

      <

      p>

      Incumbent Congressperson, and chicken, Stephen Lynch has joined incumbent (anyone notice a similarity) Secretary of State, and chicken, William Galvin in BMG’s Royal Coop (stage right). Lynch apparently doesn’t have what it takes to fulfill one of the most basic requirements for public office: the ability to defend one’s positions in open debate. Even George W. Bush and Healey pal Dick Cheney could manage that. Galvin suffers from the same weakness. The condition is closely related to Incumbentus Entitlitis sydrome, 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>And I’ve made the serious posts.  I’ve called their campaign.  However, it’s getting way past due now with just a few weeks left and still no word of a debate.  

    • The picture illustrates a point that JK is “ducking” a debate.  It’s pretty obvious what their doing cause I’ve also called and asked for a debate to be put on.  They gave me the runaround and it did not seem as though one would happen.  We the people want and deserve a debate with all of the candidates running.  

    • I didn’t realize that you actually did the chicken-suit thing.

      <

      p>Go ahead, have a ball. The shark is jumped, the die is cast.

      <

      p>You’ve done the “duck” pun, too, I see. Don’t forget to condemn Kerry’s fowl play!  

    • has long been the symbol of ducking debates on BMG – just google chicken, lynch and bluemassgroup, or look for old posts on everyone’s favorite sec. of state, william galvin (though, I must say he’s improved on the issues since his primary!)

  7. Via Wicked Local Belmont

    <

    p>Be fair warned, it’s a tough op-ed.  I don’t agree with their tactics of mentioning the fact that Kerry windsurfs, but anyways it’s showing that more and more people are getting frustrated with Kerry dodging debates.

    • I think it is OK to note that he windsurfs. It was supposed to be funny. Oh well. That said, it needed to be done. Kerry should debate O’Reilly, simple as that. I don’t know what he is afraid of.  

Archives