Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

O’Reilly-Kerry Debate would reveal Kerry is not a Massachusetts Democrat!

By

2) Withdrawal from Iraq: The Massachusetts Democratic Party  supports the withdrawal of all U.S. Armed Forces, contractors and sub-contractors; closing of bases; reorganization of reconstruction activities; promotion of a United Nations-led peacekeeping mission; and limiting of U.S. funding to withdrawal and consultations with the Iraqi Government and other governments. Party Resolution

Ed O’Reilly supports the MA Dem position. John Kerry enabled the Iraq invasion.

3) Marriage Equality: MA Dems affirm a commitment to the Massachusetts constitutional guarantee to same-sex marriage; and all of its rights, privileges and obligations; and reject any attempt to weaken or revoke those rights. Platform

Ed O’Reilly is a firm supporter of marriage equality. John Kerry said the MA Dem commitment to marriage equality was a mistake.

4) Fair Taxes: The MA Dem Platform supports tax equity. Platform

Ed O’Reilly strongly criticized the Democratic failure to close the hedge fund tax loophole in 2007. John Kerry refused to support closing the hedge fund tax loophole, suggesting the hedge funds be given a ten-year grace period before the loophole is closed.  

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. 2 to something like “Authorization of Iraq War”.  Absolutely John Kerry helped us get into Iraq when he was trying to seem tough on national defense and voted to Authorize the War in Iraq.  You do state that “Kerry enabled the Iraq invasion”, but some may read the title and think you are trying to imply that Kerry is opposed to Iraq withdrawal now when he’s actually changed his stance on that.

    <

    p>Nice post and these are some big issues.  They are in our Massachusetts Democratic Party platform and they are at odds with many of John Kerry’s positions as you have pointed out.

    <

    p>Oh, and not only does John Kerry not support marriage equality (even though he has no constitutional or logical arguments against it), he actually supported a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality just a few year ago.  And this opposition softened recently when O’Reilly challenged him, but the Senator still does not support marriage equality.

    • … is, first of all, Kerry’s vote to authorize the invasion; second, his various wafflings thereafter as he tried to catch up to the polls against the war; third, his  ongoing wafflings on related issues: for example — troop leave-time and maximum deployment; Iran policy.

      <

      p>Your added info on marriage equality emphasizes similar behavior: straddling every issue, afraid to take a stand, always following poll changes.

      <

      p>Kerry does not represent Massachusetts Democrats. He is embarrassed to be from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He won’t be able to camouflage this in a face-to-face debate with Ed O’Reilly.

  2. You cite Kerry’s 2004 platform in his opposition to single-payer health care.

    <

    p>Has he since “updated” his views?

    <

    p>His campaign site seems to suggest that he supports universal healthcare for children, but does not mention healthcare for all.

    <

    p>Seems like a honest question to ask at a debate.  

    • … and 2007 in a statement entitled “Health care for all Americans”:

      What I put forward in 2004 works. It was a good plan then, and it’s a good plan now.

      <

      p>The URL for this statement http://www.johnkerry.com/2006/7/31/health-care-for-all-americans is now redirected to the Kerry home page. This change happened shortly after O’Reilly’s website criticized Kerry’s opposition to single-payer last year.

      <

      p>BTW, notice that “health care for all” is not the same as “single-payer health care.” Several schemes that protect the insurance industry masquerade under the “for all” label.

      <

      p>The real thing is what real Dems have fought for since Harry Truman proposed it 60 years ago (!) as a continuation of the New Deal.

      <

      p>It’s an honest question and a vital one.

      • Very interesting about the url change!  A lot of changes seemed to have happened right when O’Reilly challenged him.

        • When Kerry was running against Weld, didn’t they have something like eight or nine debates? And I certainly remember Kerry calling for weekly (and then monthly) debates with Bush in 2004. What has changed now?

          <

          p>John Kerry is laughing at us all – we should return the favor on September 16th by voting for O’Reilly.

          • And Bill Weld was a siting Governor, elected by the voters of Massachusetts. By that standard he earned the debates.

            <

            p>Debates against a creditable candidate seem reasonable, challenges from a candidate who has never received a vote statewide only make great campaign theater.

            <

            p>John Kery is making town hall and other campaign stops talking to voters. Given the choice I’d rather have John Kerry talking with and listening to voters then helping his opponent get TV face time.

            <

            p>John Kerry has a responsibility to talk with and even debate voters not his opponent.

            <

            p>Disclaimer – my union has endorsed JK and is working hard for his re-election

            • to a forum?  And he simply doesn’t reply.

              <

              p>

              Well, Kerry’s not coming to Holliston, either
              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.

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

              <

              p>The guy earned a spot on the ballot.  The people have 2 choices, not one.  Kerry owes it to the people to debate his opponent so they can see the differences between the two of them.  And that stonewalling is exactly why Kerry is being called out by the media.

              <

              p>And what do you have to say to forums?  John Kerry is ignoring those calls too.  Town hall style forums are there so that the people can get involved and air their concerns with the candidates running.  

            • Take a moment and read this quote from a book that focused on the Kerry-Weld election:

              <

              p>

              … debates … inherently limit undesirable behavior. Being on stage together, candidates must take personal responsibility for their negative comments, anonymity is impossible, excesses are inhibited by the norms of face-to-face dialogue, and critical comments can be immediately refuted. Content analysis has shown that debates emphasize policy discussion rather than tactical or personal material, an aid to electoral judgment.

              <

              p>From: Negative Campaigning: An Analysis of U.S. Senate Elections, by Richard R. Lau & Gerald M. Pomper (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004) , p. 100. Google Books excerpt

              <

              p>In comparison to the machine tactics at the Convention that allowed Kerry and his people over 1 hour (!) past the supposed 15 minute time limit, here’s what the authors say about debates:

              <

              p>

              Structurally, debates also offer the great advantage of giving each candidate exactly the same amount of time, providing the electorate with equal access to in information — negative and positive — on each candidate.

              <

              p>The authors add that debates

              … might also encourage more relatively qualified opposition candidates to enter even “hopeless” races in one party states, promoting greater public awareness and, quite possibly, greater electoral competition.

              <

              p>Your union might be working for Kerry, but my guess is it was a decision by the cozy leadership and not by the rank and file. Everywhere Ed O’Reilly talks to union members, they like him and his message. If you want to reject a real union man in favor of a pretender, that’s your choice. But your pretender doesn’t support MA Dem principles. If he wins again, you won’t have to wonder when he forgets about you for another six years.

            • is what JFK is.  Whether he thinks O’Reilly is credible or not…he should have a debate instead of having his surrogates come up with lame ass excuses for him.  

              <

              p>First we heard how busy he was, and that he couldn’t possibly think about debates until the budget was settled…

              <

              p>then we heard that the ball was actually in O’Reilly’s court, and that it was O’Reilly’s unwillingness to work with Kerry’s people that delayed the debate.  

              <

              p>Now you’re telling us that Mr. O’Reilly is not a “credible” candidate allegedly because he hasn’t received a vote statewide before and that Senator Kerry’s time is better spent meeting with voters…except as it has been pointed out, he’s not making it out to a scheduled candidate’s night.  

              <

              p>Hmmmmmmm.  So let’s be clear.  Only constitutional office holders are “credible?”  You’re suggesting that only – the Governor, Lt. Governor, Treasurer, Secretary and the Auditor are considered credible?  What if….a Congressman challenged Kerry?  Would that be credible?  How about a state rep?

              <

              p>My disclaimer: I am a Democrat and a voter in this state who actually believes that all incumbents should be regularly challenged to keep them honest.  I also believe that all candidates for office should engage the public through debates, candidate nights, coffee hours, etc.    

          • From Wikipedia – United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 1996:

            On November 29, 1995, Governor Bill Weld announced his candidacy for the Senate seat occupied by Senator Kerry with a formal announcement on March 27, 1996. The first debate between Weld and Kerry was held in Faneuil Hall on April 8 with a second debate held on June 3. A third debate was held at the Emerson Majestic Theater on July 2. The Weld and Kerry campaigns agreed to eight debates and a spending cap of $6.9 million negotiated at Senator Kerry’s Beacon Hill mansion on August 7; Senator Kerry later mortgaged his Beacon Hill mansion to raise funds in October. On the same day the spending cap was agreed upon, Governor Weld jumped into the Charles River after signing a bill and spoke at the 1996 Republican National Convention on August 14 before debating Senator Kerry again on August 19. Senator Kerry spoke at the 1996 Democratic National Convention and debated Governor Weld again on September 16.

            <

            p>From The New York Times 14 March 2004 – Kerry Asks Bush for Monthly Debates Until Election Day:

            <

            p>

            …the senator invoked his own campaign experience in 1996, when he and Gov. William F. Weld held eight debates across Massachusetts. Those debates are credited with helping Mr. Kerry win after he had fallen behind Mr. Weld in polls.

            ”When I first decided to do it, I wondered if voters could actually withstand and endure the cruel and unusual punishment of having to listen to two politicians for that long,” Mr. Kerry said. But, he added, ”by the time voters went to the polls, everyone knew where we stood and what we would do.”

            <

            p>I say it again: what’s at stake in this election is the soul of MA Democratic principles. Will MA Dems vote for their own principles?

            <

            p>It’s obvious to me, this time around Kerry does not want voters to know where he and Ed O’reilly stand and what they would do.

    • Yes – would be a good question to ask in a debate if Kerry would agree to debate O’Reilly. What world is Kerry living in? Get back to Massachusetts and debate!

        • … in what Magic Darts wrote:

          would be a good question to ask in a debate if Kerry would agree to debate O’Reilly. What world is Kerry living in? Get back to Massachusetts and debate!

          <

          p>”stories about him in town at events” is not debate. They are scripted friendly events that don’t provide anything like a debate, as quoted from the book about another Kerry campaign:

          <

          p>

          Structurally, debates also offer the great advantage of giving each candidate exactly the same amount of time, providing the electorate with equal access to in information — negative and positive — on each candidate.

          <

          p>Voters deserve and need debate, especially when serious issues and a significant political seat are at stake.

Archives