An oped by Kerry on filibusters in the Boston Globe

[Mass]

This is my first post in this forum, though I have been posting on DU for a few months now.

First, thanks to WildEyedLiberal for her star. I have been reading this forum for a while and it is a world of sanity in our crazy world.

I live near Boston but I am a relatively recent Bostonian (a few years), though I have had a long time experience of Massachusetts people as my 18 year long husband was born and raised here.

I wanted to post these two editorials that are in the Boston Globe Today. First is an piece by Kerry about the nuclear option, that has probably been written before the deal was struck, but

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/24/fallout_from_nuclear_option/

Fallout from 'nuclear option'

By John F. Kerry | May 24, 2005

THE REPUBLICAN leadership's ''nuclear option" would eliminate the filibuster and turn the Senate into a rubber stamp for even the most controversial of President Bush's judicial nominations. The arguments can seem obscure, but there will be consequences for all of us.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/24/the_caveat_emperor/

Second one is an editorial by Joan Vennochi, serial Kerry abuser. It refers to an interview that Kerry gave to the Globe yesterday, but I could not find anything on line today except the usual Vennochi venom. Does somebody has seen it or is it only in the print version of the Globe?

The caveat emperor

By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist | May 24, 2005

AT THIS POINT it comes as no surprise. John Kerry is releasing all his military records -- but then again, he isn't.


During an interview yesterday with Globe editorial writers and columnists, the former Democratic presidential nominee was asked if had signed Form SF 180, authorizing the Department of Defense to grant access to all his military records.

[TayTay]

1. Sigh!

I may have to defer commentary on this until later. (Very busy today.)

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/24/the_caveat_emperor/

Six months after Kerry's loss to George W. Bush, it feels somewhat gratuitous to point out how hard it can be to get a clear, straight answer from Kerry on this and other matters. But as long as the Massachusetts senator is thinking about another presidential run, the candor gap remains on the table, because he puts it there.

On one hand, he seems to have concluded that Democrats have a ''branding" problem, much like a company selling razor blades. The Democratic Party, said Kerry, needs ''a new brand. That's the challenge." For 25 years, he said, Democrats did not fight negative branding by their opponents. As a result, he said, Democrats are now labelled as ''tax, spend, weak, things like that."

Later, Kerry said, ''Let me be crystal clear. We do not have to reformulate or redefine the Democratic Party. I'm tired of hearing that the Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything." The party, he said, stands for healthcare for every single American; public education that works and gets the necessary resources, with strict accountability; foreign policy that demonstrates both strength and respect for multinationalism; a tax structure that is fair; protecting the environment, and energy independence.

Vintage Vennochi. I really think this woman is too dumb to be on a major OpEd page. (You guys get what he is talking about right away, right?) She is too lazy to do her own research and too lazy to do the mental effort to see to the fucking point. Sigh! All bash, all the time.

What is this bullshit about the military form? I never got that. What records are as yet unreleased? Why shouldn't Kerry be wary about releasing more records; wasn't this stuff wielded like a club over his head last year. I would damn right and well wnat to go through them with a fine-tined comb before I gave them out to the likes of Vennochi. (Bitch. I hate her conservative-loving, Kerry-bashing freeper mentality. What really gauls me though is her whining about having to do her own work.)

[karynnj]

7. What does she think the hurry is at this point?

There is no critical need for anyone to see the records immediately. Kerry will not run for anything until 2008. Nixon (or Reagan/Bush) would have used them to get rid of Kerry years ago if there was anything really damaging in them. It's strange that the news in her editorial, that he is near to giving a signed form to the Navy, is distorted by her to be that he is not being candid. I can't think of one thing Kerry said last year that has not proven to be true, though a list of Bush lies would not be light reading! Yet, she seems to use the phrase "candor gap" to create an impression that Kerry either lies or doesn't tell the whole truth, when he is almost painfully honest. She really is slimy.

What seems at bigger problem with her column is the comment on the Bush doctrine. I never heard Kerry say he agrees with the Bush doctrine - the only thing I know that has been called the Bush Doctrine was his declaration that the US can make unilateral strikes if we think that our security is at stake now or in the future. Which was not Kerry's position. It seems she is mixing up his view that as we're in there, we need to fix it with the doctrine that allowed the strike in the first place. The doctrine seemed diametrically against Kerry's call for international diplomacy and law. As to the branding question, it's clear that she is either not reading any of the framing stuff or she is stupid. What Kerry was saying is the same thing he's said a number of times. The Globe really needs a new columnist.

I think Kerry would have been out of his mind to have signed something prior to the election which would have allowed the Bush appointed Secretary of the Navy to send out (and possibly create and add) Kerry's records. Especially with his experiences with Nixon, I would not think it paranoid, but prudent if he would have not trusted them. Also, as it was some of the RW people made a big deal about a typo on one of the many records. (I think the Navy typist added a "V" for valor to his silver star (which doesn't have them) in a list of all his awards, I think when he was discharged. So - I can see why they are going through them with a fine tooth comb.)

He had an amazing amount of records on his web site that seemed to cover the time period - unlike the records of a certain President which had gaps.

[TayTay]

8. Most of it is Vennochi crap

Same old, same old. She doesn't like Kerry. Never has. Nothing will ever change her mind. That's just the way it is.

This part bothered me, because it is an outright lie:

However, Republicans successfully directed the 2004 contest to other issues, including the war on terror, gay marriage, and abortion. Kerry now stands as close to Bush as he can on those issues.

An outright lie. We all know this, right?

[karynnj]

9. Yeah

If it were true, I think Kerry would have had to have made a lot of flip-flops and many of us would not be here.

On gay marriage, Bush moved to Kerry's position (while winking at his base) in the month before the election. Kerry hasn't moved an inch.

Kerry spoke at least once a day on the flaws of how Bush is fighting the war on terror - I seem to remember he wanted to do it in a smarter way. I don't think he's moved an inch since the election on this.

On abortion, I don't think he's moved an inch on his position other than how they need to talk about it. (Also, I think that Kerry's mention of the pre-1973 time period coat hanger use is not the way Hillary is talking about it. He did talk about abortion alternatives and prevention in the debate answer. The overt discussion of the fact that reversing Roe vs Wade will lead to illegal dangerous abortions, not no abortions is new to me.)

[whometense]

10. I really am burned out on Vennochi.

I've blogged about her, written letters to the editor, and badmouthed her everywhere I go, but the Globe seems to think she's AOK.

She is either genuinely dense or the personification of disingenuousness. I tend to think of her as the latter. She doesn't like Kerry for whatever reason (he didn't suck up to her appropriately?), and so she twists absolutely everything he says or does to "prove" her point. This seems to me to be exactly what * does - accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of.

Every column she writes on Kerry (and about 2/3 of them seem to be on Kerry) has the same tone, the same point(lessness), and the same level of self-congratualtory fatuousness. She's obsessed with him.

The form 180 crap is really over the damned line. He said he'd sign it (and if you ever go to freeperland you know they are still obsessed with his military records), he signed it. Shut up. Why is she writing about this now? I also agree that if I were him I wouldn't release a comma till I'd checked every letter of every word in that file for error.

I'm really frustrated with her, though. She has this prime spot twice a week that she can use at will to just beat on him and keep repeating all the old rightwing smears from now till 2008. I want to shut her up in the worst way. Strategy, anyone????

[whometense]

12. Right.

It's yet another blatant misread of what he was saying. On the gay marriage thing what I think he was saying was, "Why are you on me for this, when you don't say anything about *'s position?"

As for the Iraq comment, :wtf: ? How do you get from here to there?

Others are guilty of this as well. Tim Grieve of Salon has been very hard on Kerry (I suspect he has disappointed Deaniac tendencies). Today he wrote,

As Frist took questions from reporters, Senate staffers set up cots in the cloak rooms in preparation for a night full of debate. Aides wheeled in huge carts of food from Costco. John Kerry, leaving the Senate floor, offered a typically Kerry-esque assessment. Would his colleagues reach a deal? Kerry wiggled his hand in the universal sign for "50-50," then shrugged and said, "They could."

"Typically Kerry-esque"?? Who would not have answered that question that way, particularly if he wasn't in on the negotiations? What makes his response "typically Kerry-esque"?

Sorry guys, I just hate this shit, and am feeling really sick of it today...

[TayTay]

13. Don't worry. It will get worse

Kos will pull this one out of his ass next week when it is quiet and the Senate is out of session and there is not much going on. That should be fun. (Cynical, aren't I?)

[TayTay]

2. My bad. Welcome, welcome

I have been reading your stuff in GD and GP-P for awhile and you are great. Welcome here.

Vennochi makes me crazy. I lost my manners. So sorry.

[Mass]

3. Thanks

The article is typical of her, but I was wondering if the Globe had actually made a paper on the interview by itself, other than that. I have never seen her write anything positive on Kerry.

[TayTay]

4. I have another one from a trade

Unfair to Kerry?(Letters)(Letter to the Editor)
Earth Island Journal, Vol. 20, Issue. 2, p 3(1) 06-22-2005
By David Wade, and Chris Clarke

Chris Clarke is right to suggest that "Red-state voters face environmental threats" ("Bushed Again," Spring 2005 EIJ) but he's dead wrong when he suggests that John Kerry "assiduously avoided statements on such crucial issues." Mr. Clarke argues with no evidence that the "Democratic process" "involved rejecting any candidate likely to take a consistent stand on anything other than not being Bush."

Huh? Not only did the Democratic Party choose the nominee with far and away the strongest environmental record of any candidate, but John Kerry campaigned on the environment in red states--challenging the old conventional wisdom that caused past nominees to run away from the issue. In Louisiana, John Kerry stood on the banks of the Mississippi River with environmental leaders and focused on coastal erosion. In Florida, Kerry unveiled his Everglades proposal, and advertised on mercury poisoning. There was a plan to clean up Great Lakes pollution in Michigan and a fuel efficiency proposal that took guts to talk about in Detroit. In Iowa, Kerry laid out a plan to control runoff from factory farms and talked honestly about hog lots. Kerry went to Arizona to unveil a national parks proposal. He toured the west with a real alternative to George Bush's oxymoronic "Healthy Forest" scheme, and in New Mexico, Kerry called for the protection of Otero Mesa. He campaigned on clean coal in West Virginia. The campaign advertised and Kerry campaigned hard on the issue of Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

John Kerry didn't talk about the environment in red states? In New Hampshire, Kerry used "green" issues to help turn the state from "red" to "blue"--holding numerous events on MTBE poisoning. Good grief, Kerry even gave his Earth Day address in Texas in George Bush's backyard, where the environmental threats are clear and undeniable.

Yes, we need to put the environment on the front burner of national issues again--but we won't get there by falsely attacking a Democratic nominee who campaigned on the environment everywhere he went.

David Wade

Former Press Secretary

John Kerry for President

Chris Clarke replies: Perhaps I should have used a word other than "assiduously." It's true that Kerry has as good an environmental record as anyone in the Senate; he has consistently spoken out against environmentally destructive bills in Congress. I'm pleased to hear that the Senator made all those green campaign speeches.

And yet the fact remains: For those of us not actually in attendance at those speeches, the level of mention of the environment during the campaign --aside from Kerry's stellar rhetorical assault on Bush environmental policy at that one debate--was pretty much limited to tepid mainstream media coverage of destructive Bush administration policies.

So why didn't Kerry's great record in the Senate, or the mention of local issues at stump speeches, make a dent in coverage of the campaign? Partly due to the increasing oligarchic nature of the mainstream media we've all heard decried time and time again ... though not in the mainstream media, of course. But part of the responsibility lies at the feet of the Kerry campaign, which rather than forefronting Kerry's alignment with 75 percent of the electorate on green issues, seemed to reel from blow to Roveian blow.

And on a larger scale, who can deny that the emphasis on "electability" before the primary favored candidates without strong perceived positions on the issues?

I did not intend "attacks on a candidate," and you folks on the Senator's campaign staff deserve our thanks for fighting the good fight. I did and still do intend to criticize campaign strategies that don't work. We have to if we're going to stop the onslaught of destruction between now and 2008.

COPYRIGHT 2005 Earth Island Institute

I like this format much better

[whometense]

11. Welcome, Mass!

Happy to see you here.

I never read the Globe until evening, so I'm always late on the news. I don't know what the occasion would be for such an interview, since there's no campaign on. TayTay? Is there a precedent for this? Is this something you would expect both senators to do periodically? Or is it odd?

I imagine the staffers who participated will be free to use the information they gathered as they see fit - maybe it will dribble out in bits. I don't think we should expect to see the whole thing in print, though.

[TayTay]

14. About the military records?

Cuz I'm out-to-sea on those. Haven't a clue. AD knows waaaaaay more about that than I do. AD?

[whometense]

16. Sorry - I was unclear.

I meant about giving the editorial board an interview. I know they do that while campaigning, but do they do it periodically when not campaigning? Or is this interview odd?

[TayTay]

17. Yes. Apparently he went home and to

Morrissey Blvd. I don't know, I guess he has to give the largest paper in his home state and interview once in a while, but I would rather he not. It's just an exercise in futility. (And I have to take Pepsid AC because I get heartburn.)

This was obviously a meeting with the OpEd board. We have heard from Vennochi. Next up will be Lehigh, Oliphant and Jacoby. I want to read exactly one of those. (I know one of those from school.)The rest can BITE ME.

On the other hand, the OpEd board will probably come out and say, "You know that KidsFirst health care initiative. It's excellent. You suck, but you're actually quite bright, you know. You do wonderful work that we wholeheartedly adore and salivate over. However, we would prefer if someone else did it, if you don't mind, because we don't like you, you don't have us over to dinner at the house and you never paid to get us either drunk or laid. So, kindly continue doing what is widely regarded as some of the best work in the US Senate. Only, don't expect us to like it buddy, cuz we'ere nobody's patsy over here. That's right, ahm, sir, we will not roll over for you or any other proposer of outstanding legislation, you got that bucko!"

So, you non-Massholes, Does this make sense to you? It sure as hell doesn't make any to me.

[karynnj]

20. Has this been going on for 20 years?

Have they had the same editors and publishers? Or are they training all new Globe people in proper handling of their Jr. Senator - especially as you've said they don't treat anyone else this way. Don't they agree with most of his votes?

[TayTay]

21. Oh utterly. He is quite good you know.

It's just that he expects people to do their own heavy lifting and to judge on the merits. No special care and feeding of the local press. The local press wants to be swept off their feet by rascals like Bill Weld. (Dipshits.) John Kerry doesn't do that. So the Globe thinks he is a standoffish guy, playing fast and dull with the facts and, damn-it, usually holding the correct views. (As the Glob sees them.) How dare he! Why can't he be just wrong and unlovable by the electorate and stuff so that he can go away. No, instead he usually votes exactly the way we editorialize, the bastard.

(This does not make sense, btw.)

[JI7]

5. good to see you here

i always like reading what you have to say in the other forums. the good thing about this forum is you can disagree and debate issues without the usual snarky comments which have nothing to do with what is being discussed.

sometimes i wish the globe would just print the entire transcript of their interviews because they distort so much that one ends up thinking the total opposite ofwhat actually happened at times.

[karynnj]

6. Nice to see you here

You always seemed to have some of the best Kerry defense (and information) posts in the other forums.

[whometense]

15. Ok, you got me buzzed.

Here's the letter I just wrote to the Globe:


Re: Joan Vennochi's column, "The caveat emperor" in Tuesday's Globe.

I wonder if the Boston Globe is aware of the number of its readers who wonder among themselves what John Kerry ever did to you? The level of obsessive Kerry-bashing is high in the paper in general, but nowhere so egregious as in the columns of Joan Vennochi.

There's barely a line in today's column that I wouldn't take issue with. How does any sane person interpret Kerry's comment that we appear to be making some sort of slow process in Iraq as an "endorsement of the Bush Doctrine?" How is it possible she still manages to misinterpret Kerry's stand on this issue?

If she does, I'd like to suggest the fault lies with her own negative mindset, and not with John Kerry.

[TayTay]

18. Yeah, that's right

you go with coherence. (I pick poetry and mindless ranting, but that's just my way.) You make a cogent argument that has a beginning, middle and end and is well-argued. My brain is frazzled out. (I bow to your superior way of handling this.)

[whometense]

19. Awww, thanks.

Fury focuses me. Let's see if they actually run it...

I can't tell you how many insult-laden LTTE's I've written and had to trash, though.

[whometense]

22. A Boston blogger read this column too.

http://www.chimesatmidnight.blogspot.com/http://chimesatmidnight.blogspot.com/2005/05/there-is-kind-of-ugly-churlishness.html

There is a kind of ugly churlishness

that periodically breaks out on the Boston Globe's Op Ed Pages. It come from having nowhere to go and nothing to do except churn out your twice-a-week and cash your check. They all suffer from it, some worse than others.

Today for example, precious column space is given over to a earnest defense of the filibuster and the rights of the minority party on Capitol Hill by Senator Kerry. Meanwhile not six inches away, Joan Vennochi can be found calling the Junior Senator from Massachusetts timid,weak, indecisive and a host of other epithets.

Gosh all fish hooks how do you suppose that ever happened???
The Globe has to work hard in this town, if they have to, they'll trip a man first before they kick him when he is down.

I don't agree with everything he says, but just to show you that TayTay, Mass, and I aren't the only ones.

[TayTay]

23. BTW, I took my meds

and I am fine now. Look at the flowers, enjoy the miserable and cold weather and try not to droool on the nice doctors. (I am fine now.)

Gawd, the worst part is that I know DKos is going to drop this next week when it's relatively quiet. Bastards. (mmmmmm, ah, more meds.)

[politicasista]

24. Hi Mass

Love reading your posts in GDP and Light Up The Darkness blog. :hi:

[sandnsea]

25. Hi Mass!

serial Kerry abuser, ha, that's funny!

[whometense]

26. Well, isn't THIS special?

It seems the Washington Times http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050525-122918-6724r

is using Vennochi's column to bash Kerry. She must be so proud.

[WildEyedLiberal]

27. You're welcome

Glad to see you stop by, Mass! :hi: