About that debate....

[_dynamicdems]

The exchange between Kerry and Warner was better than...... I'll let you fill in the blank with your favorite activity! :D

There was no way I was taking my eyes off the screen to type on the computer. Hats off to those of you who did. I wimped and sat there like a kid watching Disney. It was absolutely amazing.

Now THAT was a debate.

Senator Warner did Senator Kerry a huge honor. He's smarter than I gave him credit for being. I wouldn't be supriseed if Warner felt he owed JK one for last week. Frist screwed them both over, truth be told, with that McConnell Amendment stunt.

Warner maintained his position (so he's not in trouble with the Repugs) but he gave JK the opportunity to discuss the differences in their positions intelligently and without the usual diversionary tactics. If Warner didn't ask the questions he did, the public would never have gotten the opportunity to consider the key points of the legislation as they did because of this discourse. This was the first open and honest debate I remember seeing in the Senate since Bush became president.

Warner knew quite well that Kerry's amendment was going to die a quiet death. He breathed life into the merits of the legislation by giving Kerry this debate. He also gave Senator Kerry a lot of respect. He even complimented him on many different "well thought out" parts of the legislation.

And that comment about Kerry's Silver Star was wonderful.

These two men truly are friends. It was amazing to see how, by debating him, Senator Warner, had Kerry's back. That was very clever and I gained a huge amount of respect for Warner for doing this. His debate of Kerry was in essence a "devil's advocate" position and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if privately Warner agreed with JK more than he could openly admit.

JK knew what Warner was doing and you could see the affection and the gratitude he had for his friend even as they debated opposite positions. That actually brought tears to my eyes because I believe that this is how the Senate is supposed to work: honest debate from different perspectives. When dialogs like this are opened up without the rhetoric and the partisan bullshit, channels can open up. A meeting of the minds is possible, but first you have to have the minds. The fear and smear Repugs like Allen and that horror show McConnell aren't officers and they certiainly aren't gentlemen. Their mindless rhetoric and mud-slinging dishonors the Senate.

This was a wonderful debate and I hope the media and the pundits pick up on it. It would be an excellent example of government for the classroom.

[karynnj]

1. I definitely agree

It also shows how much better things could be. The respect that they showed each other should be the norm. (The obvious friendship went beyond that,) This was a very generous thing that Warner did. It also did allow Kerry to get much more on record and it signaled that he thought Kerry's work deserved serious discussion.

It must be embarrassing for the more thoughtful Republicans to see people like Sessions, Allard and Inhofe attack someone like John Kerry using name calling and slogans. Kerry has done nothing to deserve the lack of respect that they extend and Warner knows that.

Warner also fed Kerry the opportunity of speaking compassionately, and not in an exploitive way way about the men killed.

[_dynamicdems]

2. I just watched it for the third time and I'm more convinced than ever

that this was a generous thing for Warner to do. It was brilliantly orchestrated. It was like a textbook illustration of how the Senate could work if people would have intelligent debates.

The most telling thing for me was the end, when Warner made the statement about 55 senators standing strong against the amendment. He lowered his eyes as he said it and there was genuine regret there.

While he is tied into his position, I think Warner felt the shame of the partisan politics and the enmity that has been directed against Kerry. You could see it in his body language and hear it in his voice. Even though they are on the opposite sides of the aisle and of this issue, this Republican gave Senator Kerry more respect than did a considerable number of Democratic senators that I won't bother naming. We all know who they are.

[ProSense]

3. Absolutely, no one can deny this:

His debate of Kerry was in essence a "devil's advocate" position and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if privately Warner agreed with JK more than he could openly admit.

Warner in essence repeated all the mis-characterizations of Kerry's plan, and gave him an opportunity to reiterate all the merits of it. The debate was one of the more civil I've seen in a long time!

One thing that Kerry reiterated and Warner clarified in depth was the fact that Kerry's plan would become law, and that what Levin-Reed offered is a non-binding sense of the Senate resolution. That's a huge difference! It's the difference between holding Bush accountable by force of law and giving him the option to stay the course!

[beachmom]

4. I am indeed PROUD and HONORED to be represented by Sen. Warner

I don't agree with him a lot, but I always felt like he was a senator who didn't play games; he is a man who sincerely believes what he believes. I DO know he is no idealogue, and has probably been privately against this war and the way it was waged from the start. I have heard in the past that he has really been affected by the deaths of so many Virginians -- he talks to their families and asks them what they need. In short, he really has taken this war to heart -- for him, it's REAL, and heartbreaking. It has also been obvious from the start, that he has NO respect for George Allen -- they're CONSTANTLY sparring, because Allen is such a . . . barfbag.

I didn't see the whole debate, but what I saw was the best reality show one could EVER see on TV. It had all the elements you needed for drama. I choked up when Warner mentioned Kerry's silver star -- that was the ABSOLUTE refutation of the Swift Boat Liars. I will be able to use that talking with fellow Virginians -- Warner is considered VERY WISE around these parts and what he has to say is HIGHLY RESPECTED. I wish he had spoken up in '04, however (did he?).

On the merits of the debate, Warner spoke of worries he had -- worries that we all must have. I don't have a problem with that -- Kerry should be expected to answer the questions Warner asked. I need to watch the whole debate to see who I felt had the upper hand. The part I did see, I thought both sides were holding their own.

The debate last night was a lesson in, to borrow a title from Rush Limbaugh, "How things OUGHT to be" in the U.S. Senate. I used to like the Republican party, even if I didn't vote for them often. Perhaps it really was Rush Limbaugh, who started hitting it big by 1992, who destroyed political discourse. Where sloganeering, name calling, and smearing replaced honest debate of the issues. But WE NEED THAT BACK MORE THAN EVER. We need to stop the silly season of politics that has gripped our nation for almost 15 years, and start talking about putting this nation back together again.

[beachmom]

5. Does constituents calling their senators matter?

For what it's worth, I did call Sen. Warner's office last week, saying that I supported Kerry's amendment. I wonder if a lot of Virginians called him. This debate may have been Warner's way to explain to constituents why he wouldn't be supporting the amendment. By being respectful to Kerry, he was trying to show respect to us.

[whometense]

7. I agree with everything you said,

and just want to add one thing. Warner did Kerry a huge honor by engaging with him in that real debate, but he also gave a gift to any citizen who happened to be watching. He reminded all of us of the way the senate could work if people spoke with honesty and conviction and to the issues. It was genuinely moving to witness his respect for Kerry.

I have no idea what Warner's real views are on the war, but it was clear that he respects Kerry for bringing his amendment forward, and that he must find the name calling and demagoguing from his side of the aisle unworthy and embarrassing.

I was also wondering what Warner had said about the swiftboat liars during 2004. If anyone remembers, I'd love to hear. That struck me as new information, and very useful information, at that, that Warner had personally reviewed the documentation for Kerry's silver star. Take that, liars.

[_dynamicdems]

8. You got me curious, so I did a little checking and found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_military_service_controversy

Commenting on the Silver Star issue, Republican Sen. John Warner, who was Under Secretary of the Navy at the time, stated "We did extraordinary, careful checking on that type of medal, a very high one, when it goes through the secretary...I'd stand by the process that awarded that medal, and I think we best acknowledge that his heroism did gain that recognition."

[beachmom]

11. Thanks, DD -- so he did say that in '04?

Damn. More vital info the MSM blew off and didn't report much about in '04. Yup. Warner is a Republican, but he's not a bad guy. Hell, he's better to Kerry than McCain ever was.

[_dynamicdems]

15. August 4, 2004. Here's the link:

It was apparently during an interview on Late Edition, and the entire transcript must be online, but I found this reference with quotes from Warner:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=34&num=5047

From Capitol Hill Blue

Politics
Former GOP NavSec Says Kerry Deserved Medals
By Staff and Wire Reports
Aug 16, 2004, 11:02



The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Navy Secretary under President Nixon, said Sunday that John Kerry deserved his combat medals for heroism in Vietnam.

Sen. John Warner of Virginia defended the process by which Kerry won his highest honor, the Silver Star.

"I'd stand by the process that awarded that medal, and I think we best acknowledge that his heroism did gain that recognition," Warner told CNN's "Late Edition."

Kerry was awarded a Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Hearts as a Navy Swift boat commander in the Mekong Delta in February and March 1969.

"We did extraordinary, careful checking on that type of medal , a very high one, when it goes through the secretary," Warner said. "I feel that he deserved it." Like Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Nixon - both Navy vets of World War II whose war service was later questioned - Kerry has had to face recent allegations in TV ads from others serving near him in Vietnam claiming that he lied about his combat heroism.

[ray of light]

22. I think Warner was an example of the old party that Republicans

can feel proud of, but also the example of why they need to get their party back from the neocon control.

[TayTay]

6. This really did show what the Nation has lost

by being so mindlessly partisan. The two party system is supposed to exist so that each side can point out the flaws in the other's views and a genuine debate can occur that will strengthen legislation. This process is suppoosed to vett the various proposals and subject them to rigorous review that will make them better.

We don't have that any more. Everyone lives in 'their corner' and it is very, very rare to have any kind of coming together that allows for proposals to be shared, discussed and altered based on the respected views of others. I saw that wonderful dialogue between Sen. Warner and Sen. Kerry last night. I mourn for what we have lost. We send these incredible people to the Senate and then handicap them and don't allow them to legislate, which is reasoned compromise after thoughtful debate. This concept is now laughed out of the political process as quaint and old-fashioned. Too bad.

This was the hint of why, once, the Senate was called, 'The World's Greatest Deliberative Body.' I would love to have more of this. Sadly, there are only a few Senators who could engage in this type of informed debate. The rest seem to deal only with talking points and short sound bytes. The nation is the poorer for this.

[wisteria]

9. You are absolutely correct. It was amazing.

Different opinions and different approaches, but a true debate with mutual respect and admiration for one another. It made me loath even more what Rove and the Bush administration has done to our country and our political system.

[beachmom]

10. It pains me to say this, but the Left is becoming part of the problem

I went over to Kos, and there was NOTHING about that incredible moment last night. I mean -- do the idiots over there actually watch the Senate or just obsess about themselves?

I did find one comment within an Iraq - Out Now diary on the Rec List:

Kerry resolution (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:beachmom
Will somebody please tell me their interpretation of the end of Kerry's resolution re: John Warner's questions?

Kerry has his moments to be brilliant. LISTEN, I mean spoken, those words were moving as hell re: Alito filibuster,

“... I reject those notions that there ought to somehow be some political calculus about the future. This impact is going to be now. This choice is now..."

I think tonight (which ended around 7:30pm PT) was Kerry having another moment. For a brief moment in time, this seemed to be genuine concern about issues by Warner (although he disagreed) where he truly wanted JK's answers. For a brief moment in time, this truly seemed to be a debate. For a moment in time, I think Warner dismissed partisanship. For a brief moment in time, I think this is the way the Senate must have been.

Anybody?

"No, I opposed one war. That was enough for me. I am now perpetually in favor of war, pestilence and famine." Justin Butterfield, 1848

by nancybehr on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:27:10 PM PDT

< Reply to This |Recommend >

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/6/21/15722/0948/263#c263

I gave this person props and commented further. Maybe more of us can go over there.

Meanwhile, Kos is all pissed at TNR, mostly about something concerning . . . HIMSELF. Sorry, Kos, but you're not that important.

And, finally, I'm getting some cold feet about this primary challenge to Lieberman. You know, Chuck Hagel big time bashed fellow Republicans yesterday with the "focus group phrases like cut and run", yet I hear of no movement to get Hagel challenged in a primary for a more pure Republican. Lieberman's voting record is actually not that bad -- in the end, what pisses all of us off is Iraq. I say we keep Lieberman, and keep him as a DEMOCRAT. F*** Kos and his ilk. Lieberman is for some Republicans like how Warner was for us last night. If we kick him out or force him to be Independent, then what about that big tent for Dems? Yes, I'm mad at Lieberman, but Iraq will eventually go away, and Lieberman is a good bread and butter Democrat. JMO, anyway. If I lived in Conn., I would vote for Lieberman in the primary. That's just how I feel . . .

[_dynamicdems]

12. I agree with you completely on this. All except Lieberman...

We have a lot of non-productive rabble-rousing on the left where we should have unity and commons sense. It's like the old adage: "If your're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem."

Too often self-interest always defeats the goal for the common good. The left might have some egalitarian ideals, but in practice, too many turn into something like K0S, who is so pumped up on his self-importance, that he loses as many opportunities for liberals as he creates.

Yes, I noticed Hagel's dissing of the partisan mud-slinging. That was refreshing. Some integrity there. Amazing.

Lieberman gets a lot of animosity directed at him. I'm not a Lieberman hater. You are right: he's still a Dem and he does fight for many liberal causes, but we can do better. He's like the old war horse that is no longer able to stand up in battle. Time to retire the good senator. He's not doing us or himself much service. Sen. Byrd for all his years has more fight than Joe. The sad thing is, I think Joe is taking the easy way out. His principles, if he were being totally honest, are capitulations. He's swaying because he doesn't have the backbone to stand tall. Saddest of all, I don't think he realizes it.

Off to K0S.

[beachmom]

14. But is that fellow Ned Lamont a sure win in Conn.?

I think no matter what, Lieberman will represent Conn. So I think it would be better if he did so as a Democrat. It was weird, yesterday, though, that Lieberman was allowed to speak during the Republican time with no objections. On Iraq, he is clearly with the Republicans. But on other stuff, particularly economic issues, I think he is still a liberal. Lieberman is the Democrat Republicans love, just like Chuck Hagel is the Republican Democrats love. Lieberman is NOT a Zell Miller. I just think this is not the time to have civil war within the party. Let's GAIN some seats like here in Virginia. The fact that the blogosphere has spent so much time on Lieberman while devoting less time to turn red states blue -- well, I find that troubling.

[ProSense]

16. You lost me on Hagel!

I take his words in the same vain as McCain's. They are two of the most partisan hacks in the Senate.

[ProSense]

18. Lieberman's position on the

occupation is worse than the Repugs. Listening to him last night he actually believes this is a war. He kept repeating the fact that we have to stay and fight the enemy until we win! Iraq is not al Qaeda's country. It's as if he believe America has the right to use Iraq as the battleground in its fight against terrorism.

[Mass]

17. kos is NOT THE LEFT - He is an opportunist.

We can label him leftist if we want, but it does not change the fact he is NOT one.

We are just falling in the trap that the right is framing: calling these opportunists the left. If they were, they would be supporting McGovern (From MA) and Kucinich 100 %, not trying to get elected.

[whometense]

19. absolutely correct.

He attracts some lefties to the site, but to my mind he's just a wannabe DC insider. The politicians he supports are not even remotely left.

[beachmom]

20. Perception is everything, and Kos is now a spokesman for the "left"

And I don't like it one bit. He is partisan, not ideological. BIG DIFFERENCE.

On Lieberman and Hagel -- I am talking specifically about Iraq. Hagel has been very forthright with his disgust about this war; true on other issues he is very conservative, but on Iraq he doesn't exactly tow the party line. Same with Lieberman -- did anyone see him voting for the bankruptcy bill? No, that's right. It is Iraq as well as his congenial style toward the GOP and Bush that has everyone pissed off. I come from Connecticut, and I will be honest that I think that primary battle is not simple, and would probably be a tough call for me. It's just we're a BIG TIME minority party here; do we have the luxury to take such risks at this time? My opinion is no.

Anyway, I don't want to cause an eggfight here -- but I don't see Kos being much help to our side. My prediction is Lieberman will narrowly win the Conn. primary. After that, it would serve him well to do some soul searching on at least acknowledging that the rank and file Dems do NOT agree with his position on Iraq.

[whometense]

21. To be completely honest,

I feel very uncomfortable getting involved in another state's internal politics.

I know that's a big Kos thing, and Lieberman drives me personally insane. I would work my ass off to get him booted out of office if he were from my state.

A lot of you may disagree with me on this, but that's okay. I think at least part of my discomfort comes from having spent a year and a half reading things like, "John Kerry should just resign and let someone new have his place." and "Kerry's so over." Coming from people who are not from MA. I resent this kind of intrusion, and part of me feels that outsiders shouldn't be dashing around trying to mess with in-state politics. (Think also, Howard Dean, Iowa and orange ski caps.)

That said, I'm happy to give money to other states' candidates (through JK), but the other stuff just doesn't feel right to me. Anyone else feel this way?

[beachmom]

You have a good point, Whometense

For example, I was talking to my Mom, railing against Joe Biden who had voted for the Bankruptcy bill. And my Mom replied that he represents his constituents in Delaware. And the credit card companies create a lot of jobs for the people there. On one hand, maybe Biden would like to help the little guy, but what if that resulted in the credit card companies making less money and laying off workers in Delaware. That is an example of state vs. national.

We're only hearing the blogosphere point of view on Lieberman. But what do rank and file people in Connecticut think? Maybe he takes care of his constituents really well. Maybe he has done work in the Senate that brought more jobs to Connecticut. Who knows? If I still lived in Connecticut and knew more, then maybe it would be easier for me completely condemn Lieberman or to defend him with inside knowledge.

I'm not sure if anyone in Massachusetts can give additional info, but I have certainly heard that Ted Kennedy takes care of his constituents, in addition to everything else he does. I have heard less about Kerry on a local level. Have you all felt served by him just in regards to Massachusetts?

And my final point is that I ONLY call my senators. I never call senators from other states. During the Alito filibuster, I contacted people I knew in other states with fence sitter Democrats to call their senators, but I made no calls. I firmly believe that ONLY constituents have the power to influence their senators.

[whometense]

25. The old rap on Kerry

(and this is really old) is that he was more internationally focused than locally. Teddy's always been a ground old-style pol, who looks after his constituents. I think taking care of the local stuff was a part of the job Kerry had to grow into. He does it very well now, but he's more naturally a big picture guy.

Unless I'm wrong and just parroting what I've heard from all these years of abuse at the hands of the Bosotn Globe. :D

I'm sure Tay will correct me if I'm wrong.

[karynnj]

27. The Biden example is interesting

To me, I would say that it deferenciates between those who are looking out for the good of the entire nation. Whether it's to fund pork projects in your district or to benefit companies (via contracts) or legislation, states expect their Senators to vote their intersts. As long as the bills simply favor your state to the detriment of another, it's standard politics.


But the bankruptcy bill actually has enormous ability to hurt those with the least ability to take it. This does reflect on him. It is also hard to see how it loses jobs in his state. It doesn't change the number of people who need insurance. What it does clearly do is to increase profits of the insurance companies - big long term contributors of Biden.

[sandnsea]

24. They don't watch politicians at all

They listen to what people say politicians say, or read what various pundists say politicians say. There is no other explanation for the complete distortions people have on so many people and issues. Kerry was great yesterday, but I've seen him that passionate many times. The people who haven't clearly haven't been watching him. The people who watched the debates were able to make that correlation, so it seems obvious the ones who had never seen that intelligence or passion didn't even watch the debates.

After Lieberman's antics on the floor yesterday, I support Lamont 100%. I do not understand what his problem is. He obviously completely supports the concept of militarily reforming the ME, which is his right. But even if you support that objective, it would seem to me you could look at the way Bush is going about it and realize he's not getting the job done. Our troops are a target for Iraqi anger, as long as they're there, the factions will be able to use them to fuel the violence. They never should have been at the forefront of any policing in Iraq, we should have learned that in Vietnam too.

And Chuck Hagel, argh. If he voted the way he talked, we'd be in a lot better place. I can't believe all the Republicans lined up behind the war the way they did. If there's any reason to vote Democratic, that would be it.

[karynnj]

26. I was shocked - that unless I missed something - the only

diaries dealing with the whole day of 2 amendments were about Lieberman and Santorum respectively. I even went into "recent diaries" and scanned and nothing. (I had been following CSPAN2, our thread and DU-P's - so I thought last night it would be interesting to see if they followed the remarkable debate.

They really aren't into issues - just posturing and appearing cool (in their own minds).

Kos does suffer from vanity.

[TayTay]

13. Transcript of the Kerry/Warner dialogue is up

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r109query.html

Click on Latest Daily Digest at the top of the page.

Scroll down to :
Kerry Amendment No. 4442, to require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror.

Pages S6191, S6239-74 CLICK ON THESE PAGE NUMBERS TO GO TO THE INDEX

2 . NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 -- (Senate - June 21, 2006)
Click on the blue highlighted date.

Do a find for this: Page: S6258

Click on that higlighted text. This will take you to the Congressional Record transcript of the Warner/Kerry colloquoy.

ENJOY!

[ginnyinWI]

23. I was going to post about this, too

I echo what all of you are saying! :grouphug:

It was wonderful to watch that colliquy last night--I was glued to the tv. If only the Senate could debate like this more often, especially if it would change some minds. It certainly would be good for the public to see.

Warner re: the Silver Star--I hope a LOT of repubs heard that one! I wonder if he's on anybody's smear list now?