Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Kerry Challenges Beatty to 2 Debates; Beatty accepts

By

With polls showing Kerry beating Beatty with about 35 points to spare, Kerry doesn’t have much to worry about, clearly. In fact, he’s been sending volunteers up to New Hampshire to help the Obama campaign, and has been raising money for the DSCC. His goal all along has been not just to get reelected, but to get a larger Democratic majority in the Senate and send a Democrat to the White House, so that the Democrats can finally move forward with a progressive agenda. It should be interesting to see how Beatty will attempt to make a case for the Republican agenda.  

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. How ironic that he is challenging a GOP opponent who will probably poll less than Ed O’Reilly did.  He tried mightily to avoid debating O’Reilly so what’s changed?

      • Hillary Clinton refusing to debate Tasini? After O’Reilly decided to send someone to set up a debate with Kerry’s campaign manager – he got one.

        • The primary’s over, your guy won, show some class.  A sitting Senator and former presidential candidate couldn’t crack the 70% line despite massively outspending his opponent, and I think this is proof that Kerry learned not to give his opponent a “ducking debates” bludgeon.  O’Reilly used it to great extent, as would have Beatty.

          <

          p>I wish you’d give us all credit by admitting that Kerry is fallible, and I wish you’d give Kerry more credit by acknowledging he can learn from his mistakes.

          • in a primary, where there were few Republican races, allowing the Republican leaning unenrolled to vote against Kerry. I haven’t seen a tabulation of how many Democrats vs unenrolled voted. Kerry’s numbers were higher in the more liberal, Democratic areas.

            <

            p>I know Kerry is fallible and I think that his campaign taking the high road and saying they were not going to argue the debate negotiations in the media was a mistake. As a result only one side was heard – O’Reilly’s. It was clear from the Kerry campaign’s comments that they had made offers that were rejected. We still do not know what they were. I think they made a mistake not stating what the offers were.

            <

            p>The difference is that you 100% buy O’Reilly’s stated view that Kerry intended to duck debates. I believe that the Kerry campaign is telling the truth – which incidentally O’Reilly never refuted – that  O’Reilly had to get some one to negotiate with Lau or accept their proposed offer.

            <

            p>It is true that the Kerry campaign stood their ground refusing to have Kerry directly set the debates up with O’Reilly. I also suspect that O’Reilly likely preferred having the issue that Kerry didn’t debate him then to have actually had the debate. The fact is that O’Reilly got his debate, where others, in similar situations, would not have given a debate to a badly trailing opponent.
            examples
            – HRC in the 2006 primary

            <

            p>Looking at the Democrat Senate incumbents, the following are not debating their opponents:
            – Reed versus Tingle in RI. http://www.projo.com/news/poli…
            -Rockefeller versus Wolfe in WV
            http://www.politicker.com/pind…
            – Lautenberg versus Zimmer in NJ http://www.dailyrecord.com/app…
            –  Biden is not debating his Delaware opponent.
            – Baucus versus Kelleher in Montana
            http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/…
            – Johnson versus Dykstra in SD http://www.associatedcontent.c…

            <

            p>Here are the ones who are debating(in addition to Kerry having 2):
            – Dubin – IL will do 2 debates
            – Harkin – IA will do
            – Levin -MI will do 1
            (I couldn’t find info on Landieu having or not having a debate – but I suspect she is as she is usually cited as the only vulnerable one.

            • Hey, for whatever it’s worth, I always believe in primary debates.  I think they’re essential.  “He did it, too!” isn’t a good excuse in a schoolyard, or on the campaign trail.

              <

              p>Personally, I think “he didn’t call the right extensions” is spin.  O’Reilly wanted debates, the public wanted debates, and Kerry’s campaign waited and waited, threatening not to have any.  Eventually they smartly gave in.  I’m glad they’re not playing the same thing out this time around.

                • I’m just saying that it might be a good idea to take some lessons from it.  All I get back is “no no no, Kerry is perfect, did everything right, and won bigbigbig SHUT UP!”

                • “I know Kerry is fallible and I think that his campaign taking the high road and saying they were not going to argue the debate negotiations in the media was a mistake. As a result only one side was heard – O’Reilly’s. It was clear from the Kerry campaign’s comments that they had made offers that were rejected. We still do not know what they were. I think they made a mistake not stating what the offers were.”

                  <

                  p>Does it give Kerry the benefit of the doubt, yes. Why? Because I trust him more. I admit that. As I said, you are STILL giving O’Reilly 100% credibility – ignoring the fact that what the Kerry team was asking, that the campaign managers deal with those details, is NORMAL practice. It wasn’t “the wrong extention”, it was that he demanded that he would speak to no one but the Senator. I’m sure had he called any Kerry campaign number, they would have transfered him to Lau. Noisy Democrat wrote that she PERSONALLY heard Kerry at an event tell O’Reilly who was heckling him that he needed to call Roger Lau.

                  <

                  p>The fact is it comes down to who you believe. I believe the Kerry team; you believe the O’Reilly team. Both of us have the right to believe what we do. There is nothing I am saying that is at variance with what O’Reilly himself said – he said he did not send his proposal on the debates to Lau, he sent it to Kerry – and he wanted Kerry to answer personally.  

        • I assume an obscure Senate opponent for HRC, but I don’t know whether primary or general.  To be clear I favor debates in principle and if one candidate asks the other candidate should do it.  What usually doesn’t happen is that an incumbent with a commanding lead makes the first move.

            • of no competive Republican races and the unenrolled being able to vote in the Democratic race. Also, Tasini did not get the visibility from the NY press, which already wanted HRC as the 2008 nominee, that O’Reilly got.

              <

              p>The fact is that it is a close parallel and I have yet to see you say that SHE was wrong.

              <

              p>As to whether it was all Kerry’s fault they had troble agreeing to debates – we will have to disagree. I think that when O’Reilly starts with telling the media he is demanding 23 debates, there is game playing going on.

              • I said upthread “I always believe in primary debates.  I think they’re essential.”  How is that not clear enough?  Please don’t play this “we’ll have to disagree” before throwing in a gratuitous insult.  It’s immature.  But just for fun, I’d ask you to list two mistakes that you believe John Kerry has made during his political career.  

                • not attack you, as lacking class. I ignored that personal insult. Now you throw in immature, something I have not been accused of for many decades.

                  <

                  p>There was no gratuitous insult there – unlike the two you have issued just in this thread. This is what I said – “I think that when O’Reilly starts with telling the media he is demanding 23 debates, there is game playing going on.”
                  Where is the insult? The first two words, “I think” say that this is my opinion. (when O’Reilly starts with telling the media he is demanding 23 debates) is something that did happen, the end of the sentence is MY OPINION (there is game playing going on.) Even if you are meaning I insult O’Reilly, this is not a character assassination or even a particularly negative accusation.

                  <

                  p>The only difference between what I said is that I stated it as my opinion. You state your opinion as fact. There were two sides of the story.

                  <

                  p>As to HRC, here as all last month, you still have not said directly that HRC was wrong not to debate Tasini.

                  <

                  p>As to Kerry, of course he’s made mistakes.

                  <

                  p>His vote on the IWR was clearly one.

                  <

                  p>In addition, in hindsight, he and his crew members and maybe Senator Warner (who was Secretary of the Navy)and who did say in 2004 that he approved Kerry’s silver star) should have gone on any 60 minutes type show to counter the SBVT – once they saw they were hurting him in spite of the official record being 100% behind him.

                  <

                  p>I also think that someone other than Edwards would have been a better VP pick. There was a rumor, printed in the Chicago Tribune, that Kerry’s first choice was Durbin. Durbin’s nice Midwestern personality and his real record of accomplishment might have played better in Ohio and Iowa, not to mention making neighboring MI and WI less of a nailbiter. An out of box pick would have been Gary Hart, who having written a report Bush ignored on terrorism with Rudman could have helped bring up Kerry’s own real credentials there.

                  <

                  p>There are other votes that I disagree with, but far more I agree with.

                  <

                  p>Now, can you give two actions that O’Reilly took that you were not pleased with?

                  <

                  p>  

                • I’m not happy that O’Reilly did not take the extra time offered him at the convention.   I think it could have only helped.  I also think O’Reilly should have put more effort into economic issues, rather than just foreign policy and energy.  O’Reilly had an uninspiring concession speech.

                  <

                  p>”You still have not said directly that HRC was wrong not to debate Tasini.”  This reminds me of pundits declaring what secret combinations of words will prove that Clinton’s people back Obama — “he didn’t say this, she didn’t say that!”.  So let’s try this one last time… “I always believe in primary debates.  I think they’re essential, and it is wrong of any incumbent candidate, including Hillary Clinton, who seeks to avoid them.”  That clear enough for you?

      • last Tuesday. He was on the Factor as a top surrogate for Obama on Monday and on Fox News with Lindsey Graham – who he demolished – on Sunday. The Obama team has used an excerpt of the Sunday show which spoke of McCain’s and Obama’s roles in the bailout negotiations. Why? Because he did an incredibly good job. Here’s a link where you can see the video of that – http://www.dailykos.com/story/… – Not many other Democrats could get this message through on Fox.

        <

        p>In case you didn’t read it, the NYT called Kerry’s convention speech the best non-acceptance speech at a Democratic convention in 2 decades.

        <

        p>”‘But last night, Mr. Kerry earned a healthy dose of political redemption delivering possibly the best non-acceptance speech at a Democratic convention since Mario Cuomo and Jesse Jackson wowed the crowd in San Francisco more than two decades ago. Mr. Kerry demonstrated a passion and intensity that he rarely showed on the campaign trail in 2004. In doing so, he not only brought the partisan crowd in Denver to a fever pitch, but he became the first Democratic politician in recent memory to so openly and courageously defend the often maligned patriotism of his party.”
        (snip)

        <

        p>Now, if Mr. Kerry had stopped there this would have been an effective partisan speech – memorable in the moment but likely soon forgotten. But what John Kerry said at the end of his remarks took a very good speech into the pantheon of great speeches.

        <

        p>For more than two generations, one of the dominant narratives in American politics has been the notion of Democratic “weakness” on foreign policy. Democrats, the stereotype goes, do not love their country; they are not patriotic, they are as Jeane Kirkpatrick famously declared at the G.O.P. convention in 1984, blame America-firsters. And for years, Democrats have struggled to fight back; often choosing political artifice over impassioned persuasion. But, last night in Denver, John Kerry fought back:
        (snip)

        <

        p>And instead of hiding behind showy displays of patriotic symbolism, Mr. Kerry offered a full-throated defense of the idea that dissent is as pure a form of patriotism as any that exists in a democratic society:
        Years ago when we protested a war, people would weigh in against us saying, ‘My country right or wrong.’ Our answer? Absolutely, my country right or wrong. When right, keep it right. When wrong, make it right. Sometimes loving your country demands you must tell the truth to power.

        <

        p>Whether one is a Democrat or Republican, these are the types of words that need to be heard on the campaign trail. In recent years, the patriotism of Democratic candidates has been all too regularly questioned; and the very notion of dissent scoffed at by some as un-American. This is no way to have a debate about national security or, for that matter, elect a president, and John Kerry, who regularly saw his patriotism laid out for scrutiny, knows all too well the damage that such attacks can have on not only one’s political future but the national discourse.

        <

        p>http://campaignstops.blogs.nyt…

        <

        p>Senator Kerry could get on virtually any news show he wants – he has been called Obama’s best surrogate. So, why was he on Fox? Because he might be the best Democrat to send there, because he is strong enough to get his points out and because they can’t get him to look out of control angry.

    • O’Reilly initially asked for a ridiculous 23 debates, which was a bizarre request. Then he insisted that he wanted to personally set up the debates directly with Kerry. How do you know what Kerry’s campaign manager offered O’Reilly?

      <

      p>It could simply have been that O’Reilly wanted the issue more than he wanted the debate.  

      • The way debates are set up is for the campaign managers to work out the terms. O’Reilly couldn’t keep a campaign manager, so instead of engaging in proper negotiations like a serious aspirant to the job, he chased Kerry around like a heckler and tried to get publicity for that. In one case, I actually saw O’Reilly acting like a persistent stalker, insisting he wanted to talk to “John” even after Senator Kerry had told him directly to deal with his campaign manager. I assume that Beatty, for all his shortcomings, is running a standard campaign, with a manager who knows how these things are done.  

      • Because I worked parttime for the O’Reilly campaign for the last month.  Kerry offered exactly what we ended up with – one single brief debate.  I believe that O’Reilly genuinely wanted debates though if I had only been offered this one brief opportunity I might have been tempted to walk away from negotiations and make it an issue instead.  What we got was frankly insulting in my opinion, but O’Reilly took the position that it was better than nothing.

        • That was clearly O’Reilly’s position. If someone said they were in the Kerry campaign and this was the only offer, I would give it more credibility. (I seriously doubt that Keller would have been Kerry’s first choice.)

          • Is she a mole for the Kerry campaign? What, pray tell, are KarenC’s credentials? I don’t have to prove I’m right, I just have to prove KarenC wrong” paraphrased from “Thank you for smoking”. I hate to sound crude, but shit or get off the pot honey.  

            • There were articles in July and August that quoted O’Reilly as saying that he would deal only with Kerry, not Lau. The same article spoke of there having been an offer.

              <

              p>I am certainly not a “mole” for anyone. Nor have I ever been a staffer for any campaign. I have volunteered, but I think everyone here has. Credentials on what?  Reading the newspaper? Knowing how to find Senate roll call votes? These are rather the same as most people’s here.

              <

              p>Also there is nothing untrue in what I wrote – because there is nothing stated as fact – other than that what he was saying was O’Reilly’s position. There is a question, a sentence preceded by “if” and an opinion started with “I doubt”

              <

              p>Given that you in other threads have repeated things that are not true as facts- even after be contradicted by the Senate record, shows that I did prove you wrong.

          • Keller actually did his share of taking the initiative himself.  This is all Kerry would agree to.  Are you really suggesting Kerry offered more than that?  I’m sorry, but that flies in the face of everything that was said from either side.  O’Reilly needed the exposure and certainly would have taken any and all he was offered.  Anything else just defies common sense and good politics.  I’m glad Kerry seems more willing to debate his GOP challenger and now that he is our nominee I am 100% behind him.  You on the other hand are starting to sound like a sore winner.

            • I respect that you and the other O’Reilly supporters, in goof faith, saw something in him that made you want to actively support him. I also know that it likely hurt when it did not work out. Please know that I genuinely believe every thing I said and it was based on what I read. But, I definitely should not have responded to your personal response.

              • I likewise was never really anti-Kerry.  I supported O’Reilly at convention on the belief that voters had a choice, then moved to really support him because he favors single-payer health care, which is something I also strongly favor.  I would not have complained too loudly if nobody had challenged him, but since someone did I thought he should be considered.

    • I think that it shows that Kerry has more time for Republicans than he does the third of his own party who have long ago decided that he is not up to the job. Once again, I will be holding my nose and voting for Kerry in November. The sooner Obama gives him a job in the administration, the better. It will be nice to have a real Democrat as our junior senator – one who actually cares about us commoners.

  2.  For Jeff Beatty to expose this elitist, out-of-touch fraud. Jey Jeff: Ask him about that 2004 vote on extending unemployment benefits that lost by his not caring about people to show up for. He was too busy running for president to care about people. Also, his outright lies just last month about acquiring heating assistance. JEFF BEATTY FOR US SENATE! Sorry, I get excited when there’s a chance to dethrone the naked emperor. Kerry has no freakin’ clue.

    • the Worcester Telgram went with an inaccurate number. The additional money passed.

      <

      p>As to the unemployment bill – that was Frist and the Republicans playing political shenanigans – scheduling votes, then changing them is Kerry came. The news accounts in 2004 were clear that Republicans purposely made that a 2 vote.

      •  To trumpet an accomplishment that had not been accomplished. But there he was, floating his ads all over the place. He was lying. John Edwards thought the 2004 bill was important to stop his campaign to return to Washington. He was running for president too. Kerry’s most important concern is himself! I’m voting for Jeff Beatty.

        • and I have posted the roll call twice. here is a link to the last time. http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s… (Not to mention that at the time of the vote, Edwards did not have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. He had won just SC and Kerry had won 16 primaries, many in Southern, Southwestern, and rural states – the type that did not favor a New Englander. In addition, this was about a week and a half before Kerry mathematically clinched the nomination, when MA, CA, and NY and other states went to him by 20 plus points.)

          <

          p>As to Kerry’s LIHEAP comment they HAD gotten that money – it had passed. There was NO lie.  

          • It passed AFTER Kerry’s trumpeting HE did it. Myself, not being one of you rich folk, received my fuel assistance from Dan Rea (WBZ radio) Jou Kennedy (Citizens Energy), Hugo Chavez and the good people of Venezuela. Not John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, George Bush, or The US Senate. Kerry lied, he is a lying sack of excrement. I suppose I should believe everything Joe Biden says too. Naa. I supported George H. W. Bush until his approval rating hit 90%. As I recall the vote was 59-40. Please give me the link from congress? Sometimes folks on BMG fudge too.

            • As to LIHEAP, Kerry’s and Kennedy’s offices announced that they got $11.5 million additional dollars on Sept 17, bringing the 2008 total to $126.5 million. This was what he was speaking of.

              <

              p>Just last week, they announced that they got $163 million which was passed for 2009.  

              • Article criticizing Kerry and his ads is dated Sept. 14th. That is before sept. 17th. It is still a lie. The Kerry ad began running Sept. 8th. So, where does the LIHEAP money go? Probably into the pockets of democratic party loyalist bureaucrats who pay themselves so much to administer the program, there is nothing left for the people the money was intended for in the first place. Please, has anyone ever  received LIHEAP aid? Tell me how to apply, I qualify.
                My opinion only! But I would like to know how to apply for LIHEAP aid.

                • Surely you’re joking. My mother out in California gets LIHEAP aid every year. She’s not wealthy; she lives in a low-income retirement community. I knew about LIHEAP long before I knew it was a big issue in Massachusetts because of hearing my mother tell me she was relieved when she got it. As for how to apply in the state of Massachusetts, I have no idea, but I’m sure if you google for it, you’ll find the info.  

                •  That’s out. I don’t google. I’m not giving the government any more information than needed. I believe in civil rights. The Patriot Act goes too far.

Archives