BOSTON The Kerry Campaign today issued the following information refuting Ed O’Reilly’s false statements made in the WBZ debate.
Senator Kerry and Ed O’Reilly had the chance to address Massachusetts voters about the issues. O’Reilly however, squandered that opportunity. Jon Keller asked both candidates well-informed, substantive questions and when given the chance to delve into the issues Ed O’Reilly sounded a lot like John McCain and Sarah Palin. When you have no real record of service and no ideas to run on all you’re left with are attacks. Bottom line Ed O’Reilly can’t respond to the issues because he doesn’t understand the issues,’ said Kerry Campaign Manager Roger Lau.Being a United States Senator is a serious job, and a candidate for that job shouldn’t be allowed a free ride by sheer virtue of his novelty, Lau continued. Ed O’Reilly’s say-anything brand of politics has gone un-answered for too long.
O’REILLY LIE #1 When asked how he would go about securing an important line item for the state, O’Reilly said ‘My first step would be to call the Department of Commerce’ and then I would call the ‘New England Council on Biotech Industries.’
Truth. The Department of Commerce plays no role in securing appropriations for Massachusetts. In fact, the Department of Commerce’s funding is authorized and determined by the members of Congress.
Truth The ‘New England Council on Biotech Industries’ does not exist. Perhaps Ed meant to refer to either the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council or the New England Council, two organizations Senator Kerry knows well. The Massachusetts Biotechnology Council provides services and support for the biotech industry in our state. In an August 4, 2008 press release, the MBC had this to say about Senator Kerry’s role in securing funding for Massachusetts biotech companies: MBC President Coughlin noted that Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and Congressman Richard Neal are key players on the budget writing committees that preserved the biotechnology tax benefit measure within the larger housing measure as it moved through the legislative process. “We want to thank Senator Kerry and Congressman Neal for their work on this bill, and of course we thank the entire delegation for voting in its favor.”
O’REILLY LIE #2. Ed O’Reilly said that John Kerry is the least generous Senator when it comes to helping other Democrats get elected.
Truth. John Kerry’s leadership PAC, then called Keeping America’s Promise, was the largest contributor to Democratic campaigns in the 2006 cycle, raising over $14 million for the successful drive to retake Congress for the Democrats. Keeping America’s Promise donated more than $4 million to Democratic organizations and candidates across America, including the entire Massachusetts delegation.
Truth — In 2008, Campaign for Our Country (formerly Keeping America’s Promise) has made contributions to Democratic organizations and candidates across America.
Truth. ‘Kerry has a big electronic address book and hasn’t been shy about using it.’ Washington Post, July 2, 2006
Truth. Give me five more John Kerrys. He’s a fighter, and he puts his money where his mouth is.’ Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois), Chair DCCC
Truth.Senator Kerry has been a tremendous help to the NH Democratic Party and the Democratic candidates in NH. From contributing money, to raising money, to campaigning with our candidates, his efforts have made a tremendous difference in both 2005 and 2006. Whenever we?ve needed help, Senator Kerry has been there for us.’ Kathy Sullivan, Chair, New Hampshire Democratic Party
Truth. ‘I am extremely proud to have Senator Kerry support me, and particularly honored to stand with him as a fellow Naval officer. He has given me extraordinary support from the very beginning of my campaign, from advice to friendship to very significant fundraising assistance.’ Former Vice Admiral Joe Sestak
Truth. Keeping America’s Promise (Kerry’s PAC) has been extremely helpful to our campaign by not only raising awareness of race, but also significant funds. Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia).
O’REILLY LIE #3. When confronted with the fact that Senator Kerry secured hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding that would help Massachusetts residents, Ed O’Reilly stated “that bill came from the House of Representatives and that’s where it originated.”
Truth. While he likes to refer to himself as a “defender of the Constitution,” Ed O’Reilly should consider actually reading the Constitution. Specifically, Article 1, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution which states: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. O’Reilly claims he could easily replace John Kerry in the Senate and not impede the flow of federal money to Massachusetts. Shouldn’t Ed have at least a rudimentary knowledge of how the federal appropriations system works before making that highly dubious claim?
O’REILLY LIE #4. Ed O’Reilly claims that Senator Kerry’s chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship isn’t influential or important.
Truth. Massachusetts’ small businesses are the backbone of our state’s economy. Today, there are over 650,000 small businesses in Massachusetts that generated $23.9 BILLION in income in 2006 (last year for data).
Truth. Small businesses represent 98.1% of all firms and employ approximately 50% of the state’s workforce.
Truth. Companies in communities across Massachusetts received $267 MILLION in SBIR and STTR awards during the most recent award period, second only to California nationally. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Kerry secured the reauthorization of the SBIR and STTR programs, a crucial pipeline of federal funding for Massachusetts.
Truth. There are nearly 200,000 women-owned businesses in Massachusetts, representing over 30% of the state’s businesses, generating $30 BILLION in revenue and employing over 177,000 people. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Kerry secured permanent funding for women’s business centers across America, including the Center for Women and Enterprise in Boston.
The hard-worker thing is kind of funny. Too bad Kerry didn’t use it against the lackadasical Bush, by all accounts the king of vacations.
saying that he would love to fix that for Bush.
<
p>Here, the campaign is harsher on O’Reilly than Kerry himself was. The fact is there is no reason for Kerry to engage in a fight with O’Reilly. In the first place, O’Reilly has yet to make a good case for why he would make a good Senator. Note, that even when asked that question in the debate he is vague and non-specific – speaking of fighting and negotiating.
<
p>You would think in his long legal career, he would have some case that he could showcase (as Edwards did) to show that his efforts (either fighting or negotiating) were employed to get justice for someone. Without that, we’re left with memories of comments that drunk driving defendants pay.
I guess it just didn’t stick to Bush- not Kerry’s fault, of course. Sorry for projecting my four-year-old resentment of the ’04 election onto poor John Kerry.
For weeks, Kerry did all he could to ignore O’Reilly, only consenting to a 20-minute debate when the traditional media began to notice what he was trying to pull.
<
p>Then after a debate performance that Kerry described (in full) as “it was”, his handlers spit out an attack piece.
<
p>Kerry’s campaign hopes that you won’t notice that it conflates the opinions with lies, implying anybody who doesn’t agree with him is dishonest.
<
p>Kerry’s campaign would rather talk about 2006 than 2008. With one of the biggest warchests on record, he and his PAC lag Democratic Senators in tough fights this year for supporting other Democrats.
<
p>Kerry’s campaign would rather talk about 1984 than 2008, and hopes that you won’t notice that he takes a page out of McCain’s book — reaching back decades to avoid talking about today. Does Kerry really want to start talking about attendance records? I’m sure his defenders will inform us that a 10% attendance rate in 2004 is okay because “that’s different”.
<
p>Kerry’s campaign hopes that you won’t notice it can’t even write an honest press release. This release attacks O’Reilly for saying “that bill came from the House of Representatives and that’s where it originated” whereas the Constitution says “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives” Leave it to Kerry to attack a fellow Democrat for…accurately relaying what the Constitution says.
<
p>Kerry’s campaign hopes that you don’t know what the FEC does. Check back soon…
Even on number 5, O’Reilly was essentially claiming that he (EOR) is a harder worker than Kerry. But the facts Kerry showed about EOR’s idea of what “hard work” entails, show that to be an extremely dubious claim.
<
p>As for the others, all the claims called “lies” do indeed seem to be lies, to me.
<
p>On the other hand, it might just be that O’Reilly is a blithering incompetent with no interest whatsoever in knowing anything about the job he is running for. (Really, #3?) Of course, O’Reilly did apparently fail to find out when the meetings were for the school committee when he ran for that. Or he didn’t think that getting the job would actually require him to show up at meetings. Either way, his own vacation was more important to him than the job.
<
p>I guess if O’Reilly is too uninformed to know that his statements were false, then technically they aren’t lies. Maybe Kerry made the mistake of giving him too much credit – for knowing and caring about the job of a Senator, since he’s actually running for the office.
<
p>But I think if someone is going to attack another person in public, as O’Reilly attacked Kerry, they have a responsibility to get the facts straight before they attack. Calling those attacks “lies” in this case is, I think, completely appropriate.
Why do you think Kennedy gets 90% of the contuent requests. Why do you think Kennedy gets letters and emails. Because KENNEDY has the common courtesy and common decency to answer them. If , Gof forbid, you get a reply back from Kerry it is snotty and condescending. I don’t care who our next senator is as long as it is not John Forbes Kerry.
That’s a good idea. Let’s Ralph Nadar the US Senate and give it over to the Republicans.
<
p>Personally, I haven’t made any requests of either Sen. Kerry or Sen. Kennedy. But as a person living with cancer, I fully appreciate the fact that John Kerry gives of his time to ride the Pan Mass Challenge with us every year to raise funds to find a cure.
<
p>This left wing ideological attack on John Kerry surprises me. If we require all of our Democratic office holders to meet a liberal blogosphere litmus test, then we will end up with a lot more Republican office holders. The idea is to win the general election and keep the Senate in Democratic hands, not to create ideological purity.
He’d like nothing better than seeing a Republican in the Senate…
I seriously doubt there is a source. If Kerry’s responses, to the letters and emails you just implied he doesn’t get, were snotty and condescending, they would be posted here and elsewhere. As that doesn’t happen, it seems you are making this up.
<
p>looking at Kerry’s legislation it is both not “nothing” and good for his constituents.
The turning point was clearly David’s post, entitled something to the effect of “Just debate the guy already”. đŸ™‚
Are you sure you want to talk about hindsight?
<
p>O’Reilly’s campaign would rather talk about 2002 and conflate it with Bush’s actual decision to go to war (with or without the vote) than the issues of today, like help for small business, which O’Reilly continually denigrates as unimportant, getting out of Iraq responsibly, and helping people who will be suffering this winter with high heating costs.
<
p>Are you really comparing Sen. Kerry’s attendance record during his Presidential run to O’Reilly’s vacation excuse? It is different, obviously. Sen. Kerry was running for President. How did O’Reilly spend his absences?
<
p>Where is O’Reilly’s support for our nominee? Still waiting for an endorsement of Barack Obama from Ed.
I’m not sure he’s running based on a vote in 2002.
<
p>I imagine he’s running partially based on the 4,000 Americans, and countless Iraqis, whose deaths that vote enabled.
“The beginning of my candidacy can be traced to John Kerry’s vote authorizing military action in Iraq.”
<
p>The IWR does not equal the Iraq war. This is Bush’s war, and he would have done it with or without the 76 votes in the Senate. I don’t know why O’Reilly continually gives Bush and the neocons a pass on this.
<
p>Does Ed O’Reilly support Barack Obama? Did he support Ned Lamont in his run against Lieberman? Does he support any Dem other than himself?
<
p>Without the vote of confidence from Congress, I would hope it would have been a heck of a lot easier to impeach Bush for it (which, of course, has not happened, and which Kerry has not called for, to the best of my knowledge). Whether Bush could have, and would have, gone ahead with a full scale invasion absent the Congressional authorization seems a little too speculative. Somebody’s got to be accountable.
who should have been impeached a long time ago!
<
p>YaY Dennis Kucinich!
I love Dennis Kucinich!!
<
p>He believes in the Constitution and voted against the Patriot Act, he supports a not for profit health care system, he voted against authorizing the war in Iraq and subsequent funding of it, he supports marriage equality, and doesn’t take money from corporate lobbyists. My kind of Democrat:-)
How did I miss this:
Susskind alleges Bush/Cheney ordered forgeries to justify Iraq war
What Kerry did do was co-sponsor Feingold’s Censure (of Bush) resolution, along with just Harkin and Boxer.
<
p>He also was the Senator who wrote a letter, that just 10 Senators were willing to sign in 2005 asking for Part 2 of the WMD report – the part that was to look into whether the administration manipulated the intelligence. (The first part released in 2004 just said it was wrong – not if Bush et al knew it was wrong.) Kerry also included in the letter that the Downing Street Memos had to be reviewed.
<
p>Had that been done in 2005, instead of completed this summer, that could have led to impeachment – though I doubt it would. The enormity of impeaching a President over going to war while we are fighting the war seems too much for most Americans to accept. Few countries condemn their own actions unless forced to. (Impeaching Clinton was political and the actions he was impeached over didn’t reflect on the country – in a counterintuitive way, it might be easier to impeach over insignificant things than profound things.)
<
p>As it was Bush had a signing letter to the IWR that essentially said that it was within his powers as CIC to attack if he thought the US was threatened. The IWR gave him the power to determine if conditions were met – and though in reality they weren’t – he said they were met. Very few spoke up when it was clear that he was not keeping his promises.
<
p>Kerry’s vote was wrong – something he’s said hundreds of times, but had he, not Bush, been President, I have no doubt that he would not have invaded – and he has worked as hard as anyone to get the troops out.
Kerry’s PAC has been generous with certain Democrats in raw numbers. Not much relative to his holdings, but still generous with Massachusetts Congressmen. However, while we’re trying to send a filibuster-proof Democratic majority to the Senate, Kerry isn’t. If anyone feels so moved, why not head on over to Expand the Map and support these good Democratic Senate candidates who are being stiffed by Kerry’s PAC:
<
p>
<
p>Let’s face it…Kerry may have $8 million in the bank, a heavily-hyped PAC with its own websites that he mentions in his attack press releases…but he’s not going to waste his money on Democrats like these.
Kerry rakes in the dough, and spends a lot of it on other candidates. Sorry he hasn’t lavished it on your personal faves, but he has spread it around to key races at key times, like jumpstarting Joe Sestak’s race in 2006. He has a right to keep a big chunk of what he raises, to support the Democrats he chooses, and yes, to defend his own seat.
<
p>Could O’Reilly come close to matching Kerry’s fundraising ability? I highly doubt it. Once O’Reilly got in bed with the swift lying scum, I would never send him a dime, even if by some accident he did become a “Democratic” senator.
<
p>Oh, and Kerry would have more time for “expanding the map” if he wasn’t swatting away stupidity and smears from the likes of Ed O’Reilly.
My personal favorite is 60 votes in the Senate. What’s yours?
I don’t know where Kerry is using his PAC money or why he hasn’t given any to the candidates on your list (your “faves” that I referred to earlier). But maybe he doesn’t see them as worthy as you do. And don’t discount that Kerry does have his own election to win, as well as work to do in the Senate and for his constituents. O’Reilly’s challenge is an unnecessary and unhelpful distraction, in my book. But then I really, really don’t like O’Reilly (maybe you could tell). Whatever differences I have with Kerry (and there are some) pale next to the dislike I have for Ed O’Reilly’s arrogance, mud-slinging, and lies.
When Kerry was criticized, it was only because others wanted money Kerry had raised, that they felt Kerry “didn’t need”. Given the shoddy treatment of Kerry by certain idiots in the party right after the ’04 election, it’s really no wonder he wasn’t turning control of that money over to someone else in the party.
It was done as an attack on Senator Kerry after reports like MSNBC’s analysis on 2008 hopefuls included in Kerry’s that he was winning support because of his whole hearted effort in 2006. People refuted the charges and on boards like DKOS the truth was seen. In fact, many who didn’t know how mush Kerry was helping ended up finding out. (The attack originated in DC and the web site was picked up by DC insiders as soon as it was up – there were suspicions as to which people were behind it.)
<
p>As the the DNC, there was an attack on it as well at roughly the same time led by Carville arguing that they were not putting as much money in as they could. This after all the good work to revitalize the party and support candidates in marginal areas that the DSCC and the DCCC couldn’t.
<
p>In both cases, these were attacks BEFORE the election attacking people working hard to elect Democrats.
And he was a FAR distant!
He’s been working on this for YEARS and this website, created by his PAC underlines his action, support and fundraising power on behalf of these very candidates you’re listing:
http://roadblockrepublicans.co…
<
p>Kerry was a pro-Democrat superhero all through 2006, crisscrossing the country to personally campaign for every progressive Democratic candidate running, with a particular supportive effort for candidates who were veterans recently returned from combat. He not only donated a huge portion of his war chest to the DNC and other Democratic fundraising campaigns (not to mention financial support in 2004 for struggling elections under attack from the GOP, like that of Senator Cantwell) but his personal appearances changed a lot of votes as well as raising millions of dollars. He was one of the FIRST to campaign for Ned Lamont even when his Senate colleagues were more wary of going up against Lieberman, and he has continued this stance of principle over personal political safety with his early support in the primaries for Barack Obama.
<
p>Senator Kerry is a hero for the Democratic Party and I hope if this primary challenge accomplishes anything it will be to make sure that more MA voters know just how much he does, not only as a legislator but also as a Democrat who cares about the future of this country — and does something about it!
I meant Christine Gregoire’s campaign, not Maria Cantwell’s!!!!
I imagine many others have. Kerry has not been great at taking credit or putting his name on bills over the yrs, So, I agree with you that the upside to the both primary (and even more so, the negative post-2004 period) is that Kerry seems to realize that it is important to get credit and publicity for your work. That is why I like Brigid Reilly’s media alerts.
<
p> Even more, I am Kerstin’s site Kerryvision and Noisy Democrats independent efforts to build a collection of Kerry documentation. That is a constructive reaction to being annoyed by the ghosting of Kerry in the media after 2004. I have spoken with a couple local writers who are surprised that the extent of Kerry’s previously quiet support.
It’s a group that I’m a part of – he’s attending our next fundraiser for Kay Hagan in Boston on 9/15. We are supporting ten candidates for the Senate, only one of whom is an incumbent:
<
p>Tom Udall – NM
Mark Udall – CO
Mary Landrieu – LA
Al Franken – MN
Tom Allen – ME
Jeff Merkley – OR
Jeanne Shaheen – NH
Mark Warner – VA
Mark Begich – AK
Kay Hagan – NC
<
p>Landrieu is the only incumbent on the list. As to why his PAC hasn’t donated to Merkley yet, I’ll ask him on 9/15 – or better yet, you can get into the fundraiser for just $125 and ask him yourself! Here’s an ActBlue page where you can buy a ticket:
<
p>http://www.actblue.com/page/bo…
If Al played left field for the Red Sox, the Green Monster would be on the other side of the Mass Pike!Talk about a lefty! Minnesota’s not that blue.
<
p>Source: Rasmussen Reports
<
p>Only just now have things begun to lean towards the incumbent Republican – with 60 days to go, Norm has plenty of time in which to stick his foot in his mouth. Al has been competitive in Minnesota for several months now – the Republican brand is in the toilet everywhere this year.
I had no idea that Franken was doing so well. Are they gonna debate soon, or have they already?
…but I did find this when googling “Franken Coleman debate”:
<
p>http://minnesota.publicradio.o…
Here is the answer: http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/by…
<
p>In fact in ’06 he gave to no, nada , zip candidate in his own state of Massachusetts.
were done in a different way. He used his money and his email list to raise $14 million for Democrats, with the money going directly to them. It costs money to raise money – the only numbers I saw on 2006 were from a NYT article on Hillary Clinton’s campaign that showed that nearly half the money raised went to the effort to raise it. Here is what Rahm Emmanuel, the head of the DCCC said:
<
p>
<
p>It also ignores that all Democratic candidates could be helped by his well regarded Truthfightsback.com, which is funded by his pack and which will debunk smears hitting any Democratic campaign.
<
p>As to 1984, wasn’t that O’Reilly’s last public service. Is it Kerry’s fault that that was the last time O’Reilly held public service. What has O’Reilly done to support any cause? Did you want Kerry’s team to examine how many cases, drunk driving and other, O’Reilly did? These are valid things to mention and sourced.
<
p>To compare that to McCain, speaking of what he did years ago is ridiculous. The things Kerry spoke of in his record were recent – like the funding this year from the the Small Business Committee.
<
p>As to Kerry’s attendance. The second half or 2003 and 2004 are different. He was running for President. Give me one party nominee in the Senate in either party without a similar record. Was his attendance different than Obama’s and HRC’s in the second half of 2007 and 2008? HRC even stayed out a month in June after she lost, while Kerry went back day one of the lame duck session. Also differeent is that if you go to Thomas and look before any vote, Kerry’s staff entered how he would have voted – I do not see that in other cases.
<
p>As it is Kerry gave him one more debate than Clinton gave Tasini.
In 2994. That was easy. He was running for President too. I’m sure he would have given Kerry a ride.
they both missed many votes – Kerry entered his intention in the record, Edwards didn’t. I think you were the one that posted recently that Edwards voted when Kerry didn’t – then ignored my post from Thomas showing he also didn’t vote.
<
p>(Note: Edwards was out of the race the first week of March and not VP nominee until July – so he SHOULD have a better record in March – June 2004. In 2003, Kerry was out in February for cancer surgery.)
Both surpassed Hillary Clinton’s donations.
was enough for me.
<
p>This said, it is too bad that there were not more debates, but may be it would have been easier to get something reasonable if the initial request by Ed O’Reilly had been reasonable.
<
p>Asking for 23 debates was making sure that no debate happened.
<
p>Now, as somebody who did not watch the debate, did Ed O’Reilly offered any rational why he would be a better senator than Kerry, or did he stay in the IWR, I look like a Kennedy rational?
http://wbztv.com/video/?id=665…
<
p>(If someone knows how to embed, please do so)
His BS is more than I can stand and his shilling for the GOP is so transparent than I am not sure why he was chosen as a moderator.
O’Reilly’s points were 1) that John Kerry was wrong when he gave authorization for the Iraq war, and that he did so for political expediency and 2) that he (O’Reilly) would be a harder worker than Kerry, more along the lines of Senator Kennedy.
<
p>Kerry countered the Iraq war points fairly well, but the results still stands, it was a mistake. Advantage O’Reilly.
<
p>Kerry countered the “less than hard worker” points well by listing the many committees he is on, and several specific accomplishments achieved. Advantage Kerry.
<
p>The bottom line for me is that Kerry is somewhat aloof to the needs of the citizens of Massachusetts, but he is an influential member of Congress on the national stage, and one who generally shares the positions of the majority of his constituents. No matter how energized O’Reilly is, it would be very difficult for him to replace Kerry for Massachusetts.
While I am not sure what is reproached to Kerry concerning the needs of Massachusetts people, this is something that has been stated again and again, so it is definitively a question he should address.
I echo French Girl.
IMG]
But have any of these (————–) I won’t say it–
ever heard of self sacrifice. have they ever put ANYTHING aside in the best interest of their constituents> Something that many fire fighters, cops, and 90% of folks in medicine do? I mean elective office is public service and self sacrifice. I went on ONE vacation in twenty five years working for the commonwelath. My wife and kids went every year. I stayed home. Not that My prescense at work made a particle of difference, but I always worried that the work wouldn’t get done and I would have to play catch up. I retired with almost two years accrued vacation tome and sick time that I lost count of. I would just as soon be sick at work than hanging around a house.
<
p>I don’t get it. Since when do political hacks think they are “owed” something?
Ed O’Reilly was a firefighter in Watertown. When there was a budget squeeze he was laid off in normal sequence by the Chief, who happened to be his own father.
If anyone is mimicking Republican campaign tactics, it is the Kerry campaign. Since when is repeatingly calling your opponent a liar, refusing to accurately pronounce his name, and releasing official campaign hit pieces proper conduct for a Democratic primary? From a supposed party leader?
<
p>Re: the “Roast”: much of this is nitpicking-and misleading. I won’t go down line-by-line, but I will point out that SBIR and STTR awards are awarded by the US Small Business association and other Federal agencies link. They are NOT awarded by the Senate and they are NOT awarded by Senator Kerry. As a leader in the innovation economy, it is no doubt why Mass is second among SBIR awards.
<
p>It doesn’t surprise me that Kerry needs to make up his accomplishments. It does surprise me how vicious his campaign for re-election has become.
for SBIR and STTR.
<
p>No funding of those programs by Congress, no awards by SBA. Perhaps Kerry has pushed hard for funding these programs because MA has a great shot at winning those grants?
<
p>Also, hasn’t Kerry held several conferences for small businesses, to inform them about the various programs and how to apply for the grants?
<
p>I am not sure if it is true that Kerry has no direct influence once the funds are allocated to the program, as to whether they go to MA, but it appears to me that he has done quite a bit of work in this area. That O’Reilly would be in no position to match.
the SBA and other agencies such as HHS make the allocations.
<
p>The SBIR awards have broad bipartisan support, to claim that a single Senator ‘secured reauthorization’ of these programs is misleading.
means he has a HUGE influence on the funding that certain programs receive.
<
p>That was kind of the point.
Let’s go to the tape, Z, and check out what someone from outside MA- Zyn Systems in WA- has to say about Kerry’s role in the reauthorization of SBIR.
<
p>
<
p>A couple notes:
<
p>1. you won’t see Kerry’s work on this included in any “factcheck.org” (ha ha) “check” of Kerry’s “accomplishments” in getting bills passed, because it isn’t a bill that has his name on it. For folks like me who like to see credit where credit is due, stuff like this shows that those “so and so got so many bills passed” talking points are just meaningless drivel, because they don’t measure work like this.
<
p>2. the link for Masshole’s post is http://www.zyn.com/sbir/inside… – I googled it and that’s how I found the 2000 stuff. It’s important to note that there is still work to do to get the 2008 reauthorization through. Work that Kerry will be doing when he returns to the Senate, rather than hanging out here in MA doing endless debates with EOR.
It’s good to see the Kerry campaign actually … campaigning.
<
p>I think he’d be a better Senator than O’Reilly, but I still have mixed feelings about this primary because I also think real campaigns are a good in their own right.
<
p>How about another debate? 20 minutes was good, but missed a lot. Maybe 40 more minutes? That’s not a lot to ask, is it?
to put MORE Democrats in Congress?
It’s a lot like the marriage equality discussion we were having and how you support civil unions and I civil marriage.
<
p>You seem to place most, if not all, of your emphasis on the needs of the party where as I place a lot of it on the needs of constituents and what is right for them.
<
p>I think constituents have a right to meet with their elected officials and they want to see them campaigning so they can air their issues and concerns with them. Most especially when constituents feel that only happens once every 6 years.
Which requires more liberals in Congress. Which means, in our system, more Democrats, unfortunately. (“Unfortunately” because I would much prefer a system that allowed third parties to be viable, like the Green Party. But we don’t have that system and anyone who pretends we do is either uninformed or duplicitous. So we are stuck with Democrats.)
<
p>EOR trashing John Kerry for a vanity campaign is not doing anything for anyone’s constituents.
<
p>Kerry has periodically held various conferences over the years for his constituents, whether he is campaigning or not.
<
p>Meanwhile, when O’Reilly got on the school committee, he was too busy going on vacation to show up for some of the meetings. How was O’Reilly’s performance for his constituents, when he had them?
<
p>Oh and –
<
p>I don’t appreciate your smearing of me by saying that my emphasis is “on the needs of the party.” That’s total bullshit . My emphasis – in my responses to you – has been beating back a trash talking point about a relatively good Senator, made by someone who as yet as not even shown what he or his candidate have actually done to fight for the people they are using in their rhetoric.
<
p>When Cos said it was nice to see Kerry campaigning around Mass and meeting with constituents you asked if it was better than seeing Kerry campaigning for other politicians (aka, helping the party)? Now I personally think there should be a balance between the two, but an emphasis should always be placed on being responsive and meeting with constituents. I think that’s a duty of elected office.
<
p>You also spoke of civil unions in regards to helping the party so that it doesn’t become an issue, which I don’t believe it would irregardless. That’s a separate issue from whether or not Kerry should support marriage equality, which he does not.
<
p>Again, as I stated in the other diary what does what I’ve done for the GLBT rights movement have anything to do with Kerry’s position? They’re completely unrelated. Kerry is an elected official and should be making his public policy positions based on constitutional and rationale issues rather than “personal feelings”.
And I find it interesting that you want to turn the discussion to my motivations, rather than addressing the substantive questions I raised in my post. So let me ask again:
<
p>
<
p>Now, in this diary I did not ask you about what you have done for GLBT rights – it is not relevant here. But since you asked, it is relevant because it speaks to your credibility. If you’ve never ever actually worked on behalf of the GLBT movement, then one might suppose that your latching onto this issue is a matter of looking for something to bash Kerry with.
<
p>But, what is relevant is a question that was also raised in the other diary, by myself and at least one other poster (but I suspect on multiple times by many posters), and as far as I know has not yet received a response:
<
p>
<
p>I’ve block quoted my questions to make it easier for you to understand the substance of my post. I hope it helps.
I’m pretty sure I didn’t bring up O’Reilly, you did. If you have actual questions or concerns regards his constituency services I suggest you call his campaign and ask. However, I kind of doubt you actually care as to what the answer is.
<
p>And as to your statement:
<
p>
<
p>Seriously? What kind of bs is that? John Kerry is 100% WRONG on marriage equality. It’s as simple as that and I’ll talk about it till he changes his public policy stance or he no longer represents us. You can better believe that if John Kerry is re-elected I’ll talk about it then too. This isn’t some cheap primary ploy as you try to insinuate. It’s about a real issue and a stance of Kerry’s that is completely wrong and denigrating to gay people.
<
p>You may support John Kerry, but really don’t stoop down to that level. You crossed the crossed the line there and it was uncalled for. The issue is simple and John Kerry is wrong on it. That’s what it’s about.
<
p>And I’ll suffice it to say that I’ve had plenty of involvement in the GLBT civil rights movement.
I want to attend.
<
p>And I don’t want to have to wait for Ed to piggyback on another event.
<
p>When will Ed be available for one-on-one meetings with his would-be constituents? When is the next Ed O’Reilly for Senate event? Or should I email you directly with my questions about Ed’s policy positions (or lack thereof).
<
p>Just let me know, Paul.
will be in session and Kerry should be there. One issue that will be worked on is the LIHEAP funding. I think more of Senator Kerry’s constituents would prefer he be one of the people fighting to get the largest amount of funding for that.
<
p>He then has a weekend of scheduled campaign events where he will be speaking to his constituents. That is MEETING with his constituents and campaigning. the fact of the matter is that he does meet with constituents every year – election year or not. Look at his web site and look at the archived 2005, 2006, 2007 press releases.
<
p>Frnakly, Kerry is looking out for constituent needs when he passes legislation that really helps them. The LIHEAP funding is important, as was the small business work. The fact is he was elected to go to Washington.
<
p>I would bet that more of Kerry’s time in the last year can be accounted for as either being in the Senate attending meetings and voting, on SFRC to places like Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, at conferences speaking and getting expert feedback on issues that are related to his committees, acting as an activist on the environment, days meeting with MA leaders, newspapers, or campaigning, and acting as a party leader in support of other Democrats than O’Reilly’s time just campaigning.
Since when did Congress being in session ever affect Kerry’s schedule? Certainly not in 2003 or 2004. Or 2005, 2006, 2007. What are we electing him for?
You can look at Thomas – to see that he almost always votes. You can go to the web sites of the committees he is on – you can view video of meetings. You will find he attends meetings, is always well prepared and asks very good questions.
<
p>This issue is a RW smear from 2004. No Senator can attend all the meetings of all the committes and sub-committees they are on. Why, it is not unusual for two, or even three, committees a Senator is on to meet concurrently. Unfortunately, Senator Kerry is not capable of being in two places at the same time.
<
p>Kerry, like every Presidential nominee or candidate, wasn’t in the Senate often in 2004.
<
p>Now, I suspect if Kerry did opt to stay this Monday for a debate, O’Reilly would claim that Senator Kerry should have been in DC to vote and get funding for LIHEAP.
<
p>O’Reilly agreed to this debate as the only debate.
thomas.gov. I know it’s complicated, but I wrote a diary o n how you can search the database to find out the number of bills a Senator or Representative has sponsored or co-sponsored.
<
p>Billixi you ruin your argument when you just throw out gibberish attacks like that.
<
p>In fact, I posted a comment to at least 50 bills that Kerry sponsored/cosponsored in just 2 years. Feel free to do some research before you allow the mouth to open and the foot to insert.
<
p>
By calendar quarter, here’s Kerry’s attendance record over the last six years. The percentage number given is the number of votes he missed for the calendar quarter (3 months).
<
p>
QuarterTotal VotesVotes Kerry missed% Votes Kerry Missed
2003-Q11123934.8%
2003-Q21508758%
2003-Q310810294.4%
2003-Q4896674.2%
2004-Q1645078.1%
2004-Q2888596.6%
2004-Q34242100%
2004-Q4221777.3%
2005-Q18111.2%
2005-Q28955.6%
2005-Q37611.3%
2005-Q411900%
2006-Q18311.2%
2006-Q21071413.1%
2006-Q37345.5%
2006-Q41600%
2007-Q112621.6%
2007-Q2112108.9%
2007-Q311997.6%
2007-Q48500%
2008-Q18544.7%
2008-Q27711.3%
2008-Q33400%
<
p>You can see there was only one quarter since the end of his Presidential campaign where Kerry missed more than 10% of all votes, and overall he only missed 4% of all votes in the last 4 years.
Whoops, forgot to give my source for that comment…
I think over the course of a year, Kerry could easily manage 60 minutes of debate (which, I understand, would actually take up a day or two of his time, given debate prep and travel) without making much difference in his ability to campaign for other Democrats and do the rest of his job. Mind you, I do consider campaigning for his re-election to also be his job: as an elected official, he has two jobs, and one of them is to be accountable to his voters.
<
p>I’m not talking about pulling him completely out of all other pursuits just to fend off a challenger who I see as fairly weak. I’m just asking for a couple of days of his time, over the course of the year, to give us 60 minutes of debate with this challenger. I don’t think that your response makes sense in that context.
After he wins the primary, he will have a general election opponent.
<
p>You ignore that weeks went by with O’Reilly playing with this issue in the media – asking for 23 debates and saying he wanted to meet with the Senator to set them up.
<
p>He also IS meeting with his constituents – speaking to many on a one to one basis. He has also – even in non-election years appeared throughout the state.
<
p>The biggest reason this is an issue to the O’Reilly people is that after over a year of doing nothing but campaigning, throwing smears at Kerry, including repeating the SBVT accusations, he wants Kerry to engage in more debates like the one yesterday. Did you notice he really didn’t answer either of the last two questions? What is his Cape Wind position?
<
p>I seriously think that Kerry can be more accessible to his constituents without O’Reilly.
I’m not “ignoring” it, I deem it irrelevant to what I said. I don’t want to argue who’s to blame here. I’d like to see more debate. Someone responded to my saying so, by suggesting that I have to trade more debate vs. Kerry helping other Democrats. I don’t think that’s true at all and responded saying so. You are responding to my response, and in that context, who is to blame is irrelevant: regardless of blame, it remains true that a little bit more debate time wouldn’t have had much impact on Kerry’s ability to help other Democrats.
<
p>I don’t like O’Reilly as a candidate and don’t support him, so don’t try to guilt me by association. My point stands on its own, regardless of which candidate I support.
than kerry’s trip down to the charles street 7-11 for a bag of doritos and some smokes.
<
p>
Excuse me, he planned his vacation before he was elected to the council? Did he know the requirements of the job before he ran for it, or was the vacation just more important than upholding his responsibilities? Maybe he was just office climbing, and this was a political resume item he couldn’t pass up while reaching for the Senate.
His queries and relies were dripping with venemous condescension. Kerry can’t stand it, Republican or Democrat question him. Kerry is now beyond the point that he need to respond to anything. Time to vote this guy OUT!
Kerry said nothing that challenged O’Reilly’s integrity or character. We all know that there are cases in O’Reilly’s past that do not show him in a good light – and none of that was used.
<
p>I think you are seeing things if you see Kerry, who has likely been called “gentlemanly” more often than any Senator I can name as “dripping with venemous condescension.”
<
p>What did Kerry not respond to? I saw him responding to every point. Where was O’Reilly’s response on Cape Wind? Unless I missed it he went directly to gobbledygook and a reference to his web site.
if he has a gang of blog-flacks to do it for him.
<
p>
But all they do is attack John Kerry’s character and supporters. They seem to have very little to say about anything of substance about O’Reilly’s record or qualifications to be a U.S. senator.
Did you notice how Kerry tried to equate Ed O’reilly with John McCain and Sarah Palin. He is trying make uniformed voters believe this is the race against the republican challenger. I know that sounds odd to those of us who are
into politics, but you wouldn’t believe what voter awareness is like out in the streets of Massachusetts and America. He is trying to convey to the uniformed that Ed is the republican candidate for Senate. Because John Kerry
has so much money, and so much name recognition, he could win just based on the fact that the uniformed voter will
vote for him thinking he is the democrat in Democratic Primary (unfortunate, but true)John Kerry is hoping for this, and he is pushing
to make it happen by mentioning John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Can you believe it. So he won’t win on his merits, he will win by how well he can mislead the uninformed voter.
kind of like Boston cop with a brand new paint ball gun (just check out the B.S. coming from Brigid O’Rourke’s mouth).
<
p>I really don’t think it is a good strategy for them- they could have taken the high road and they decided not to. Instead, they risk alienating some 25%+ of Democratic primary voters. Based on past turnout numbers, this more than 180,000 voters- more than enough to swing a general election race.
Why should Kerry take the high road any longer when Ed O’Reilly has, from Day One, campaigned as dirty and recklessly and callously as possible?
<
p>Time and time again, Ed has attacked Kerry’s character and integrity, echoed Republican talking points, delighted in the adoring glow of Howie Carr and his cohorts and parroted the Swift Boat lies.
<
p>Want some of Ed’s greatest hits, Z? Here you go. And let me remind everyone- Ed O’Reilly is supposedly a Democrat.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
Nothing Bridget O’Rourke has said has been untrue and they have not touched any issue reflecting on O’Reilly’s character. They have taken the high road. They have not even used failings in the past that O’Reilly himself admits. Kerry’s campaign has for the most part avoided even mentioning O’Reilly, except when they have had to counter his lies.
<
p>In reality, your 25% number is absurd because less than 25% of the voters will likely even see O’Rourke’s comment and the majority of those who do will agree with her. The Democratic complaint against Kerry that I have read was that he wouldn’t fight dirty, not that he doesn’t take the high road. The first 4 points defend Kerry by stating the truth. The fifth, accurately quotes the local newspaper about O’Reilly’s record. How is it wrong for Kerry’s team to defend him when O’Reilly is wrong, but ok for O’Reilly himself to throw every RW lie, including the SBVT’s, at Kerry. Try holding O’Reilly to the standard you are holding Kerry’s spokesman to. Her comments to me sound mild, given the provocations. I admire her discipline and ability to strongly take issue with the lies without hitting O’Reilly on his own past – where she wouldn’t have to lie.
<
p>If you say that Kerry, via his campaign, alienates 25% of Democratic voters, what percent are alienated by O’Reilly’s siding with the SBVT and becoming BFF with Howie Car? I can pull numbers out of my hat too – I think that maybe 95% of Democrats would be offended by his SBVT stuff.
<
p>Think of something else. Kerry and his campaign have taken the high road. The Republicans won’t. Not only does O’Reilly not have Kerry’s record and gravitas, I can only imagine the fun the Republicans would have digging into his record. I assume it would not be pretty.
It was in a press release that his campaign wrote. There is no Kerry conspiracy to fool people that O’Reilly is a Republican.
<
p>In fact, I can make as good a case that O’Reilly, by repeating SBVT attacks and joking with Howie Carr as every RW smear of Kerry was repeated, might have fooled MORE people into thinking he was a Republican than a line in a campaign press release that might not even be picked up by the media.
<
p>I have yet to hear even one attack by Senator Kerry that returns the MANY lies and smears of O’Reilly. Where was your condemnation of O’reilly’s vicious attacks.
<
p>The informed Massachusetts voter is pretty smart and will assume that all the people running in the Democratic primary are democrats. They also likely have no problem – completely unaided – stating who the state’s two Senators are. Why are you insulting the intelligence of the MA voter?
Your right, the informed voter is pretty smart. And uninformed voters are smart too, just not about politics. They are just not interested in politics in general, so they don’t pay attention to what is going on. It’s the uninformed voter that will just punch the card for Kerry.
And that is why Kerry has done his level best to avoid debates and keep Ed O’reilly out of the news as much as possible. John Kerry is counting on those uninformed voters to get him through because the voters who are paying attention and know how John Kerry has been sleeping through the senate will vote for Ed O’reilly. Except of course for people like you, who are hopelessly devoted to John Kerry,
for what reason I’ll never know. I find Kerry to be an even
worse representative of Massachusetts after the way he handled this Massachusetts primary season. It’s rather embarrassing to see my senator ducking from democracy.
as O’Reilly had someone meet with him. The idea of calling for 23 debates was unprecedented and preposterous. Insisting that he had to talk directly to the Senator to set them up was gamemanship – that failed. They agreed to this one debate – one more debate than Clinton gave Tasini. The Senator has now returned to DC where he is doing his job. He will then return to MA to campaign after the Senate adjourns.
<
p>He now had his debate – and he failed in the Kennedy or the environmental question to give any reason to consider him. Mocking the committee that Kerry chairs was pretty silly. It is also a variation of a false RW smear that Kerry has “slept” through the Senate.
<
p>As to why I support Kerry, I took the time to actually learn something about him in 2004. CSPAN became my favorite channel as I could see the full speeches. After the election, I stayed with CSPAN and was startled watching the SFRC hearing that dealt with confirming Dr Rice to find that in committee he was even more informed and insightful than he appeared in the debate – a very hard feat to accomplish.
<
p>Watching other committes, I found that he really was one of the Senators whose points others referenced in their own questioning. No matter whether the committee was SFRC, Finance, Commerce, or Small Business, Kerry was always well prepared, serious, and thoughtful – and one of the people who could persuade others.
<
p>I also see that he has led on the Democratic position on Iraq, on tools to keep terrorists (and others) from international money laundering, on 4 provisions to the recent Banking bill to help people and communities hurt by the mortgage crisis (one of them an affordable housing fund he has worked for for over a decade), many programs which help veterans and being, by far, the top person in the Senate on environmental issues. (There was a reason the League of Conservation Voters endorsed him in the primaries – an action they usually don’t take – even for Gore.
<
p>Now, about 69% of Democrats nationwide voted for John Kerry in the primaries in 2004 – so I am clearly not alone in having been impressed by Senator Kerry. You now should detail, based on Ed O’Reilly’s own accomplishments why you are such a big supporter of his. I did not mention O’Reilly in saying why I am impressed with Senator Kerry. I would ask that you mention only O’Reilly in your defense.
<
p>I also resent your assumption that people voting for the Senator are uninformed. They may agree with the Roll Call ranking that placed him as the 12th most influential Senator. Insulting those of us who have answered factless posts with information either from links or the Senate record, as “uninformed” is pretty juvenile.
Yes and 69% of democratic voters made the wrong choice, as is obvious, we lost the election.
I am voting for Ed O’reilly because he is a feisty fighter who isn’t afraid to stand up to the “stagnant quo”. He will
enter into the Senate with a fresh and realistic perspective
of what it is like to actually earn a living and pay bills in this country. He is genuinely concerned about the lack of leadership in the Senate, the favors, the special interests and all the other negative things that hold the Senate back from accomplishing anything. John Kerry is part of that problem. As well as many other lifers in Washington. Elections happen every 6 years for a reason.
Seniority is not suppose to play a role in congressional power, it was never meant to. It is one of the most negative aspects of people being reelected time and time again. The fact that Ed O’reilly has few political accomplishments is not a negative. He is an accomplished attorney who has every educational skill needed to be a law maker. He knows what it’s like to be a citizen of this country, to face the issues we face as people, not as elected officials, who are fairly well isolated from us with their high pay, awesome expense accounts and great medical benefits. John Kerry himself has told us time and time again that it is time for change in Washington. I agree. Ed O’reilly will bring a fighting spirit, great knowledge and an open mind to Washington. I can’t wait.
<
p>What a trustworthy guy, EOR is. (complete sarcasm!)
From PolitickerMA. The fact that Walsh felt the need to get involved in this makes is significant- he has been silent about this primary thus far and must have felt personally insulted to hear another Democrat flat out lie about another member of the tribe.
<
p>
Apparently Walsh has decided that giving Kerry as much time as he wanted at the convention wasn’t enough. Nice to see him doing even more to tilt the playing field.
<
p>Phil Johnston never looked so good.
too bad that O’Reilly ended up missing out on the 15% he needed to get on the ballot as a result of Kerry’s speech running long….oh that’s right, O’Reilly did end up on the ballot. Wow, it’s a Lowell miracle!
Upthread, a Kerry supporter says that we really shouldn’t care if Kerry voted for the war, because we were going to war anyway. Elsewhere, we’re told that gay marriage isn’t going to happen anyway, so who cares if Kerry doesn’t support it? Now you laugh at the idea of treating candidates equally.
<
p>The stream of comments from people purporting to back Kerry that come out so strongly against the Democratic process has rather surprised me. I can see why the argument of longevity moves some people so much.
He chose not to take advantage of it. Which I considered then and now to be dumb on his part. He could have returned to the stage and ripped into Kerry for running long and perhaps rallied more support.
<
p>I’m all for treating candidates equally but I find it difficult to summon up any outrage 3 months after the convention when Ed made the ballot. Now if Kerry had run long and O’Reilly had received 14%, then I could understand the outrage.
<
p>It was a speech that ran long- that’s it. It wasn’t any sort of Kerry-Walsh anti-democracy conspiracy. And from what I hear Walsh was all over the Kerry people about it.
that’s a pretty strong rebuttal to O’Reilly. Of course the O’Reilly people won’t really care about facts or anything.
<
p>I find this from O’Reilly laughably weaselly:
<
p>
<
p>Okay, so there’s a set percentage that every candidate is supposed to donate to other candidates? Huh? Kerry raises more than anyone else for other candidates, but gets bashed because he is so good at it he can keep a substantial amount for his own campaign?
<
p>It seems O’Reilly is just unhappy because he can’t find many people who want to donate to him. Given that O’Reilly sided with the Swift Lying Scum, it’s no wonder he can’t find many Democrats to give him money.
I believe O’Reilly’s claim on that is also not true, that there are other Democrats who donated a lower percentage of what they’ve raised. However, I don’t have the numbers to figure that out, and I believe it’s very sensitive to which numbers you pick and how you count them. For example, if Kerry spends a significant amount of time raising funds for his PAC which get distributed to other Democrats but then gives a lower percentage of his personal campaign fund, which is quite big, than some other Democrat who doesn’t have a similar PAC and only raises for his/her own fund, how do you compare that exactly? There are other ambiguities you’d have to contend with and no real objective standard for what makes a fair, sensible comparison.
he sounds like a moron. I just watched it, nothing going on upstairs with him. I just heard republican talking points after republican talking points. No answers to issues, just barking. I understand that there are some who believe that Kerry the Iraq war all by himself. I would imagine that you were not swayed. But this was a horrible debate for O’Reily.
But I think what we saw this morning was quite enough for most MA voters to make their choice. O’Reilly didn’t speak like an informed public servant, he looked and spoke like nothing more than what he is: a heckler.
<
p>The people of Massachusetts deserve to continue to have the expertise and compassion of John Kerry working in their service in Congress.
He absolutely blew the Kennedy and environmental questions. he didn’t even answer as to his own Cape Wind position. This debate meant far more to him than to Kerry, who the state really knows quite well.
<
p>What he needed to do was a very hard task:
<
p>- He would have had to present idealistic proposals in a clear and compelling way. he would have had to show the passion to work on specific issues that drove him to want to be Massachusetts’ US Senator. You get no sense of even what committees he would choose to be on. His environmental ideas were hardly coherent – and that is where Kerry was very compelling in 2004 and at other times.
<
p>- He had to show that he was “Senatorial”. In 2004, Kerry met the test of looking “Presidential” and very nearly won. Nearly all of MA’s Congressmen could easily pass this test, O’reilly didn’t demonstrate it in the least.
<
p>- He had to appear likable. Would you want to see him representing the state on your TV? (he failed this badly)
<
p>Even had he met this task, he would still have difficulty winning because Kerry has been a very good Senator and the seniority loss would be significant. As it is he fell extremely short on all of them.
<
p>Kerry did a good job considering the host and the format. Longer times to answer questions would have helped Kerry as O’Reilly seemed to be rambling incoherently on the last two questions to fill the time. Kerry was also constrained by the fact that returning O’Reilly’s nastiness would, both be out of character and would place him near the gutter than O’Reilly has been in.
He’s telling a whopper right now with his false TV commercial about bringing heating oil here. Todays Worcester Telegram
says “A Drop expected in federal aid”. Here’s the link:
http://www.telegram.com/articl…
<
p> This is out and out LYING!
You dems will do anything to get elected. I’d rather have an honest Jeff Beatty anytime.
<
p>