Well, the RNC attacks Kerry on censure resolution as well as Reid and

[Mass]

Durbin. (Sorry for the source).

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-detail.php?id=13233

Republicans in Washington are working overtime to expose Sen. Russ Feingold’s political maneuver to censure President Bush. Tonight, Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman e-mailed RNC supporters, encouraging them to sign a petition telling Democrats to “stop weakening national security.”

This week, liberal Democrat Russ Feingold called on the Senate to censure the President for a program that is successfully stopping terrorists. After months of searching, Democrat leaders are finally beginning to find their agenda: take away the tools America needs to fight terror. In the last 24 hours, fringe groups like MoveOn.org and Democrat leaders from John Kerry to Harry Reid to Dick Durbin have rallied to Feingold's side, praising his grandstanding as a "catalyst" for the investigation of the President.
...

I am not sure what Kerry said (except that we should hold Bush accountable), but it does not surprise me that they will try the Big Bad Wolf Kerry.

[Mass]

1. Amd an interesting piece by Robert Parry.

Not necessarily very nice to Kerry, but interesting comparison and at least, Parry has not forgotten the 80s. The comparison with Feingold is interesting, though I am not sure how it is accurate.

Any comments?

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/031406.html

Feingold, Kerry & the 'Strategists'

Years before Sen. John Kerry fell under the spell of national Democratic “strategists,” he believed that a Democrat’s best hope for winning the White House was to run as an insurgent. To overcome built-in Republican advantages, Kerry felt a Democrat had to show principle and challenge the status quo.

But Kerry had that thinking beat out of him. In the late 1980s, he got pummeled by the mainstream news media and the political establishment for exposing cocaine trafficking by Nicaraguan contra rebels and for embarrassing their Reagan-Bush patrons. Respectable Washington didn’t want to believe the ugly reality.

Mocked by the big newspapers and branded a “randy conspiracy buff” by Newsweek, Kerry was persuaded by party insiders that his political future required him to trim his sails and dump his rebelliousness overboard.
...

[karynnj]

3. He seems blinded by his own biases

How likely do you think it would have been to win voters if Kerry spoke about his contra-drug investigation only months after the death of Saint Ronald. I think I'm a reasonably well read person, yet I really had no memory of these charges having been proved. Now, I know that that story was buried in the middle of the paper some time in the early 90s. I did remember "rumors" of such things.

Would the press that was extremely unfair to Kerry anyway have reported that this work was labelled accurate by the CIA when they wanted to avert a second investigation? If I, a pretty partisan person, had difficulty believing that even Reagan/Bush would do this - how likely would those people in the middle, who very likely voted for Reagan, believe it? What percent, having to choose between their sanitized version of America and Kerry's proven charges, would simply think the Democrats had nominated a "randy conspiracy buff”?

As to Kerry trimming his sails after Iran/Contra - BCCI and the POW/MIA work seems to contradict this. Also, unless he has quotes I doubt Kerry saw these actions as the way to the White House. Although from an earlier time (1971), Kerry, in answer to Safer on wanting to be President - said something like there were things that had to be done and he didn't know if he could do them and make enough people happy with him. So, it's clear Kerry in 1971 didn't think you became President by doing controversial things, but he felt they had to be done.

His last paragraph was strange - seeing that he earlier was saying that Kerry blew it by palying it safe - the conditions he cites for Feingold to succeed - clearly don't exist. (Not for Feingold and not for Kerry.)

[wisteria]

4. Oh come on, does the writer want us to believe that strategy shouldn't

matter? That taking a bold stand should not include planning and organizing? Finally, where was he when Kerry lead the Alito filibuster? A well planned and orchestrated, yet bold move. He also tries to predetermine the fate of anyone who so dares tries to run for President a second time- totally ignoring the fact that the Republicans do not discard their good people, simple for running a "safe" campaign. (I don't agree with this assessment either). I see Senator Kerry more as a man who has leaned how to play the political games in order to achieve the best results.As long as they are for the good of this country and "we the people", I don't see anything wrong with playing along. It's fine to be a maverick, but taking bold stands without any support or backup is just plain poor planing and always results in a poor outcome. I know this from experience.

It seems like for the time being, Feingold is the golden boy. I wouldn't think it wise for Kerry to be so careless as Feingold is. After all, Senator Kerry behaves as a President should. Feingold, well he isn't ready for the big time yet, IMO.

[ProSense]

7. Exactly.

Feingold wants to be a maverick and go off on his own, but then expects the other Democrats to provide the cover for him to look like a leader. That reminds me of Durbin excellent questioning of Specter after Feingold bolted from the chamber.

[karynnj]

9. Durbin was fantastic

Has Feingold explained why he left so quickly?

[ProSense]

5. And if you

listened to Kerry's speech on the floor prior to the first Gulf war, you read this article and think WTF?

[karynnj]

10. So, how many other Senators called for regime change here

when Bush invaded? Very few commented at all. That was 2003 - so when did he start to play it safe?

[ProSense]

13. And on top of the speeches

The BCCI report came out in 1992; The Kerry-Wellstone Clean Money, Clean Elections Act was written in 1997. And there are many other examples.

[Mass]

14. But this is the point - Kerry certainly did not speak on many of these

issues, and when he did, as for the Clean Elections Act, he certainly did not make it a central point of the issue.

It all comes back to the issue we were debating in another thread and that even some very serious Kerry supporters agree with. What is Kerry's trademark? Not the one we perceived by scrutinizing his life, but the one that HE wants to put forward. No point bringing back BCCI if Kerry and his advisors ignore it.

[ProSense]

15. Kerry will have no problem defining an issue

This was discussed in the another thread. A campaign is going to have to focus on the issues people care about. Candidates are going to have to show strength on all the issues.

[Mass]

16. I will stop discussing this issue, but I disagree.

We are not talking about an issue. We are talking about one angle.

[ProSense]

17. First of all,

I believe it's too early. He has written key environmental legislation, proposed solutions to Iraq, counter terrorism measures, among other things. Kerry has to define the angle.

[Mass]

18. Of course, he has - but I am not sure it is too early.

on the contrary.

[ProSense]

19. Every Democrat

should be focused on making significant gains in Congress. If that doesn't happen, 2008 could be jeopardized.

[karynnj]

22. You convinced me -

The media is lazy and most people are more comfortable with what they can quickly label. In 2004, many people were saying that Kerry let the Republicans define him. In the sense, that he didn't have a "Kerry for Dummies" short summary of what he was for that would fit in short, sharp ads hurt. (caveat: I saw few ads because the NY market covered parts of 3 blue states.) I know he had a series of commericals used in Iowa that were supposedly very good.

Most of us are impressed by the Kerry's many many dimensions and what a really solid person he is and the kind of leader he has the potential to be - but most of us (not from MA where you've seen him for years) became impressed as we researched who he was. The majority of people in this country don't do that.

So, as someone who hated any meeting involving coming up with a "VISION" or a "MISSON STATEMENT" and who will confess to secretly playing "buzz word bingo" with the others from my group who attended the meeting - we made a card each before the meeting - to keep from going to sleep, going insane or leaving the meeting, I really do see that as you've said, he will need this.

Also, when we don't have the lion's share of the media, commercials may be essential. (It would be cool if they referenced longer clips on Kerry's web site for people wanting to know more. )

[wisteria]

11. This article has made it way to DU-G and is now a

Kerry bashing thread.

[Mass]

12. I should know better than to post articles that are critical of Kerry

by now.

Sadly, we seem unable to discuss them with some distance.

I dont agree with everything in this article, but it is true (and if blm is somewhere, she will probably agree), that the campaign deliberately ignored these things in which Kerry was the strongest and decided to transform him in "just another democrat".

Did it help or hurt is for everybody to decide for himself what he thinks, but it is clear that it prevented an agressive answer to this question: what has Kerry done in the Senate. If his trademark is good governance, how can you articulate that without talking about these actions he did.

I am not surprised that the Democratic strategists would have made this choice. They were probably a little bit afraid about how it would play and they were probably uncomfortable with this aspect of Kerry, but that does not mean they did not.

[wisteria]

21. I agree, those investigations say a lot about Kerry's character

and honesty. I think they should have been brought up as used to define the real man and draw attention to his integrity.

[karynnj]

23. I liked the article - though as I posted I think he's

wrong on mentioning Contra-drugs in 2004.

I do think the BCCI thing should have been mentioned more prominently than it was. That he closed down Bin Laden's Bank singlehandedly fighting his own party is braver than putting up a censure motion. (Also it was years and years of work - that was also related to stopping drugs from entering the country. Fighting drug running doesn't fit the RW caricature of the hippie protester, totally liberal, play boy Senator. It does tie in with his work as a prosecutor (which he did use they well considering it was a few years long aga) and his committment to disadvantaged youth.

[TayTay]

20. Mass, this is dead-on as a critique

"The lesson for Democrats who want to stand and fight is that they must respond to this three-sided problem with a three-pronged solution: challenging Republican wrongdoing without fear or equivocation; building media outlets that will circumvent the smug mainstream press; and standing behind the rare Democratic politician who shows some courage."

Robert Parry is a good and decent man who has been through the media wringer for his insistence on reporting on actual stories and not just 'the sizzle' that the lazy media loves so much. His critique has a lot of truth in it, and I think that it is one that our good Senator would agree with, at least a lot of it.

As early as last February at the JFK Musuem in Boston, Sen. Kerry talked about a media that doesn't do it's job and is enabling those in power to hide behind a fog of non-news stories. The media has to start paying attention and get out of it's ultra-cynical mode of reporting. This is vital to a functioning democracy. We can't have an informed electorate if the media is just reporting on 'missing white women' and such.

There is some validity to the criticism that Sen. Kerry was too cautious in his approach to the election. He did speak in Senatorese, which is a friggin shame as he can be damn good when wants to be as a speaker. I love the guy, but there have been times when he made me want to tear my hair out over the years becuase he gave too cautious evaluations of events. I much, much, much prefer the guy who says what he believes, understands that not everyone will like it and then goes out and defends his beliefs. (I mean Gawd, that is what you call living up to your full potential. This is one friggin powerful speaker and advocate when he wants to be. Go then and be it.)

Ahm, what was that speech last September but a call to clarity on what this Admin is doing. What was that luscious ten point plan that the Senator laid out on Sat. night. Another instance of saying, 'This is what I believe.' Period. No equivocation, no wiggle room, this is what I believe. Good for you Senator. I have always thought you were wicked smaht, this shows it. You friggin learned a great lesson from the last few years. Glad you are putting it to use.

The rest of the points are for the people. If a Dem comes out and says, this is what I believe, then I will try and stand behind them and not question their motivations and assume that every damn word is a political equivocation. Sometimes cynicism is the enemy of democracy. IT bleeds the life and vital force from politics and reduces everything to hopelessness and snark. I don't want to play that game. At the end of the day, no thank you, I'll keep my own soul and pass on the 'knowing insiderness' of the pundits who 'know everything' but understand nothing.

I think that Sen. Kerry is actually trying to deal with every one of the things that Robert Parry pointed out. That is, in my book, wicked smaht.

[ProSense]

24. Great points, but here's what I'm not buying

But Kerry had that thinking beat out of him. In the late 1980s...

This makes it seem as though Kerry had been docile from that point and through the elections. That's hogwash. And that's what people will read into this. He spoke out against the first Iraq war, he concluded his BCCI report in 1992 and he introduced campaign finance reform in 1997. That is not having "that thinking beat out of him." The tone of the article is exactly this. The last paragraph is almost an "Oh btw." I'm not saying Kerry can't take lessons from the campaign, but to frame this by saying he became this timid person way back in the 1980s and stayed that way through his campaign, running on the hopes that safe was best, is hogwash. It's not what I saw when I took a look and decided he was the candidate to back.

As far as BCCI, Kerry would have been crazy to make this a campaign issue. I know Robert Parry would have loved it. But it's only chic now, in the aftermath of the election. People were not thinking clearly about the Iraq or the war on terror. When the NYT came out with the article focused on this investigation, the author had couched it in so much explanation as if he was making an excuse for why it was important. The substance was excellent, but the media made a mockery of the whole law enforcement aspect of fighting terror, and got away with it because the war was so popular. Iraq = 9/11 = terrorist = war.

It's only now in reading articles like "Follow the Money" and others and the focus on the failure of fighting terrorism with a military war that this is coming into focus. The media and pundits were not going to touch it, it would have been a dead issue. Kerry would have been screaming law enforcement, he would have been right, but the country was thinking war. Then, as Karyn pointed out in the GD thread, Reagan died.

How dangerous it would have been to have this issue killed by smoke screens and spin, never to be brought up again.

I agree with the last paragraph of the article, and the assessment of it.

JMO.


edited typos

[TayTay]

25. I think the critique is valid, to a degree

as I pointed out. I do think Sen. Kerry did courageous work throughout his career in public office. However, I also think that he adapted to the Senate and how that place works. (I think the Senate runs on it's own rules and has it's own planetary rythms.) The times when I applauded him most heartily where the times when he spoke from his heart and with passion. The times when I had 'issues' with him and his stands were, uniformly, times when he didn't. (Or times when he stopped the dialogue. Dammit, that was frustrating. And it did happen.)

People get better. I think Sen. Kerry is better today than he was four years ago at expressing himself, explaining principle and talking to people. This presumes that he got better from something. I think there was some downtime in there over the years.

[ProSense]

29. I think so too.

Kerry has gotten better, and I certainly don't have the hindsight of those who have followed his career for many years. I don't want to give people the impression that I think Kerry is perfect or infallible: there are the issues he has to overcome in the media, getting more people to realize that he is affable and approachable, and reconciling what works in the Senate and what plays in the public. Speeches, for example: A lot of people give speeches that miss the point but sound good (the biggest culprit is Bush). When people walk away from a speech, it's what they think about it two days later that matters. Kerry speeches are super great, but he needs to throw in those desirable sound bites the public craves. When I read his speeches again, some of them are brilliant, but most people aren't going to do that.

Then there is the issue of being principled and working within the system. That is not easy because team work is essential. No one Senator is or can be the Democratic Party. In fact, bipartisanship figures into that. Imagine if McCain-Feingold was being introduced in this climate. When the Kerry-Santorum bill surfaced, people freaked. A lot of people made that attempt to explain that it was introduced in 2001.

[TayTay]

30. I agree.

This is going to read funny, but my phrase 'wicked smaht' to cover the taller Sen from MA is accurate. I have resonance from his stuff, days and even weeks after he speaks. I am still thinking about his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in NYC in Dec. That was one hell of a 'think' and he raised some very significant issues that I have come back to a lot, especially since the blowing up of the Mosque in Samarra. Dammit, that man is not a lightweight and when he is serious and is saying something, it behooves me to pay some attention. (He is, after all, wicked smaht.)

No one is perfect. (Hell, my hubbie is on School Committee and I don't agree with everything he does either. And I still sleep with the man.) Over all, Sen. Kerry is an excellent Senator and is so head-and-shoulders above the current occupant of the job as to make comparison itself ludicrous. But, I think he can do some things better. I also, honest-to-Gawd, my lips to Gawd's ear, think he is trying to. His stuff, especially since the aftermath of KAtrina, has been incredible. Best in the Senate, I think.

[karynnj]

26. My husband sent the "Follow the money" article

to a moderate (main street) Republican relative who was teetering between Kerry and Bush.

I think in 2008, Kerry will make more an issue of BCCI and somehow fold it in with the contents of his Ireland speech.

[whometense]

27. You speak what is in my heart

If a Dem comes out and says, this is what I believe, then I will try and stand behind them and not question their motivations and assume that every damn word is a political equivocation. Sometimes cynicism is the enemy of democracy. IT bleeds the life and vital force from politics and reduces everything to hopelessness and snark. I don't want to play that game. At the end of the day, no thank you, I'll keep my own soul and pass on the 'knowing insiderness' of the pundits who 'know everything' but understand nothing.

That is just perfect. I believe that on some level (how conscious it is I don't know) the Bush administration's true political wedge issue is the promotion of cynicism, which I agree is an enemy of democracy. Once you get people to buy into the "they're all the same" argument, you're home free.

[ginnyinWI]

28. and I'm waiting for the day

when people just won't buy it anymore. And maybe it's here--lets' hope. Let's hope that their chanting "Democrats are weak on national security" just won't wash anymore with the majority of people--no matter how many times they repeat it. After all, there is no evidence!

[TayTay]

31. Thank you.

It's so easy to see why people hate politics. It really is. The cynicism is so bone deep and so discouraging. There are so many people who want to help and want to do right by their country and the present process just squashes such people. It's awful.

[jenndar]

32. I think this is interesting and largely correct.

But I don't think the comparison with Feingold is accurate. I've said before, Feingold's points about why the president should be censured are legally valid and very compelling, but I don't see a censure as a rebellious move. It's a use of Senate procedure, and whether it's a good or appropriate use of Senate procedure is, for history, and, unfortunately, for the other Senators to decide.

It struck me that this piece doesn't address is whether or not JK should have been "rebellious" when Dems were in power. I think it's a fact of government that not everything has to be a boxing match - or didn't have to be at one time. Now everything seems unnecessarily contentious :(

[wisteria]

2. No surprise here, this was predicable along with the defense angle.

They are using pretty thin pickings to paint Kerry, Durbin and Reid as enthusiastic supporters. I have seen nothing in writing on Kerry's position other than confirmation from DU members calls to his office. And of course, we know how Reid and Durbin stand on this action right now.

[karynnj]

6. They are up to their usual tricks equating things that aren't equal

First statement:
This week, liberal Democrat Russ Feingold called on the Senate to censure the President for a program that is successfully stopping terrorists. After months of searching, Democrat leaders are finally beginning to find their agenda: take away the tools America needs to fight terror.
- everyone including Feingold doesn't want to stop the program, just do it legally.

Next statement:
praising his grandstanding as a "catalyst" for the investigation of the President.
This is what JK, Reid and Durbin are accused of - which is accurate (at least for Kerry) he wanted an independent prosecutor. The "praising" has been pretty darn muted.

This does say that the RNC will try to play this just as many here said. Kerry's statements have been excellent in that he has always said that he had no problem with them doing it legally and that only a some small number of warrants were not approved out of a large number applied for. The other thing is that many Republicans had a problem too. I hope the Democrats put out statements to clear this up. Part of the problem is that Feingold does seem less concerned about the national security need.

[wisteria]

8. Well, I don't consider Senator Feingold to be our guy on security

and defense issues.