Our own James Carroll:
The site of the nightmare from which America found it so difficult to awaken is becoming a place in which tourists sleep; the unlikely friendship of two American politicians made it possible. “John Kerry and John McCain did a noble service to this country,” Senator Kennedy told me. “I know that kind of talk doesn’t ring any bells anymore, but it’s true. A noble service.” In Vietnam, they are revered as the men who ended the war. And the most potent symbol of the new era is what has become of the Hanoi Hilton. As for the hotel replacing the prison, McCain told me, “When I saw it, they asked me what I thought. I said, ‘I hope room service is better than it was when I was here.’ ” ?
http://www.newyorker.com/archi…
I like the way the Phoenix sums it up.
John Kerry, once again, deserves the Democratic Party’s nomination. Kerry’s experience is just too strong to be discounted. His experience in national and international affairs is unmatched in Massachusetts by anyone other than his senior Senate colleague, Ted Kennedy.
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/N…
As chair fo the Small Business Committee he has been proactive in making sure both minority and women’s interests are represented. These endorsements how whose side he is on:
“One is Sen. John F. Kerry, who has been unerringly right on the issues. His voting record on issues of importance to African Americans has earned him a 100 percent “A” rating from the NAACP.” (Bay State Banner 9/3/08)
National Organization for Women’s PAC: “Senator Kerry’s record of support for women’s rights legislation is extraordinary and NOW is proud to support his campaign for re-election,” said Kim Gandy, NOW President.
(Kerry press release, 9/12/2008)
Multiple endorsements from Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Nurses Association, Firefighters, Massachusetts AFL-CIO, building trades, service employees locals, teachers and communications workers unions is pretty defacto evidence that he is the strongest candidate for Massachusetts working people.
He was endorsed by the Boston Globe and I do have a small disagreement with the statement in their endorsement:
Kerry tends to return to glory days that only the most dedicated political buff would recall: his role chairing hearings into the darkly twisted BCCI banking scandal, or drug trafficking by Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega.
I would like to see Kerry return to those days more, as the players in Iran-Contra and BCCI are on the loose in the Bush administration and their allies.
He gets deserved attention for riding for the Pan Mass Challenge, for his work for disabled veterans, and for his advocacy for stem cell research. One of the best kept secrets in Mass is his ongoing dedication to a progressive approach to working with people with developmental disabilities. This is where the support for Kerry becomes personal for me. While most people know about this riding for the Pan Mass/Jimmy Fund charity he also rides for the Best Buddies – a program dedicated to integrating people with disabilities into normal society.
http://www.bestbuddies.org/sit…
(Mark Shields/CNN, 1/24/2005)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOL…
Let me tell you about a John Kerry much different from that glib stereotype. Seven years ago, Kerry personally recruited Brendan O’Donnell, then 19, to become an intern in his Senate office in Washington. Senate internships are coveted positions, often reserved for the children of well-connected or deep-pocketed campaign donors. Brendan O’Donnell’s mother, Kathryn, was an honored elementary teacher and a widow. Her husband and Brendan’s father, Kirk, was an enormously talented lawyer-politician had died unexpectedly the previous September. In the cold calculus of power, neither Brendan O’Donnell nor his family could do anything politically for John Kerry or anybody else.
What I forgot to mention is that Brendan is learning disabled. In 1999, he explained his condition this way in a statement John Kerry later quoted on the Senate floor: “I think there should be a different name for learning disabilities … to me, it’s not a disability — it’s just that I have something which causes a storm in my mind. When I look at something, I have to take my time and take it all in.” But take it in he does, performing all his assigned tasks in the Senate office with enthusiasm and dispatch.
Don’t try to tell Brendan O’ Donnell that his boss, Sen. John Kerry, is aloof, self-absorbed or emotionally detached. He knows better. Brendan once spoke about individuals with learning disabilities: “We are the same as everyone else, and if someone takes the time to teach us, to work with us, and to help us understand, we can do whatever we want.” He is right, and Sen. John Kerry has cared enough personally to take that time. Sorry if that shatters your stereotype like it shattered mine.
My wife and I do adult foster care (an inadequate phrase if there ever was one) for a man with major developmental disabilities and John Kerry seeks him out at events, chats with him — no pictures he banters, and treats him as an equal — proof of a basic decency that rarely gets reported in the press.
Speaking of the press: I liked Yvonne Abraham’s column, which could be taken a couple ways pro and con. I read it as mostly positive –in fact the negative attention that Kerry has received in the Mass press over the years reinforces my support.
Yvonne Abraham gets it: “You’re John Kerry, and you’re running for US Senate. But even though you’ll win, you can’t win. And for no good reason.”
http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
My inner “I never had a dinner” Jerry Williams voice is pleased.
I appreciate the grassroots work I have seen at web sites like Kerryvision and others although I dont really have time to look at them very much
I remember meeting Kristen of Kerryvision for the first time after a Kerry speech and shared her disgust at the way Kerry was being either ignored or demeaned in the media. She put her frustration to work to document whatever she could –gotta hand it to her –It is the Kerry that you dont get to see or hear in media http://www.kerryvision.net/
I could go on about net neutrality, KBR government contracts, children’s health care etc but disabilities and media spin are my pet issues today.
Bottom line is that are lucky to have Kerry.
I remember the day we got our Boston Herald-Traveler with a sensational front page picture of Kerry protesting the Vietnam War. My late father, a somewhat cynical WW-2 Silver Star and purple heart decorated Marine said, “He’s telling them to go f— themselves. Good for him.”
Thank you for the story of Brendan O’Donnell, and the man you and your wife care for, and what Kerry has done for them.
<
p>I agree with you that John Kerry is under appreciated. He isn’t perfect and I’m sure all of his supporters (and family and friends) have winced on occasion at a statement or position – but then I can’t name anyone who is perfect, and certainly not in Washington. I think John Kerry is better than most, and MA is just too darn spoiled (or obstinate) to recognize it.
grudge capital of the world. One day after work I told someone at work (someone with long connections to State House and City Hall) that I took our roommate to see a John Kerry speech and that he always waves to him. In typical jaded Mass manner she says “Wuz dere a camera around for a photo-op?”
What an awesome personal endorsement. (I think I would have liked to meet your dad!)
you know first hand.
himself at the speech. He really was excited at having seen the Senator.
and the most underrated politician in the Democratic Party.
He has my strong support (including my vote!) on Sept. 16 and Nov. 4, for his physical and moral courage; the way he went RIGHT back to work for our country, with renewed energy, despite (or even because of ) the tragic outcome of the Nov. 2004 race; for his continuing commitment to veterans, to small business, and to the environment; for his gutsy and effective support of Obama; and for his integrity, his class, and his commitment to veterans, taking our country back.
<
p>Thanks, cadmium, for the great post, especially for the Brendan O’Donnell/Mark Shields story, and for the stories of your family. (I’d like to have known your dad, too!)
John Kerry is promising heating assistance in his latest ad. Again, the Worcester Telegram runs ANOTHER story dismissing his claim.
<
p>http://www.telegram.com/articl…
<
p>If he has to break out the lies to Beat Ed O’Reilly… How bad are they going to be for November if he faces Jeff Beatty?
I guess it is related to the unfair treatment Kerry gets in the media.
I lived in Worcester for 10 yrs. Telegram never liked him.
Worcester Telegram doesn’t Kerry= media bias.
Gloucester paper supports Kerry= break out the trumpets.
It still doesn’t negate the fact that Kerry is currently lying. WHY IS HE LYING? We’re not that stupid! At least I’m not. I’m proud to be unenrolled.
Kerry is a pompous Washington insider. The epitome of what is wrong with our legislative branches in MA and DC.
… spent dealing face-to-face with a statistically significant number of Washington insiders and those who work in our legislative branches in MA and DC at meaningful political/legislative/media-relations levels over the years, yes, billxi?
<
p>And that’s why we are supposed to give your pontifications particular credence when you post them here because, hey, you obviously know a whole lot more about a lot more of this stuff than any of the rest of us do, yes, billxi?
<
p>Givest thou unto us a break, sirrah. That’s a mighty puny little dog you’ve got there at your heels, and it for dang sure won’t hunt any more here than it does anywhere else.
I would have thought they would have to be from MA.
<
p>I have seen Kerry several times at speeches and at a couple of book tour events, he not the least pompous – very much the opposite.
<
p>You might want to reread what Cadmium wrote here. His diary is a very personal real truthful statement that he defends brilliantly. You, however, simply write a 5 word sentence based on apparently nothing – and you think Beatty is good – yeah, a man who takes his pathetic van outside a welcome home for servicemen Classy, that.
Billxi, Try living in a red state as I do and wishing that we had such a strong progressive voice like John Kerry.
<
p>I have to laugh at your “pompous Washington insider” inuendo, I mean please, it was John Kerry who was shunned by the D.C. insiders for investigating corruption ( Iran-Contra – BCCI) those even in the Dem party. So please you are all hat and no cattle just like Ed O’Reilly.
<
p>I know you will say, well you need to butt out, you are not a Mass. resident. Well my reply, I may not be a Mass. resident but I am and always will be a John Kerry supporter and will always have his back. We need John Kerry in the Senate, we need his strong leadership on issues such as Iraq, Energy, Enviroment, Healthcare… I could go on and on.
<
p>You are the epitome of what is wrong with the extreme left, you don’t know a good thing when you have it. So keep calling names, and continue on with your worthless rhetoric, in the end the good people of Mass. will choose the man that not only is good for Mass. but good for the country and its future.
<
p>
But I allow you the floor to say it. Am I an extreme left winger? If I lived in a state that was as red as MA is blue, I’d probably be a democrat. I just dislike absolute power. We know the old saying.
He stated the amount of funding they have and was working to increase it. This is a program funded every year.
In his ad, Kerry states “He has gotten” the aid already. That is a lie.
Dianne Wilkerson
Ed Augustus
John Binienda
Paul Kujawski.
Dick Moore
Jim Marzilli
Just for starters. If this is honest true etc. no wonder ewe’re in the hole we’re in. Be real.
Read Masshole’s post which explains it better than I can. It is not a lie and it is work done recently – that is identical to what he has done each year for many years.
Joe Kennedy, Hugo Chavez, and the wonderful people of Venezuela were responsible. Never heard a whit about John Kerry. Please read my references previously stated. I know, if its not cheering democrats, its media bis.
The joke is that he thinks that with his experience in the invasion of Grenada and his various endeavors with his security company he can beat Kerry on National Security.
<
p>He apparently doesn’t get that:
<
p>1) Kerry helped close down OBL’s bank, BCCI – which likely reduced what they could do for years.
<
p>2) Kerry wrote the legislation that is used to “follow the money” – one of the best tools against non-state terrorism. He couldn’t get it passed over Republican and some Democratic objections until after 911. Kerry wrote of the danger of non-state terrorism in 1997.
<
p>3) Last month, General Gates in a recent Pentagon report spoke of the approach needed to deal with non-state terrorism. Many articles spoke of how similar it sounded to what Kerry was saying in 2004. On this too, Kerry was prescient. Here is General Gate’s quote
<
p>
<
p>Not to mention the entire Grenada war was shorter than the time the Republicans felt was too short for Lt Kerry to be in Vietnam (Not to mention, the medals that Beatty makes so much about on his web site and which he apparently wears at times are less prestigious than either of Senator Kerry’s medals.
<
p>Not to mention he is a very recent resident of Massachusetts, having moved here in 2006. Not to mention, I hear he grew up a Yankee fan!
MoneyTalk show last year. He ranted about Kerry (unclear his complaint) and how he was running against him. You could tell Brinker wasnt listening and as he was hanging up he said “Thank you for calling Money Talk. Good luck in your race in Rhode Island.” Ogonowski, on the other hand may have been a very difficult opponent.
Ogonowski was slicked but he lost by a decent margin to Nikki Tsongus in a conservative Massachusetts district – Kerry likely could best that in Tsongus’ district and beat him more in the rest of the state.
coverage. Our commercial radio in Mass is really conservative. He was a frequent guest on Tom Finneran’s show (a democrat) who likes him. He could have played his military knowledge (didnt count for much against Tsongas) and played on anti-immigration sentiment. He also would have had the Republican establishment behind him to coach him on Palin-style energy talking points. He would never be able to keep up with Kerry on economic issues. I never take right-wing radio darlings lightly.
Give me a break, billxi.
<
p>So your guy, Jeff Beatty, what does he do today? He pulls up the Beatty mobile outside the DCU center today and proceeds to play politics with the 300 soldiers returning from Iraq. Passing out pamphlets and what not. Spare me your outrage and tell your guy to stop playing politics with veterans.
<
p>And to your point about LIHEAP, this is a website about politics so I come here expecting most people to have at least a basic understanding of how politics work. Kerry has secured more money for MA in the last few months and in the next few weeks, once the Senate takes up the CR regarding LIHEAP, there will be more money for MA.
<
p>Finally, Jeff Beatty is a goon with no chance of winning in November whose campaign does a jig every time PolitickerMA posts one of their laugh out loud press releases. Go post on redmassgroup.com– oh shoot, sorry, they hate Jeff Beatty too. (as do Republicans across America- how’s that fundraising going, billxi?)
Do you know what he did afterward? He visited me in the hospital. No cameras, no reporters, no tv commercial. I want a man that as my next senator.
He’s a good man.
John Kerry recieved a very warm welcome at the International Festival in Peabody on Sunday at about 4:00 p.m. John was greeted by thousands folks attending the street festical.
<
p>The people kept encouraging John to work for us in Washington and help get Barack Obama elected!
<
p>Folks said we need a Democratic administration in the White House!
<
p>Yes we can!
<
p>
Eat too much though. Kerry really seems to be having fun going to these things–judging by the Newburyport breakfast and Noisydemocrat’s videos.
<
p> I heard that festival has good Greek food. Is the Fortune Palace still in Peabody? That was a fantastic restaurant.
Sorry to tell you, but Fortune Palace closed a while back.
<
p>However, the good news is that it was replaced by a fantastic Vietnamese restaurant named Sawgrass. Sawgrass has awesome luncheon specials for seven-bucks.
<
p>Also, downtown Peabody has a great Brazilian restauant, Fire Bull. A fantastic pizza place and Italian restaurant, Gallo Nero. Another awesome Italian restaurant, Petrillo’s.
<
p>And many other great places to eat. Downtown Peabody is my little secret, but the word is getting out.
<
p>
…and having seen Senator Kerry interacting with them on a multiple occasions, both public and private, I can certainly second Mark Shields’ belated but accurate reassessment of what the longtime junior Senator from Massachusetts is actually like when he’s not being dissed by myopic members of the media (and/or, alas, some of the at times even more myopic members of his extendeded constituency here in the Bay State).
<
p>And, like cadmium and many others who post here, I will continue to be very proud to cast my vote for Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts again this year. You can definitely include me in on that electoral headcount, BMG.
I really learned a lot from reading your post and appreciate it.
n/m
The Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus (MGLPC)did NOT endorse John Kerry for Senate.
<
p>The MGLPC, headed by Arline Isaacson, is arguably THE LGBT organization in Massachusetts which not only has been advocating and lobbying for LGBT rights for over 20 years but was the force behind marriage equality here in Massachusetts.
<
p>The “Caucus” did not endorse John Kerry for Senate. I received a personal email from Arline Isaacson on this.
At least some LGBT has balls!
I would have thought that if they had endorsed anyone not-Kerry, you would say so. So unless you clarify, I will assume that they simply did not endorse anyone for the MA US Senate race. Perhaps they don’t see Congressional endorsements as in their purview?
The Caucus chose a non-endorsement of that Senatorial race. And this is why…one and only one question was fielded to leadership in the Caucus by the those voting on endorsements regarding John Kerry. That question was, “can you once and for all explain what John Kerry’s role was during the Constitutional Conventions?”
<
p>The answer directly from Isaacson was, “John Kerry had been ‘counter-productive.'”
<
p>The Caucus chose not to endorse.
what question was asked about O’Reilly, what were the responses and why did the Caucus also find him wanting?
<
p>It’s fine if you want to report that they didn’t endorse Kerry. But is is a distortion to not also report on their conclusions regarding O’Reilly. Why not lay all the cards on the table?
was that to clarify the distortions of the record of a State Senator during the marriage issue in his home state.
<
p>We have all been hearing that John Kerry was a big help during the same-sex marriage fight–mostly from the Kerry campaign itself. I guess the fact that voting members wanted clarification and seemed to have gotten it from the person who led the fight sort of paints the picture of what went on.
<
p>We know what O’Reilly’s stance is on same-sex marriage (he is pro). However, he wasn’t a State Senator like Kerry was and evidently was not “being counter productive” like Kerry was.
<
p>Have you been to Caucus voting/endorsements? I did not go to this one but have been in the past. It is like a forum/debate among voting members. And they send questionaires to the candidates. All of this is taken into consideration.
<
p>
You seem to want to turn a non-endorsement of Kerry & O’Reilly as a tacit endorsement of O’Reilly. How does that work exactly? If the Caucus were endorsing either of them, don’t you think ti would have made the press by now? So far, all we have is your report of an email from Arlene about a caucus you weren’t at and query results you weren’t privy to. This is the very sort of stuff that makes me not trust the O’Reilly campaign.
<
p>Alexander, you’ve been very active in marriage equality work. Yet even you haven’t been able to provide evidence that O’Reilly is more than talk on this issue. Or any LGBT-related issue, for that matter. What do you think that says to doubters like me? It says “keep on doubting”.
A non-endorsement of John Kerry by the Caucus is just that– a non-endorsement of John Kerry. And please dont’ link me as or with the O’Reilly Campaign.
<
p>When an organization like Arline’s gives no endorsement of John Kerry it says that the Caucus takes issue with him. Drew O’Brien at Kerry’s office told me John Kerry flipped a state legislator on the marriage issue. Arline Isaacson said emphatically that that is “bullshit.”
<
p>Now we hear that John Kerry was “counter-productive” during the marriage fight and that the Caucus will not give them their endorsement.
<
p>Laurel, it’s perfectly fine for you (I am assuming) to say you like John Kerry, that you will vote for John Kerry, that you think he is better than Ed O’Reilly…but please do not say John Kerry is good on same-sex marriage. First, John Kerry is not for same-sex marriage, two he is very vocal to that point, and three (HRC/Stonewall Dem endorsements aside) John Kerry was a hindrence ie “counter-productive” for our marriage fight here in Massachusetts.
if you think I’m defending Kerry on SSM.
<
p>You are a well-known O’Reilly supporter (I reference your blog). So, it is amusing for you to play the innocent bearer of bad news to Kerry supporters, yet ignore the total lack of substantive evidence to support O’Reilly’s supposed pro-SSM stance. But thank you for admitting that O’Reilly has no relevant record for the Caucus to assess. That just makes my point for me.
that I am an O’Reilly supporter because I can’t stand John Kerry. But I am not supposed to say the Caucus supports O’Reilly because it can’t stand John Kerry…
someone has to step up to the plate and say that the marriage equality fight really is and was an important one. And John Kerry not being with us on that cost him the Caucus’ endorsement.
Are you saying that you aren’t supporting Ed O’Reilly, but are remaining neutral in this race and are only interested in pointing out John Kerry’s marriage bigotry because he deserves the bad press he gets on this?
Though my organization cannot endorse, I have to support a person who takes a stand on FULL equality, not partial (which is none at all).
what O’Reilly has said or done to convince you that he is sincere regarding pro-LGBT positions, marriage especially. I’m still looking for something more concrete than “I believe him”. So far, the only stand he’s taken is rhetorical on the campaign trail. And although that is the stand I approve of, it is no longer a difficult one to take in the state. In fact, as we see with all the criticism Kerry is getting, it is really the new status quo, required stand to take for a dem (and many repubs too). So he hasn’t proven anything with the boldness of his stance, because it simply isn’t bold to be pro-equality in MA. So, help me out here. Is there something more than that he’s just personally persuasive?
I think you might see that O’Reilly is for repeal of all of DOMA. This was a distinction that I was pushing during the Hillary or Obama period when I was saying that Hillary’s stance on only repealing the “third part” of DOMA is just wrong and was entirely tactical on Hillary’s part. IE that repealing just the 3rd part is a way of playing both sides of marriage equality.
<
p>KnowThyNeighbor asked O’Reilly why he also was saying “only the third part of DOMA” and he emailed back that he and his people had met with GLAD and that is what he got out of it–the third part repeal was the way to go. What our research from making a call to GLAD revealed was that GLAD itself is working on a Federal attack on the 3rd part of DOMA but in GLAD’s opinion and I am sure is yours too, that ALL of DOMA is bad and should be repealed.
<
p>We explained this to Ed O’Reilly and he emphatically changed his stance and sides with the repeal of all of DOMA. His hesitance earlier on was because he thought that was the best strategy based on what I suspect was miscommunication at the time with GLAD. This however showed to me that O’Reilly understood that our marriages should be as portable as possible and that equality is not up for equivocation.
but what that sounds like to me is
1. He has convinced you by talking. You can present no evidence of real pro-LGBT action on his part.
2. He had no opinion on DOMA until he had a meeting with GLAD, then he misunderstood them to boot? This implies that he had no understanding of the larger strategies and issues at play. Not what I would expect from a stalwart LGBT crusader with any real history. It’s more Palineque, if you ask me.
How would he know of any GLAD strategy? Ummm, Hillary found out the GLAD strategy and used it to play both sides.
<
p>GLAD itself knows DOMA in its entirety to be anti-gay and discriminatory. With Hillary stumping to repeal on part 3, I would think others might “conclude” that part 3 was the way to go.
<
p>Fortunately, O’Reilly see the other parts of DOMA as “discriminatory” and was quick to stand by the repeal of DOMA in its entirety. Actually, ALOT of people including LGBT were confused about DOMA repeal, ie why was Hillary saying Repeal Part 3…so I wouldn’t hold O’Reilly to any standard different from LGBT politico at that time…
<
p>How much is John Kerry paying you? Or are you getting it in Ketchup stocks? j/k
to wit
Do you honestly believe that anyone who mistrusts O’Reilly is a Kerry beneficiary? I am so far from a Kerry employee it is funny. In fact, I stopped contributing to both Kerry and the DNC when he and Dean pulled the states rights crap out of their asses. It is the same reason I will not contribute to Obama. But that doesn’t mean I am blind to Kerry’s real accomplishments for LGBT people, nor does it make me prone to believe in the sincerity of every good talker that comes down the pike. Especially when that good talker has zero history of actually working in the best interests of LGBT people.
I know for a fact that all of this dialogue is reaching the John Kerry people (quicker than we probably can guess)
<
p>And John Kerry has to know that LGBT people are not happy with his marriage equality stance. When he got the HRC endorsement without an “HRC but” as in the HRC endorses John Kerry because of his support for xyz LGBT issues, BUT the HRC is very upset with John Kerry for his stance on ssm, I am glad that O’Reilly and his supporters took this on.
<
p>You know that we Americans are all sheep, our politicians know it and count on it. These endorsements play right to this and they need more meat.
<
p>BTW, I am unenrolled, I believe I think as you do that we cannot blindly trust any politician or party. I also have not given Obama any money or time, though may be pressed soon seeing the alternative. However, Obama, his staffers and volunteers when they get my checks and time will also get my “but.”
Kerry’s staff says Kerry switched a vote in the concon
<
p>Arline Isaacson says, “bullshit” also, Arline said John Kerry’s involvement in the concons was “counter-productive”
<
p>John Kerry is not for marriage equality.
<
p>Ed O’Reilly was for repeal of Part 3 of DOMA then changed his stance to Repeal all of DOMA, because in his words, the other parts are “discriminatory.”
<
p>John Kerry’s Drew O’Brien told me that “John Kerry will not take my marriage away from me.” something that still hits me in the bottom of my gut.
<
p>Laurel, as other posters have said to you, I will too. We are in the same court here. I just cannot, based on who I am and what I have done for Marriage Equality, support John Kerry. His positions hit at the very soul of the part of the LGBT movement that I represent–those who have to, whenever physically possible, stand by the motto, We are all created equal and as American citizens must demand to be treated and considered as such. I have no room to allow people, including MY Senator to tell me that there is a separate place for me because I am gay. No strategy, no “experience” no “other service to the LGBT community” trumps that…for me at least.
and may our votes reflect that and then some tomorrow.
because I agree that Kerry needs a serious reminder of what is expected of a senator from MA regarding equality. And I respect your reason for supporting him, even if I don’t find it personally prudent. Good luck tomorrow…but better luck to Kerry of course. 🙂
voted against a dozen years ago when it had more support than it does now.
<
p>What you are saying is that he was actually taking a more limited stand than Kerry did a dozen years ago when he voted against it and changed only when you pushed him (I wonder if he changes when anyone pushes him.
<
p>If Kerry had voted for DOMA, you would have a point on this – but he didn’t, even though voting against was something only 13 other Senators did and none with Presidential aspirations.
All the more reason then for Kerry to support marriage equality already. He does not support it and he’s absolutely wrong for it.
What would substanitively change if Kerry said today that he supports marriage equality? He already is for equal federal rights.
<
p>On the state level, nothing – Kerry says it is settled law, which it is. What a US Senator thinks or says will have no bearing. You say that O’Reilly making it an issued moved Kerry to thin – but there is absoluetly no evidence of that.
<
p>On the federal level, he already is very much to the progressive side on this versus even the Democratic caucus. Moving further over does not change what can be passed.If any legislation does come up, who do you really think would be better getting additional Senators to agree? Senator Kerry, with his eloquence and reputation, who has the respect of many of his peers or a newcomer, with no seniority or history with them?
What was I thinking. John Kerry should be able to make his public policy decisions based on religion all he wants and have no recourse for it. I’m glad you cleared that one up for me.
<
p>Why if most people are discriminating in their policy stances, that surely makes it okay for John Kerry to do so as well! Nice argument.
unless you think the Catholic Church is for civil unions with all the state and federal rights of marriage.
<
p>Find me where I said anything about Senator Kerry’s religion here – I didn’t.
<
p>You completely ignored everything I said because you seem to be stuck in seeing only black and white. Besides, what is the policy on which you are questioning his stance? It seems strange you are basing almost your entire preference on something that affects nothing.
<
p>You completely missed the point on Kerry’s postion relative to other Senators. The point was that with over a minimum of 85 Senators to his right on this – there is NOTHING that could pass where he is on the wrong side.
Please, if you know his constitutional arguments that he has for not supporting civil marriage rights then enlighten us all. You don’t because he doesn’t have any.
<
p>His staff told me he used his “personal feelings” as to why he did not support marriage equality, which implies his Catholic personal beliefs. That’s not acceptable for a public official’s public policy stance. I know you’re a fervent Kerry supporter, but even you should be able to see that Kerry is wrong on this.
<
p>And you completely missed my point. It’s called EQUALITY. It’s really that simple. I could care less if a bunch of Senators from other states don’t support marriage equality. Our Senators from Massachusetts should. Get the point? And one of them does. That would be Ted Kennedy who we all adore. We’re still working on the other.
most Kerry supporters agree with you Laurel, and Alexander on the merits of the SSM issue and we would like to see Kerry just come out for a full fledged federal right. I am not moved by it as a wedge issue myself. I think this is going to have to progress state-by-state given the political realities of the states that successfully use it as a wedge.
<
p> If Obama is elected then the climate changes a bit, but it will still be a struggle. Remember how Clinton was trashed from coast to coast for suggesting gays should be able to serve in the military —-ending up in the “Dont ask Dont Tell” non-sense. That said, it is your business to vote how you like.
<
p>In my diary I wanted to focus on our experience with Kerry and a bit on my opinion on the media spin against him over the years.
<
p>I think of the Globe, in the midst of staff cutbacks, launching an investigation sending reporters to Prague and England to dig up stories that he was part Jewish. I had a hard time believing that this was done as a warm human interest story and I have to wonder why the Globe would have spend their dwindling overseas reporting bucks on proving the rumors that Kerry is part Jewish — immediately followed by a Joan Vennochi story titled “Now we know who John Kerry is”. That’s F’n ugly man–the way this played to bigots.
<
p>The same sex marriage issue is a priority for you and I’m OK with that.
<
p>My vignette is a window into the John Kerry that I know as a decent guy who happens to have a caring and progressive understanding of people with developmental disabilities. Can you guys comment on that?
gave a nice endorsement of John Kerry. I think they care quite a bit about equal rights for bisexual, gay and transgender Americans.
<
p>http://www.hrc.org/news/9688.htm
<
p>I mentioned all the endorsements as a short-hand for background rather than turning my diary into a doctoral dissertation.
<
p>I would hope that people consider endorsements (or non-endorsements) but mostly will vote for the candidate that they think will be better for Massachusetts and the USA. I think that person is Kerry by a long-shot. I dont think people should just vote for someone because I said so or some group told them they should.
that Kerry did help. This seems to have more substance than a lead activist, who like many here, wanted a strong public Kerry statement in favor of gay marriage and was willing to accept nothing less. (Caveat: I do not know him and know only the three words quoted. )
<
p>This article in the Bay Windows, which, to me carries more weight because it is impatient with Kerry’s position on this issue. It provides proof that Kerry did work behind the scenes to defeat the amendment. That information did not coming from Senator Kerry’s campaign, but from the state representative himself.
<
p>”State Rep. Brian Wallace, whose vote against the amendment surprised many, said that Kerry called him just before he headed to the House floor for the roll call vote. “He said, I know where you’re coming from, I know this a very tough vote for you, he said, but you need to make it, it’s an important vote,” Wallace recalled, adding that Kerry also said, “If we lose this a lot of things change.”
<
p>Wallace said that Kerry did not articulate a personal position on civil marriage rights, nor did Wallace ask him about it. “By that time I had taken calls from so many people,” Wallace explained. “I had the Cardinal [Sean O’Malley] on the other line. … I wasn’t really concerned with what his stance was, to be honest. I was more concerned about what was ahead of me.” Nonetheless, Wallace said, Kerry’s appeal for him to vote down the amendment, “meant something,” to him. “I thought it was important for him to lay that out with me.”
http://www.baywindows.com/inde…
<
p>This says Kerry did work on your side and that he was part of the reason for his vote – that was described as surprising. You can’t beat this comment for showing that Kerry does have influence.
<
p>”Kerry’s appeal for him to vote down the amendment, “meant something,” to him. “I thought it was important for him to lay that out with me.”
<
p>Influence with the type of people that you need to reach nationally – those not inclined to vote in favor of it. This is consistent with Kerry’s own action in voting against DOMA.
and it seems that they did not endorse O’Reilly either – which sends an ambiguous message.
http://www.baystatestonewallde…