Kerry: Publicize benefit for vets

[JI7]

<WASHINGTON - Sen. John F. Kerry , moved by the ``heartbreaking'' story of a cash-strapped North End veteran who lost both legs in Vietnam, is urging state officials to better publicize a little-known benefit to disabled vets.

Kerry was struck by the case of Paul Bartell, a Marine left legless after stepping on a booby trap in Vietnam in 1967 and whose plight was recounted in a column by the Herald's Mike Barnicle yesterday.

Bartell has been eligible since 1968 for the annual $1,500 disability annuity, according to the state. But he was not aware he qualified until three years ago - and because the benefits are not granted retroactively, he lost out on $13,000 over the years.

``I'm just glad the Herald exposed how veterans are falling through the cracks,'' Kerry said. ``This is a test of our values as a state. We should be working across the aisle to make sure every veteran in our state gets every penny they deserve for putting their bodies on the line for our freedom.''

In a letter to Gov. Mitt Romney , Kerry (D-Mass.) urged state officials to promote the annual $1,500 payment to 100 percent service-connected disabled veterans, Gold Star Parents and surviving spouses who have not remarried.

``It makes your blood boil to think we'd have disabled veterans getting lost in the shuffle, counting every last dime, choosing between putting food on the table and paying the bills, all because the government hasn't made sure they know what benefits are owed them,'' the senator said.

``With so many of our young men and women returning home from service in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is more important than ever before that we show our veterans that we will keep faith with their sacrifice to our country,'' Kerry said.>

http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=76920

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. This is why I love him

He's so genuine and heartfelt when he talks about vets - Rethuglicans can preach all they want about "supporting the troops," but John walks the walk. He has never stopped supporting them from the moment he set foot in Nam to today.

[LittleClarkie]

2. I was just thinking about this in a way

I was thinking about the Vietnam themed convention. How much of that was stunt, and how much of that was John showing people who he really was.

Funny thing about him, but not really funny, that when we Kerrycrats know he's being his most sincere, it seems that's the time when the rest of the world thinks he's doing the most politicking. It's like they can't believe he really means it, so I must be politicking.

I suppose it's partly because he's so much better one on one than he is in front of an audience. He sometimes needs to relax and show his heart more.

He relates best to people through his war service it seems. It sometimes seems to be his pathway to connecting. He sure does warm up when he's around fellow veterans. That's one of the first things I noticed when I was still ABB.

What do you guys think? Was the convention mostly a stunt to show how strong he'd be in national security, or was it the essence of our candidate, and a good choice therefore.

I guess MY only criticism is that, as some have said, he could have highlighted more of his biography.

I wonder who's idea most of the convention was in the first place. Was the decision to go mostly positive Shrum's and Cahill's? Who's idea was the emphasis on John's record? Did you guys have trouble with the salute?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[JI7]

3. the convention was not a problem, the only difference

should have been that they emphasized the other things such as his work as prosecutor and his work in the Senate.

but there was nothing wrong with the Vietnam angle of it. that's what people ALWAYS do.

Bush's campaign talked about how he was some born again. i think when it comes to politics Kerry serving his country mattered a lot more than Bush's story about how he stopped drinking after he found Jesus.

the only problem was the Kerry haters who just attack anything they don't like. Bush people never dealt with every attack against Bush they just repeated the same crap . that's how it should have been with Kerry. so what if you didn't care about Vietnam. that's not hte point, the point is to get the message out by continuously repeating it.

[sandnsea]

5. That's who he is

He is at his best when he's around vets, and to a lesser extent, firefighters. They never should have let him go anywhere without at least 2 vets that he served with. They kept him real.

I agree with you on the sincere thing, I do think people can't believe anyone is really like that anymore. Integrity, an old-fashioned idea that people think is weakness these days I guess. I loved every second of that convention.

I think the idea to go positive was John and Teresa's. They both talked alot about raising the level of discourse during the primaries. I remember Teresa talking about children and that if you didn't fill them up with goodness and culture, children would find other things that weren't so good. They really wanted to change the country.

*sigh* I miss them. I miss the hope.

[karynnj]

6. I also loved the convention

I think that there is a lot of second guessing going on about how good the convention was. Immediately after the convention, there was a strong feel good wave. Kerry's speech was considered to be much above what was expected.

Part of the problem was that the convention needed to do so much and the press coverage was even before the convention began designed to be unfair. Each of the cable stations had panels with more Republicans than Democrats to critique each speech. At the time, I thought it was unfair, but naively thought they would do the same for the Republicans. (Yeah, I was that dumb!) Kerry had to show that he was a nice person "who you would want on your living room TV", lay out a coherent vision for the country, and define himself.

Kerry was not known to most of the country. It was essential that the convention be used to let people see him in a good light. I think between his wonderful daughters and to a lesser degree his step-sons and the vets, he did come across as a very nice man. There was even an ecstatic thread on dailykos a few weeks later - after a news story that Kerry had saved the life of a NV Republican Senator who was choking. They talked about how he saved Rasmann, Senator Hecht, the famous hamster and 42 Vietnamese villagers. He seemed almost a superhero.

In "Going Upriver", someone says something to the effect that to know John you have to understand what Vietnam means to him. In TOUR OF DUTY, Brinkley's main theme is that Kerry's "tour" in Vietnam included the antiwar effort and the POW/MIA effort. Between those 3 huge parts of his life, there was also all his efforts on Veteran Benefits. How could Vietnam not be a major focus in showing his life?

In retrospect, they needed to get a fuller biography that would have addressed more of his career to prevent the Republicans from portraying a person who is clearly a workaholic as someone who did nothing (but somehow MA didn't care.) They only had 3 hours of network TV. When they learned that coverage was going to be so short, they should have tried to map out what they needed to accomplish and make sure they used the time as well as they could. Clinton had a very slick film that took his life and turned it into a story. Kerry's life was far more complicated, but also far more heroic. If they would have created a film on Kerry's whole life (a slicker version of the frontline bio) and gave Clinton only 30 minutes on the first day of coverage, time might have been better used.

In Clinton's book, he talked about liking Weld, but wanting to keep Kerry in the Senate as he was among the experts on the environment and technology. He also mentioned Kerry's " devoting an extraordinary amount of time on the problem of youth violence, an issue he had cared about since his days as a prosecutor." I don't remember if he even mentioned either of these things at the convention. Clinton should have avoided talking about Kerry's service in Vietnam and concentrated on the POW/MIA work or other Senate work as well as reminding people (as he did) of how much better the country was 4 years ago. (Cleland and Alston (sp?), the back minister who was on Kerry's crew, did better addressing Vietnam anyway. Alston's comments also were an incredible personal endorsement of Kerry.)

[ginnyinWI]

7. I loved his acceptance speech

And I thought the convention was quite good. I wish today's conventions weren't so scripted and more like they used to be, but that's what they are now. I think Vietnam will always be a part of who he is--that's how it is with combat veterans.

But the convention alone wasn't enough to make him known to the American people--Bush had a big advantage there. He was the "devil they knew". And insecure times make people drift toward the known rather than the unknown. Most people only knew the stereotype of Kerry, not the man--so how do you trust a two-dimensional figure? And they also have a stereotype of what a Democrat is, thanks to right-wing spin. Yes, Clinton should have been the one to highlight Kerry's Senate career, something that received too little attention!
It would have helped add another dimension--maybe they could have had a film about some of the youth who were helped by the programs.

Now that Delay is showing what the true face of the GOP looks like, the Dems should use this chance to highlight our differences. I'm sure Kerry, Reid, Pelosi and others will do just that.

[TayTay]

10. I saw the bio film and I thought it was good, but short

I remember the part when the Senator went to Worcester, MA after the horrible fire and comforted the families of the fallen firefighters. (Kerry was en route to Europe, I think, and had the pilot turn the plane around so that he could be with his constituents who were grieving the loss of their husbands, fathers and sons.) That was a good and decent thing to do, and he did it without a lot of publicity and with genuine concern for those in the midst of loss. I vividly remember the pic of one of the sons of the fallen firefighters and the Senator quietly standing behind him, and putting a hand on the kids shoulder to steady him during the ordeal of his Dad's funeral.

That was a good and decent thing to do. Nothing more, nothing less. Things like that are what the Boston Globe meant when they wrote in the NH Primary endorsement in 2004 that "Kerry has inspired, impressed, and sometimes infuriated us." There have been plenty of other times when that simple decency has come out.

I don't know how you exploit that and get it out into the greater world of 24 hour cable TV and the publicity machine. It is anathema to New Englanders to stand up and state your own goodness. (That would be awful. You must show it, not talk about it.) Hmmm, that is what makes another run so interesting. The humanizing things must come out. There is a good and decent man there and that has to be shown. I wonder how that will come out and in what way.

[kerrygoddess]

4. Beat me to it!

MORE - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=679

[blm]

8. This would be a good GD post. Most don't hear anything about the Dems

doing their work.

[kerrygoddess]

9. I posted it in GD...

It could use a few kicks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1709989&mesg_id=1709989

[BlueIris]

11. This post totally made me cry. n/t

[karynnj]

12. Kerry's "This is a test of our values as a state" is interesting

As he has used the same "test of our values" or something similar for health care, and the budget (and I think, the environment), it's almost like he's developing that as a theme. I hope at least some of the Democrats follow him on this rather than allowing the Republicans to define the word, values, as a set of positions on a few issues.

We can't win on the Republican defined stage, but if we can get people to agree that values are how you treat people and the world, it may be we can't lose. Although the country may have not been ready this last year, maybe the question is whether altruism can exist in a time of fear. (which may get to the heart of what was so cruel about losing this time. Kerry's values seek to bring out the best of people on the hope of making things better, while Bush used fear of the unknown enemy to make people retreat into a narrow world, too afraid to trust anyone.)