Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » karynnj Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
karynnj's Journal
Posted by karynnj in New Jersey
Tue Mar 06th 2012, 07:42 AM
Christie has NOT helped NJ's economy, he has hurt it. During his time in office, NJ has done LESS well in recovering than the nation as a whole. A fair test of how he is doing would be to compare NJ with a similar Democratically led state.

NJ is an affluent state with an abundance of jobs in R&D and in Finance. It is also a state where high school kids are among the top performing in the country. It also has a significant number of older urban centers that were once successful cities. Another state that could be described similarly is MA.

Since Governor Christie was elected in 2009, you can think of these two states as if they were testing the republican and the Democratic economic solutions. The unemployment rates are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

December 2009 (a month after Christie was elected - as a baseline): NJ - 10.0 MA - 9.3
December 2010 : NJ - 9.1 MA - 8.2 (Note, at least in NJ, the budget was passed in the fall of the previous year - so this year is not yet affected much by Governor Christie. MA and NJ are moving pretty much in sync - though MA is doing slightly better.)
May 2011: : NJ- 9.4 MA - 7.6 (This year it is a Christie budget and Christie is in charge - and while MA continues to improve, NJ gets somewhat worse.)
December 2011 - the most recent I can find - NJ 9.1 and MA 6.9.

There is NO way to look at these numbers in Christie's favor. It is often said that the states can be laboratories for federal policy, in this case, I really think before Scott Brown supports policies like Christie's, he should look at the results.




If you look at NY, also run by a Democratic governor, the results look like MA's. What is clear is that the cuts that Christie forced through have hurt the state of NJ.
3/6/2012 8:37 AM EST
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments) | Recommend (+1 votes)
Posted by karynnj in General Discussion: Presidency
Tue Jul 19th 2011, 12:19 PM
Consider why our forefathers and all the leaders since then have not enacted a balanced budget amendment. The obvious reason to me is that they saw the need for the federal government - when warranted - could operate at a deficit. The need could be a war, a set of catastrophes or a time, like now, when it is important to be the "spender of last resort".

Another reason is the US infrastructure is crumbling. This affects our competitiveness. For those who travel outside the US, consider how the efficiency of the airports and the transportation affects your view of the country. Last year, I opted to take Amtrack to and from NYC and Boston, which is the best of our train system. I could not help but contrast it with the trip I took in Spain from Malaga to Madrid, which was much much nicer. On the way out, the difference was mostly just a difference in comfort level. It was far slower which would be more an issue for someone wanting to better use scarce time. On the way back, as the train broke down several times - finally needing to be towed into NYC - taking a total of about 7 hours, my thoughts were that this would make someone think that the US was really falling behind.

The Republicans use a bogus argument equating a family with the federal government - ignoring that the government has the ability to print money. But, even using that analogy, the argument for FORCING a balanced budget every year is now how most families operate.

Consider that the family car breaks down. Would the family be required to buy a replacement car with cash already in the bank or their current paycheck? I would assume that the norm is that they get an auto loan. This is the equivalent of the US having a deficit that year and the family debt is increased by the balance they owe on the car. Consider other prudent uses of the family "running a deficit" - imagine the roof on the home they own has deteriorated and they should replace it - rather than let it fail and cause damage to the house. Assume they do not have the savings to pay for this. The likelihood is that they take out a home equity line. Again it adds to the debt and they are likely running a deficit for the year.

Now, you might say, that the family does budget the cost of the payments on the auto loan or the home equity loan. But, this is equivilent to saying the US pays the interest on the debt. I would even make the argument that the true constraint on deficit spending and the debt is when the interest payments become too high and take up too much of the revenue. In the family's case that would mean that they are very constrained by what they have left after subtracting all their "interest payments." It would be bad if the family fell into a pattern of constantly spending money from their equity loan - unless they knew that the current expenses were atypically high and the current income atypically low.

In the case of the US, the size of the debt means more of the revenue is already spent on interest payments. However, just as with the family, this is a time when expenses are atypically high - high unemployment means high payments for that and it should be the role of the government to create jobs - stimulating the economy in the process. It is also a time when revenue is atypically low - because the economy is slow. This is similar to a time period where a family is very likely to run a deficit.

In addition, consider that the economy returning to closer to "normal" will automatically cause revenues to rise and costs to fall. This is why in the Clinton years, the deficits were repeatedly smaller than projected and they became surpluses years before anticipated. Now, what many economists suggest is something like NOT cutting spending or increasing taxing now (except possibly on the wealthiest) because doing so will further slow the economy - actually making the deficit worse - as well as causing pain. This further helps the Republicans as we head into an election with the economy worse than it has to be.

Here, the Republicans are using something that really is NOT a crisis to try to get things passed that they never would have support for otherwise. A balanced budget would starve the government - especially as they accompany it with a near impossible threshold for what needs to be done to raise taxes. The fact is that the tax rates are at a low for several decades already. Then consider their budget (Ryan's) eliminates estate taxes and capital gains and dividend taxes. What you will have is a huge shift of income to the wealthy - as their assets essentially grow untaxed by either taxes on income from capital investment or on taxes as it passes to the next generation. The robber barons of the 1890s would have loved these people.

What I don't get is how they have fooled the peons among the tea party into thinking they benefit.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by karynnj in General Discussion: Presidency
Sat Apr 24th 2010, 12:03 AM
in the budget bill. Instead, there was the Johanns amendment that prohibited using it.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Johanns Amdt. No. 735 )
Vote Number: 126 Vote Date: April 1, 2009, 05:51 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 735 to S.Con.Res. 13 (No short title on file)
Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the use of reconciliation in the Senate for climate change legislation involving a cap and trade system.
Vote Counts: YEAs 67
NAYs 31
Not Voting 1

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---67
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---31
Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 1
Kennedy (D-MA)
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by karynnj in General Discussion: Presidency
Tue Mar 09th 2010, 03:22 PM
Someone on the Kerry group posted a link to Kerry's twitter account, and there was a nice oped Kerry wrote recently on this that contained a link to testimony he gave back in 1993, which is fascinating to see where Senators were on the issue then.

Here is an excerpt of that op-ed and the link:


President Obama, in his State of the Union address last week, argued that repealing the ban on gays in the military reaffirms the American ideals of equality, unity and diversity, the very source of our strength at home and abroad, the very values Americans in uniform defend around the globe.

And this change is overdue. This policy has costs beyond the immorality of the ban. More than 13,500 people have been forced to leave the military under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And according to a Government Accountability Office report, the cost of recruiting and training their replacements had cost taxpayers $190.5 million through 2003. We have no estimates on how much more it has cost us in the six years since.

But the most eloquent and most convincing testimony against the policy of "don't ask, don't tell" comes, as such testimony usually does, from those who have paid the highest price for the policy's failings. And the most compelling I have ever read is on a tombstone in Congressional Cemetery, not far from the Capitol. It says, "When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one."

It doesn't have to be this way any longer. No more grave markers need to be etched with such painful words. Remember now the words of President Truman when - in the face of enormous outcry and opposition - he desegregated the military: ""there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin." Let's complete President Truman's mission, and wipe away the last stain of legal discrimination in the Armed Services of our nation.


http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diary...

The testimony was interesting because it shows where the Senate was in 1993. One interesting side note is the respect the Republicans then showed Kerry for his service. The first comment shows that Kerry, unlike the others, was well aware of the generational change, which has accelerated since then, on this.


"Senator KERRY. Well, sir, let me say to you, the question is—that is a very legitimate question. And I do not diminish that question at all. And it is one that people are wrestling with. But you know, if you go to kids' schools today, and some schools do not have discipline, some do. And I understand the distinctions. But you have got plenty of schools where, I think, there is discipline. There are openly gay people. They are dancing. And your kids are dancing in a heterosexual relationship. Now, there is discipline in the schools. It does not upset the kids. They all get along. They all go to classes together. They play sports together. And they go on. The same thing at college today "


He also was honest about the change since he was in the Navy.

"Senator KERRY. Well, I think that—all I can say is that I have experienced shocks that other people have experienced. The first time I ever saw two men dancing together in a place where there were gays I was sort of taken back by it. I admit it. And yet their dancing together was their choice, and it did not really impact my life. I still had the right to go out and dance where I wanted to dance, and to dance with a woman and to lead my life as I wanted to.

And I just think you have got to be very careful about where we are going in terms of this concept of tolerance and discrimination. I think you can work out a standard of behavior and I do not think it is going to be quite as challenging as everybody is making it out to be. "

http://cmrlink.org/printfriendly.asp?docID...

Before that testimony and before DADT was proposed, Kerry gave a Senate speech, where he makes an eloquent case. With very little change - to put in the current situation and his position, this speech could be given today. A rare thing 17 years later on an issue that has showed enormous change in public opinion.


But against that you have to measure what those problems really represent once you have acknowledged them: Why is there a problem? There is a problem because many people view gays with scorn or derision or fear. There is a problem because when people look at gays or lesbians, they find a lifestyle which they may abhor, cannot understand, do not want to understand, and believe they should not have to understand, and so do not.

The result is that we find ourselves put in the position of either embracing or rejecting what is a fundamental form of discrimination--a dislike of someone or something else because it does not conform to our sense of how we want to be or how we think everybody ought to be.

That is not what this country is supposed to be about. Whether it is a matter of skin color or religion, that is not who we are. And it is also not who we are with respect to matters of sexual preference.

Now, I am not going to spend a lot of time going into or discussing why someone is or is not gay . I am no expert on that. I can only suggest that the vast majority of people to whom I have talked who are gay do not view it as a matter of choice. They are born with that choice already part of their constitution. And for many, there is a lifetime of agony in trying to face up to the realities of who they are as a human being, as a person. And those agonies can drive some to suicide. They drive some to live a life of lies and running away. Others embrace it more readily and more capably.

We are supposed to be a society that does not drive people to run away from themselves or from their history or who they are. We are supposed to be a society which allows human beings to live to the fullest capacity of who they may want to be or who they are, defined by themselves, as long as they do not break the law, break the rules, intrude on other people.

Now, that is conduct, and conduct is what should matter in making judgments about what should or should not be allowed within the military . Status, the actual fact of being gay , and only being gay without attendant conduct that might offend somebody, cannot be sufficient in the United States of America to disallow somebody the choice, if they are qualified in every other regard, of serving their Nation.

Now, if we were to adopt a policy in this country that were to codify discrimination of this form, I think we would turn our backs on a number of different things, Mr. President, not the least of which is reality. Is there anyone in the Senate, or in this country, or in the Pentagon particularly, who believes that none of the 58,000 heroes listed on the wall in front of the Lincoln Memorial was gay ? I have never heard anybody, nor do I believe anybody could, make that assertion. Is there anyone who believes that there are not hundreds, perhaps even thousands of individuals who were gay who are buried beneath the white crosses at Arlington?

Is there anyone who does not believe that there are thousands of gays and lesbians in the military at this minute? Eleven thousand of them over the last few years have admitted it, voluntarily or not and they were drummed out.

We can be assured that there are surely thousands more who are scared to admit, who are forced by our policy to live a lie. They go about their business. They defend their country. They defend our freedoms. They defend the Constitution because they believe in what we, as a nation, stand for.

The question is not whether we should have gays in the military , because we have gays in the military . Gays have fought in the Revolution, in the Civil War, in both World Wars, in Korea, in Vietnam, in the Persian Gulf, and they fought, Mr. President, and they died not as gays or lesbians, but as Americans.

So the question is whether we as a country should continue to treat a whole group of people as second-class citizens? Is it appropriate to codify a lie, to pretend that there are no gays in the military ? Is it right to continue a policy that says to this group of Americans you are somehow not part of America, not entitled to help defend America, not someone whom we are willing to openly associate with in the military , even though every day in the workplace, every day in schools and colleges across America, we have learned to live and work together?

Mr. President, to codify discrimination in the military alone is not worthy of America. These are people who want to serve our country. They want to risk their lives and we respond instead by treating them like criminals, requiring them to hide from the fundamental part of their own identities not asked for but God given, forcing them into lives of secrecy and needless and senseless fear.


Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by karynnj in Latest Breaking News
Mon Jan 25th 2010, 10:17 AM
The comment you reference is for the uncompleted 111th Congress - and the site also lists Sherrod Brown, the Senator I most often thing of as progressive, as weak as well. That led me to question which bills they were scoring and which they labeled as "progressive.



As they ranked Feingold very high last year. I like Feingold and Kerry, so I decided to look at where they differed in the first half of last year (I started with the intent to look at all - but after a half year, it was tedious and patterns were clear. Here is the record of ALL votes. The list below contains every disagreement. I have rearranged them to lump votes on related issues together.

Confirmation of Geitner - Feingold, who voted for Condi Rice etc "because the President should have his choice" voted NO Here, Kerry is giving an Obama nominee the benefit of the doubt that Feingold gave Condi Rice, who was not honest in her SFRC hearing. That said, this is the one vote I agree with Feingold over Kerry on.

Votes that reflect that Feingold is more fiscally conservative:
4 Republican (and one by Feingold) stimulus amendments:
Coburn amendment to eliminate money for Hollywood - Feingold and many conservative Democrats voted for, Kerry against
Feingold amendment to increase accountability - again, Feingold was with Republicans and a few conservative Democrats.
Coburn amendment that was said to eliminate waste - Feingold voted with the Republicans.
Graham amendment on home foreclosures in TARP - Feingold voted with the Republicans
Grassley amendment - Feingold voted with the Republicans.
Budget Amendments
Coburn amendment for competitive bids - Feingold for, Kerry agaisnt
2 Colburn amendment on earmarks - Feingold for
motion to yable Vitter amendment to repeal automatic Congress pay raises - Kerry for, Feingold against
Reed amendment to use the remaining TARP fund for the benefit of consumers - Kerry - for, Feingold - against
Vitter amendment to use remaining TARP funds towards the deficit - Feingold -for

Feingold voted against: the omnibus appropriations act with the Republicans and against the
supplemental budget- the bill to invoke cloture and the bill itself (Senate and conference report)- Feingold - 4 noes

Feingold voted three times to weaken gun control
Ensign amendment that cut back DC gun laws - Feingold for, Kerry against
Coburn amendment to "keep people safe in National Parks" by allowing them to bring guns - Feingold for
Gregg amendment to require various forms print info on the national dept - Feingold for
Wicker amendment that let people take guns in checked baggage on Amtrack - Feingold for

Foreign policy votes - these incidentally surprise me because I have watched the SFRC for years. I suspect that Feingold voted for the AIPAC ones because he is up for re-election. They all failed incidentaly due to Kerry's leadership:
Inhofe amendment against the UN - Feingold for
Three counterproductive Kyl amendments against Iran/Egypt/Gaza/Hamas that Kerry and Lugar successfully defeated - here Feingold backed AIPAC and Kerry didn't.
To strike the provision funding IMF - Kerry and Lugar leading the fight against this, Feingold for

environment related bills - here I agreed 100% with Kerry
Omnibus Public Land Management bill 2009 cloture vote - Feingold was the ONLY Democrat to vote against it - but both than voted for the bill when cloture succeeded.
to waive the CBA on Whitehouse's amendment for a deficit neutral fund for clean energy - Kerry for
to prohibit reconcilation for cap and trade (Johanns bill) - Feingold for, Kerry and Boxer strongest against
Graham amendment - to protect middle class from an energy tax - Feingold for, Kerry against
Bond amendment - anti future climate change bill if it affects coal - Feingold for, Kerry against

Fairness Doctrine Here, I am with Kerry

Demint amendment to prevent the FCC from ever promulgating the fairness doctrine - Feingold FOR, Kerry, AGAINST
Thune amendment to prohibit funds to the FCC to repromulgate the fairness doctrine - Feingold for

earmarks - Feingold seems to have McCain's phobia of earmarks - though an out in the open ear mark very often funds good and needed projects Kerry's stand even under Bush for a legal line item veto where the set of strikeouts would require approval is a better way than not having earmarks.
Coburn anti earmarks amendment to public works bill - Feingold for
DeMint Amendment to implement "Obama's earmark reforms" - Feingold - for (along with Lieberman, Mccasgill, Bennet and Republicans)
Johnans, Vitter and DeMint motions to instruct the conferees - Kerry no, Feingold yes - it passed
Thune amendment - to require any repaid TARP funds to reduce the authorization limit - Feingold for
McCain amendment attacking an earmark - Feingold for
Feingold amendment to require no earkmarks for disaster bill - Kerry against

National security:
Mccain amendment to eliminate the Over-the-road Bus security act - Feingold for
DeMint amendment to require at least 700 miles of fence on SW border by Dec 2010 - Feingold for


Others that don't naturally fall into categories:

Kyl Amdt. No. 793 - I don't completely understand but it involves data collected to assess best medical - Feingold for and Kerry and most liberal Democrats against.

Joint Resolution S J 5 - Feingold voted with Bayh, Lincoln, Nelson, Dorgan, Shaheen and most of the Republicans FOR the bill while Kerry voted against it.

to waive the CBA on Carpo's amendment to increase the borrowing authority of the FDIC - Feingold - for ???

To strike the provision relating to the Loran-C signal, as recommended by the Administration. - Feingold for with Republicans

Conclusions
Kerry was a key ally to Obama in passing the budget and the supplemental budget. Failure to pass them would have doomed Obama's Presidency. Feingold was frankly not helpful.

I suspect that this site has a libertarian definition of "progressive". Being against gun control and against dealing with the problem of climate change are NOT progressive values. I also think that progressives should value having a diverse mass media - instead of the sea of RW radio and cable. On foreign policy, Kerry could be best described as an internationalist and someone committed to diplomacy.

I already knew Kerry's positions last year and, for the most part agreed. I had followed Feingold less closely - and it is his positions I have a problem with in many cases.




Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by karynnj in General Discussion: Presidency
Sat Dec 19th 2009, 10:11 PM
Dean's own preference, for a resolution would have been even easier for Bush to have violated.

Here is what he said on Face the Nation on September 29, 2002, shortly before the IWR vote.


HOWARD DEAN: It’s very simple. Here’s what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, ‘If you don’t do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/...
(I can't find the FTN interview as it appears to no longer be on line. This is a link to David Swanson's post of many Dean statements. Swanson was a co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org - so this should be an acceptable source for a quote that was in the mainstream media back in 2002.

Dean said he would support Biden/Lugar, Kerry's preferred resolution and there was no quote I could find in 2004 where Dean said before or even shortly after the IWR that he would vote against it. Both Kerry and Dean ruled out invasion for regime change. The biggest difference was that Kerry had to vote.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by karynnj in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Wed Jun 17th 2009, 08:41 AM
a long time - and the Commerce committee did not take it on. The same is true for the hearing he had on journalism, which at minimum got people speaking on the fate of journalism , not paper newspapers. You are right that he is doing his job here - but he deserves credit for looking at issues like this from the consumer point of view - aren't we pointing to other committees where we accuse the Chairs and top members for being in the industry pocket?

Kerry this year has been incredibly busy - and especially with the Senate Foreign Relations committee, he has been a major force. Just from memory:
- He was instrumental in getting an agreement with Sudan that restored the level of aid to Darfur. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...
- He was credited with breaking the lockjam that hindered our talking with Syria - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...
- He was very helpful to the administration on Afghanistan and Pakistan - through hearings and an important visit to Pakistan.
- He has had an awesome set of hearings on Afghanistan - starting with a great round table that questioned many commonly held ideas - http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hr... and another where soldiers, who had been there, gave testimony on what they saw working and what was not working - http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hr...
- He had a very interesting hearing on Iran - where the first panel included Morgenthau, who found and ended a pathway where a British bank facilitated Iranian weapons procurement and the second with Nikolas Burns was cautiously optimistic that we could be successful using diplomacy - and where it was clearly stated that regime change was NOT US policy.

On Monday, he gave a speech on global warming and he has had at least 4 excellent hearings on the topic. What seems clear is that those hearings are providing a complex set of reasons for addressing global warming - by pulling in the national security issues - both of getting oil from places that are not stable and the destabilizing effect of climate changes - especially on poor countries. The speech Monday articulates these well. It is clear that he wants to find reasons that make it personal for Republican Senators. (he mentions Murkowski's concern with Artic melt in Alaska.) (On a global level - look at the coverage from India - http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/00820...

The first hearing he had was soon after he became Chair and it was with Gore - where he updated his famous charts - http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hr...


Here are links to three recent hearings

1) He had a hearing where he addressed what China is doing and possibilities of what they will do before Copenhagen. The US and Chine are the top two emitters and one reason the Kyoto treaty was never submitted to the Senate was that neither China or India was involved. He spoke of taking a 200mph mag lev train and said Pelosi rode on a 300 mph one - these trains replaced far dirtier diesel ones. He also spoke of them recently spending $200 B on green projects, dwarfing the $80 B we spent on them in the Stimulus.
http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hr...

2) He had another hearing where Jimmy Carter discussed his conservation and alternative energy efforts in the first panel. The second panel might be more important in winning over Republicans and conservative Democrats. It had the CEO of Fedex, explaining why a policy made sense to him as a businessman and one of Navy officers who wrote the report referenced here on the devasting impact of global warming on foreign policy. http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hr...

3) He also had a hearing with Nikolas Stern, of the Stern report that he referenced here and a CEO of Duke Energy. http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hr...

I guess all this is just "doing his job" - but he deserves credit for the energy, commitment, focus and creativity he brings to it.

Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by karynnj in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Mon Mar 02nd 2009, 09:31 AM
That however ignores that he took the advice of people like Greenspan, Gramm, Rubin and most of his economic advisers to undo what they called archaic regulations that weren't needed in modern times. This was VERY wrong - they were the root without which this could not have happened. Bill Clinton did actively advocate for both the repeal of Glass-Segal and the Commodity Futures Modernization amendment. These two actions removed a LOT of regulation on the banks and the financial markets respectively - including having NO regulation of swaps and derivatives. Had Clinton, instead of supporting these, said he would veto a budget if these amendments were there - they likely would have been removed.

But, this was made worse under Bush because Cox allowed a change that allowed leverage to go from the 1 to 12 it was to ratios like 1 to 44.

These were the actions that converted what would have been the bursting of the housing bubble with foreclosures causing enormous pain to the full blown financial crisis where many big banks are probably bankrupt and dysfunctional drying up loans to small businesses etc. So, yes - he bears responsibility as does his economic team. They were part of the team that steamrolled Congress to pass these measures. (In both cases, nearly all Senate Democrats voted against the budget to begin with - but then they mostly voted for conference report that included Glass-Segal and allowed the budget containing the CFM to pass on a voice vote. They obviously did not want to filibuster a must pass budget the President wanted. )

The Republicans have claimed that it was the Democrats who pushed the banks to give risky mortgages - nothing could be further from the truth. Though this does not relate to Clinton, but to Democrats, Senate Democrats tried to outlaw the use of things like balloon loans and other risky loans. A bill was introduced in 2000 by Sarbanes, Kerry, Dodd, Durbin and Schumer and was buried by the Republicans in the Banking Committee. It was reintroduced in 2002 and in 2003 - so they tried for three Congresses in a row. Here is a link to the 2000 bill - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?b... The second two times the bill had 14 and then 15 sponsors - all Democrats. Durbin tried to get the same provisions in an amendment to the bankrutcy bill in 2005 and on at least one other bill. This means there were at lest 5 serious attempts by Democrats and only Democrats to regulate risky loans during the 2000s.

In addition, the 2004 Democratic platform included a plank to deal with credit card and mortgage abuses including outlawing balloon mortgages in most cases. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html... Thanks to DU - here is more information on that - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...

Now the Republicans speak of their desire to regulate Freddie and Fannie - ignoring that in addition to the FMs there were private companies aggregating mortgagaes. The House passed a bipartisan bill whose chief sponsor was a Republican which the Senate Democrats accepted. The Senate Republicans backed a bill that would have decreased the size of Freddie and Fannie in addition to regulating, which also had an Santorum amendment that cut affordable housing funds. The Republicans buried the bipartisan bill in committee and never took their bill to the floor of the Senate as FM lobbyists persuaded a group of Republicans not to support it. The fact though is that the FMs accounted for 17% of the foreclosures, their private counterparts for 83%. The Republican bill - described as the stronger bill would actually have increased the more troubled private sector.

In addition, when foreclosures mounted, Senator Kerry was the only person in a meeting of the leadership with Bush who argued for putting money to deal with salvaging mortgages in the 2008 stimulus package - when others said it was a good idea, he and Gordon Smith wrote a provision to do so and it was accepted into the Senate version of the stimulus package with 20 out of 21 votes in the Finance committee - but the Senate version was filibustered and that provision did not end up in the passed bill. Both HRC and Obama called for similar things in their presidential runs.

Here is a summary using a fire as an analogy. Clinton did open fire doors that wise people had said needed to exist (FDR et al) that let the fire spread, but the Bush administration took no actions to close them before the fire started and with the change in leverage they provided inflammatory material. In addition, the spark that set everything off - the foreclosure crisis - might have been kept away had either the predatory loan legislation passed or if action were taken when the fire was smaller (ie when the Democrats called for dealing with the foreclosure crisis.)
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by karynnj in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Thu Feb 12th 2009, 01:45 PM
Think of the important issues - and here are a few where the country would be worse off had Kerry not been there.

Global Climate Change - In addition to praise from The President’s chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, James Connaughton, at this SFRC hearing http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/20... , Kerry was the entire Congressional delegation to Bali. Even the Bush team praised the work he did before and at the hearing. Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, a member of the team (around 4 minutes in) said:

"The fact that we had a treaty was significantly due to the fact that Senator Kerry was there. He was a virtual part of our negotiating team, without his day and night support and lobbying of the EU. we would not have gotten a treaty."
http://www.kerryvision.net/2008/04/in_defe...
(Very little of this was covered - even in his home town paper.)

Last year, he was unofficially Obama's person at the follow up Poznan conference - as well as the whole Senate delegation. From Kerry's comments, at both Bali and Poznan, he had very good meetings with the Chinese delegation, who were uncooperative in past forums. At a recent SFRC hearing with Gore, Kerry enthusiastically asked Gore about his opinion of China and the US, the number 1 and 2 polluters working on a joint project to help both on global warming - to regain trust for both countries before the Copenhagen treaty. A few weeks, later, there have been stories that this might be something that will be announced when HRC goes to China. This is very likely something that Kerry had some input to or may have facilitated because of his long efforts with the Chinese delegation - as he has spoken of technology transfer with China for over a year.

International Financial issues - In a world where both foreign policy and finance are far more important than usual - and where understanding both together - given how interwoven the economies of the world are, it is interesting that in the last Congress, Kerry was the only Senator on both the Finance and SFRC committees. Yesterday, in the SFRC he held an "on the record roundtable" on how the financial crisis will affect foreign relations - http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hr... (This is an interesting hearing - though some of the economists seemed to not get the idea of a roundtable.)

He has also spoken of hearings on international tax havens - which need an international solution as they hurt all the countries whose peopel hide income. (At a Finance committee hearing last summer he and Jack Blum, who was a witness and had been the lead BCCI investigator for Kerry years ago, spoke of the need for this.)

Iraq - Obama comes to office with the country and the Democratic Senators (except Lieberman) and Congressmen all having backed a variation of Kerry/Finegold - as did Obama and HRC during the election - they moved to those positions after voting and speaing against K/F about a half year later. If Obama carries through with such a plan - it will be easier as the American people bought the need to do so. It was Kerry, who took the abuse to stand and make the case for using it as a lever to get the Iraqis to step up to really making the political decisions.

non-state terrorism So many people by 2006 had agreed with the position Kerry had in 2001 that was articulated in 2004, but which the country wasn't yet ready for, that Obama rarely had to address it - and when he did it was very close to same formula Kerry gave in 2004.

He is also doing some very interesting things with the SFRC. He had a roundtable on Afghanistan where the Senators and the witnesses had a "conversation". Drilling down into issues - challenging preconceived opinions and interacting to raise some very interesting ideas. It was the most fascinating hearing I've ever seen - once it really got going. Doing that takes a very confident Chair, willing to state opinion asking for it to be examined and challenged if it is not what others saw. http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hr... (There is another one scheduled on the Sudan tomorrow - http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hr...
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by karynnj in Latest Breaking News
Tue Dec 23rd 2008, 08:01 AM
The economy has become more and more globalized and for many problems there is an important international aspect. The financial problem is a worldwide one and trade treaties are of increasing importance. The interesting thing is how Obama will get the economic team and the state department to work with each other to avoid turf battles. The point is that Bush, in his first term, really diminished the role of the state department. Obama and every Democrat ran on using diplomacy more - so strengthening State is a very logical move. This shift might be mirrored in the Senate.

Looking at the committees that provide oversight on these international economic issues - something I found a long time ago shows that it has sometimes been the Finance committee, but it was often a SFRC function - and that is the committee that overseas the State Department. Here is a link to an oral history by the Chief of Staff to Fullbright, who headed the SFRC. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/histor...

Here he speaks of how jurisdiction changed based on the interests and abilities of the head. (That and the change in the needs of the times might be why, Obama is broadening the responsibility of State - both on economic issues and on taking over the "nation building" from the Department of Defense.)

" I am reminded of an incident that occurred before I was with the Committee, but with which I am familiar. When the international financial institutions were being set up, the World Bank for instance, Senator Milliken of Colorado was chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Vandenberg was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Under the Reorganization Act it was clear that the international financial institutions were within the jurisdiction of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But Senator Vandenberg went to Senator Milliken, and said he didn't know anything about these international financial institutions and suggested Senator Milliken take over. So without any formal decision, that was what happened. Interestingly enough, some years later when Senator Fulbright became chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, having moved to Foreign Relations from chairmanship of the Finance Committee, I went to him and told him the story that I have just told you. I suggested that if he wanted to reclaim jurisdiction for Foreign Relations, then was the time to make it clear to the Parliamentarian. Without hesitation, Senator Fulbright said, "We'll take it." So Fulbright undid what Vandenberg had done at an earlier time."

There already were signs that the incoming SFRC wants more of a role on international economic issues. Senator Kerry has been speaking of hearings and investigations on international tax shelters (like the Cayman Islands). At a Finance committee hearing last summer, he and Jack Blum, Kerry's lead person on BCCI who was called to that hearing, spoke of the issue (loss of tax revenue to these shelters) as an international problem that needs an international solution. Senator Kerry is the only person on both the Finance committee and SFRC, which makes it likely that some of these international economic issues will move - not just at the executive branch, but in the regulatory branch.

One question I have is whether they can claim jurisdiction over international trade treaties. This would be interesting because when CAFTA was done, Kerry wrote an AFL/CIO praised amendment with environmental and labor safeguards that failed 10 to 10 in a Republican dominated Finance committee in 2005. The Democrats on the Finance committee are among the most conservative in the Senate. Shifting that to SFRC, puts Kerry (the most liberal member of the Finance Committee) with Dodd, Feingold and Boxer - as the next 3 Senators.


Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by karynnj in Latest Breaking News
Thu Nov 20th 2008, 09:03 PM
He hit Bush harder than his VP, who should have been the attack dog did. At the end of the campaign Kerry was speaking of the fact that Bush's people left the KNOWN ammo dumps unsecured for months - and that ammo was beig used in the ied killing and maiming "our kids". Give me one charge in ANY campaign stronger than this - it is gross negligence and it led to kids being killed AND it led to a FAR more violent Iraq for teh Iraqis as well. He was also the one in 2003 and 2004 who criticized Bush for "outsourcing the capture of OBL" to Afghan warlords who were allied ith teh Taliban weeks before.

That was STRONG - so often, people mistake pounding fists, loud voics and red faces with fighting back - Kerry's dignified demeanor let him attack harder. (This cycle Edwards talked a good game of standing up to corruption - but Kerry actually had done it!)

As to the SBVT, Kerry did fight back:

The campaign's immediate reaction to the August attack was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August.(In 2008, the first reaction of the Obama team was to put out 41 pages on lies in Corsi's book.) This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it. (Like Kerry, Obama used surrogates against Corsi rather than respond himself)

That was far more proof countering the liars than the Clinton machine ever put out on anything. The problem was that it went to the media and they refused to play the role of evaluating who was telling the truth - the Washington Post's editor even saying they wouldn't. The broadcast media was worse. Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright?

Many Democrats, including Edwards who was asked to, did little. It wasn't that tey had no ammunition to use. There was an abundance of proof - far more than would be typically available as they hit against a well documented official record. Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

Compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges. The Clinton responses in these two instances did not completely refute the charges - in fact, after changing his story a few times in each case - conceding that earlier statements were not completely true - parts of the charges were conceded. The difference was that in 1992 - even in the primary - Clinton was given breaks by a media that wanted him to win. The fact is that we KNEW in those two cases that he was willing to dissemble and scapegoat others when he was called on his actions - two things that later hurt his Presidency.

In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 2 minutes long - so there is no excuse.
http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/08/jk_the_...

As to conceding - the same legal team taht encouraged Gore to take back his concession, told Kerry there was no case. There still is not the kind of proof needed to change the Ohio result. There certainly wasn't by January 6, 2005. What Kerry did do then ws to keep fighting rather than to give up. He worked incredibly hard to help teh Democrats in 2006 and 2008.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by karynnj in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Fri Sep 26th 2008, 09:15 AM
I drafted this letter that my husband got published in our local paper. (they limit you to one letter a month)

"Bill Rosen in his 9/20 letter to the editor repeats a constantly cited Republican talking point by saying that Barack Obama and John Kerry, along with Chris Dodd have received the most money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. This is extremely misleading because it is intended to imply the money is from the company.

In addition to PAC money, individual contributions to political campaigns by people who work for these companies are included in those totals. When you donate money, you have to identify the company you work for and your contribution is aggregated with others from your company. The report on the open secrets.org website, shows that the vast majority of money going to Kerry and Obama was from individual contributions. Only $2000 and $6000 respectively was from the PAC. They are among the highest on the list because of their Presidential campaigns. The Republicans raised far less money this year and President Bush was obviously not on the list of Senators.

Senator Kerry fought the corruption of the BCCI bank, while Senator McCain was reprimanded by the Senate ethics committee as one of the Keating 5. Senator Obama was a lead player in putting teeth in the new Senate ethics bill, to which Senator Kerry contributed the Ward Cunningham amendment which starting in 1/1/2009 will take away Congressional pensions for people convicted of felonies.

This was Bush’s watch and the Republicans were the party of deregulation. Obama, not Clinton is running."

Here is the link to the open secrets report - note that the top people getting PAC money are top Republicnas, many on teh banking committees. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/up...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is an answer to another RW talking point. They speak of how McCain spoke out for regulation and co-sponsored a bill for regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. In, fact, the bill had been dormant for 10 months when he signed on (after the fact). No other people signed on after McCain and there were no additional Congressional actions. In addition, when that Congress ended, Hagel (the sponsor of the 2005 bill) and his two original sponsors of the 2005 bill (plus Martinez) sponsored S1100 on 4/12/2007 - less than a year after McCain's now widely trumpeted speech - and he did no co- sponsor it. Like the earlier one, it went nowhere.

In addition, the Republicans in the Banking Committee buried a bipartisan House bill. I wrote this comment on one of the financial blogs:

McCain actually signed onto S190 on 5/26/2006. That bill was originally introduced on 1/26/2005 by Senator Hagel with Senators Sununu and Dole as co-sponsors. That bill was sent to the Republican controlled Banking committee, where it passed on 7/28/2005 but was never considered by the full Senate. McCain signed onto a bill that had been dormant for 10 months and gave that speech on the floor of the Senate. He then did nothing further to support it and no one else signed on as a co-sponsor.

Representatives Frank and Oxley backed a bi-partisan bill, sponsored by Baker, with stronger regulation of these companies (HR 1461) that passed 331 to 90 in the House on 10/26/2005. It was then referred to the Senate, where it went to the Banking Committee where it was defeated with all the Republicans on the committee, including the sponsors of S190, voting against it.

That speech and the co-sponsorship of a dormant bill are cited by the McCain campaign as proof of his efforts to regulate because it is the only thing they have.

On the Democratic side, there was a plank in the 2004 Democratic platform calling for eliminating mortgage and credit card abuse. It specifically called for prohibiting most balloon loans. Senator Kerry, who inserted that plank had a real history of fighting corrupt banking practices, including making the case against BCCI. Senator McCain, on the other hand, was one of the Keating 5.

McCain's actions to intimidate regulators to help his contributor, Charles Keating are more significant that a short Senate speech to an empty chamber and the action of signing onto a dead bill.
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by karynnj in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Mon Sep 22nd 2008, 11:16 AM
As usual with Republican spin, it is simply not true. The CRA has been in existence since 1977. The Republicans tried to kill it in the 1990s and failed.

Here is a 2001 vintage article that shows the banks lobbied for deregulation. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...

The Bush administration's executive branch failed to regulate even after they saw there were problems:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/business...

The Bush administration stopped states from regulating:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...

Former Rep Oxley says it was Bush who discouraged bipartisn legislation that would increase regulation and reform things. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...

The Republican talking points just aren't true.

Finally, a Democratic administration would have done differently. Not only has Kerry been a strong advocate of oversight throughout his career, he added a plank to the official Democratic platform calling for mortgage reform that would prohibit most balloon loans.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...



Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by karynnj in John Kerry Group
Thu Jul 10th 2008, 08:22 PM
Why this post - I'm lazy and want to save links because I am sick of the ABB garbage. These are all appearances with no "celebrity around - and show enthusiasm. (Also I thought others might like them - I like the You tube "related videos" feature as it finds these.

Primaries:
Before Iowa caucus in Iowa - all candidates - Kerry shines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1KTHmM2mzk

Kerry speaking in Iowa on vet issues - very emotional - as a wife of a disabled vet asked the aquestion and it is about the most detailed comments on what Kerry did for vets. (This was Kerry at his best - the woman's story clearly affected him and his response very genuine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4nY8wkPTTM...

February 2004 Oakland CA - really really raucus begining (or end) of rally - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56tz2K9cTMM...

March 2004 - University of California at Sand Diego (Vanessa introduced him) Spoke of alternative energy/College for Service Program/competitiveness - get rid of tax advantages for outsourcing/ Science (huge applause)/healthcare/help for veterans/AIDS/real security/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tKsxZZ0HyU...

General election:
Minnasota - Oct 21 (small bits and pieces - very very excited huge crowd, whose "Kerry, Kerry" channts interupted constantly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDVr9jXYqSg
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not related to 2004

Patriot Leader interview (with about the best lighting I have ever seen)
Around time of stimululous package - speaks of housing problem and fishing industry problem and mercury problem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qko8thKJPy0...
Read entry | Discuss (33 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by karynnj in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Wed Jul 09th 2008, 06:17 AM
should have tried to help Kerry get the truth out - especially if they thought he was not doing enough. What he had done was already provided more than enough ammunition to use for people to defend him - and it was in Democrats vested interest to do so. I think that there was a sense -everywhere that this was so unbelievable that nothing needed to be done. The Navy awarded those medals - he didn't steal them or make them up.

The MSM did not do his its job. In reality the media condoned character assassination of Senator Kerry. Then there was a second swiftboating after the narrow election loss by people with vested interests, either because they did not live up to their journalistic standards or they supported someone else in 2008. The problem was that Kerry could not get his response out through the mass media - his message was heavily filtered.

The campaign's immediate reaction to the August attack was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it.

That was far more proof countering the liars than the Clinton machine ever put out on anything. The problem was that it went to the media and they refused to play the role of evaluating who was telling the truth - the Washington Post's editor even saying they wouldn't. The broadcast media was worse. Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright? We need to be prepared to help Obama, if the media turn back to 2004 mode now that we are in the general election.

It wasn't that we had no ammunition to use. There was an abundance of proof - far more than would be typically available as they hit against a well documented official record. Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

Saying Kerry did not fight back simply swiftboats him again - compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges. The Clinton responses in these two instances did not completely refute the charges - in fact, after changing his story a few times in each case - conceding that earlier statements were not completely true - parts of the charges were conceded. The difference was that in 1992 - even in the primary - Clinton was given breaks by a media that wanted him to win. The fact is that we KNEW in those two cases that he was willing to dissemble and scapegoat others when he was called on his actions - two things that later hurt his Presidency.

In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 5 minutes long - so there is no excuse. http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/08/jk_the_...

click on little photo of the Senator.)

In 2004, there were no You tubes - if there were, getting this out could have been done. I hope the media will play fairer - but if they don't, we need to help Obama.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
Random Journal
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.