JK on the blogs - 4
Tim Tagaris handed out some kudos in a post on dailykos about the Lamont campaign including this about JK:
<!John Kerry
One of two rock stars for the campaign. He refused to endorse Joe Lieberman in the primary. He basically made a mockery of Joe by saying he doesn’t get involved in contested primaries despite campaigning for Jim Webb against Harris Miller a few days earlier. After we won, he sent out a pair of mildly successful fundraising emails on our behalf. He appeared in the state.
Most importantly, John Kerry was the Senator who spoke most forcefully and publicly about Joe’s support of “stay the course” and his Nixonian deception when Joe all of a sudden became a peace candidate in the closing weeks.
Senator Kerry was by far and away the most helpful senator to the campaign.
Mark Barrett at The Premise commenting on the flurry of reports after JK’s appearance on Fox News Sunday:
Not surprisingly there have been a lot of people trying to take John Kerry down and drive him from the roster of prospective presidential candidates over the past couple of weeks. I haven’t commented on that much because it’s normal. It was inevitable in 2003 when Mr. Kerry decided to campaign for president, and it’s inevitable now.
John Kerry is the only politician considering a run in 2008 who scares everyone from Hillary Clinton to John McCain, because he’s actually qualified to be president. He knows it, they know it, and the voters know it.
Everyone else wants to have a personality contest, but if John Kerry runs they can’t. They’ll have to campaign on the merits, and they can’t beat John Kerry on the merits.
Pamela Leavey at The Democratic Daily had an excellent post highlighting JK’s recommendations in health care,
Kerry Was On To Something and the Big Three Automakers Get It
Last week when the Big Three automakers paid a call on George W Bush they wanted to talk about the woes of the auto industry. “Among their complaints,” Scott Lehigh notes in the Boston Globe, “The heavy healthcare costs they shoulder are hindering their ability to compete.” Their idea for a solution didn’t interest Bush much, but Lehigh suggests, “Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should sit up and take notice.” Indeed they should…
[...]And what did they suggest by way of a solution? Something John Kerry proposed during his presidential campaign: a reinsurance arrangement to pay for chronic or catastrophic healthcare costs, thereby effectively taking those cases out of private health-insurance plans.
[...] In his 2004 campaign, Kerry called for having the federal government pay three-quarters of the additional expenses for patients whose healthcare costs exceed $50,000 a year, provided savings from that cost relief helped reduce employee health-insurance premiums.
Removing those costs from private plans could have big effects. Although they constitute less than 1 percent of all cases, catastrophic care accounts for 20 to 30 percent of healthcare expenses.
If the government were to pick up most of the bill for catastrophic care, health-insurance premiums wouldn’t be under such constant pressure. According to some estimates, premiums would be 10 percent lower than if private plans continued to pay for such care.
Now, Kerry’s political stock isn’t exactly soaring. But at a time when some on the left see a politically unattainable single-payer system as the only true solution to the nation’s healthcare problems, and some on the right insist that impractical, unproven health savings accounts are the proper prescription, the senator’s concept represents pragmatic middle ground.
The interest the notion has evoked from the auto industry demonstrates its appeal to business.
And here, what’s good for General Motors — and Ford and Chrysler — would certainly be good for the country.
On July 31, John Kerry laid out a plan calling for universal health care coverage by 2012. Putting Kerry’s plan for catastrophic healthcare into play would certainly be a great start to that goal. Lehigh is right on this, the Big Three automakers are right on this. Kerry has been right on this.
And last but not least there’s these 2 related items:
Steve of the Steve Report posted this post-election story which highlights a unique link between JK and a newly won Democratic seat in the House.
The Politics of Exclusion
What can the politics of exclusion teach us about elections? It teaches that the little things can and do matter. For example, in 2004 President Bush held a rally in Mankato, Minnesota, where Tim Walz, a 24-year veteran of the National Guard, and two students were removed due to a John Kerry sticker on one of the students’ wallets. According to Walz, this event turned out to be one of the most important in his decision to run for the House of Representatives. Two years later,Walz defeated 12-year, 6-term Republican incumbent Rep. Gil Gutknecht in the 2006 elections.
On Monday, he [Walz] attended a new-members reception at the White House, where he met President Bush and political adviser Karl Rove, who was convinced Walz would lose. “He said, ‘we had the numbers on you, we thought we had enough, but where did you find the voters?’” Walz said.
The more people you exclude, Karl, the more people who will vote against you, including those who perhaps wouldn’t have voted at all.
A Republican-held seat that wasn’t supposed to be at risk according to this analysis at Blue Stem Prairie.
Felker writes that Walz met White House political director Karl Rove on Monday, and that Bush remembered the rally in Mankato that set Walz on the campaign trail: On Monday, he attended a new-members reception at the White House, where he met President Bush and political adviser Karl Rove, who was convinced Walz would lose. “He said, ‘we had the numbers on you, we thought we had enough, but where did you find the voters?’” Walz said.Walz noted that President Bush remembered the Mankato rally in 2004 where he and two students were removed due to a John Kerry sticker on one of the students’ wallets. “That was kind of fun,” Walz said of the president’s comment. Walz credits that event as one of the most important in his decision to run for office.
20 Comments
New comments for this entry are closed.
Despite efforts by the media to claim otherwise, Kerry has always been forthright, prescient, ahead of his time, very honorable, and not the least bit elitist. Although quality can be disarming to see.
A shame the media won’t allow that version.
Early on issues of the environment, climate change, why we make war and when we shouldn’t, he also knows when issues are complex. I trust that man. He knows restraint and he knows action.
Since his first Senate run when he didn’t take PAC money and still hasn’t, the first to introduce legislation on campaign reform, before Wellstone, and definitely before Feingold-McCain.
The media will create and destroy what they want, for reasons we’ll never know, to create a personality contest they can position. Leaving us with whoever they let still standing.
We must respect and acknowledge our leadership. They allow us to move, grow as a party, and for the discourse amongst all of us. All parties.
Let’s concentrate on maximizing our opportunities that Kerry, and others, created for a new Congress.
Since many citizens do not understand government, the opposition can claim many untrue things about our new power that still necessitates their cooperation.
Even in 2008 claiming how bad one-party rule is, and much better not a Democrat.
Just riffing on how much work to do, and how wonderful we have a leader in John Kerry, who knows tactical thinking, with more than a dash of idealism.
I believe John Kerry to be the real “cutting edge” type of Democratic Presidential candidate(if he chooses to run again).
My advice to John(if he runs) is to loosen up a bit and relate more to the common folks. This would bring about a winning impact! As a veteran and American, I understand John’s objectives. Being able to relate to common constituents is something that JK needs to be a little more proficient.
I can honestly envision him as a future president!
These statements are evidence that the senator’s good works are being noticed and that the non-controversy of the joke will not have a lasting impact on the senator’s chances if he chooses to run for the White House again. It didn’t hurt the dems in the midterm elections and it won’t hurt his chances for seeking the nomination in 2008.
I am glad that Sen. Kerry chose to help Ned Lamont when he needed help the most. Many dems shied away from supporting him, including former president Clinton and Sen. Clinton. Now that dems have gained a majority in the Senate hopefully this will give the senator an opportunity to pass his Kids First Act. It is a good and moral piece of legislation and it should pass.
What fun to think about Karl Rove puzzling over Tim Walz’s sense of conviction and commitment following the restrictive and mean-spirited 2004 campaign!
I hope they have MANY such moments and may the slow dawning realization that they lost BECAUSE they awoke the good and the purposeful in so many strike them in the forehead repeatedly. Not to mention other geographic locales on the human body…
The midterm elections proved that Bush’s brain couldn’t see the obvious that a big democratic tidal wave was coming. In other words Bush’s brain doesn’t work.
Probus, there are followers of the data who think we would have more seats if the electronic systems were more transparent. That’s heresay until we have better elections.
As for Rove, maybe their tricks and vote control provided a close race on purpose, for the appearance of no fraud to keep us lax, or to create another do nothing congress with their obstruction. Preparing for 08. Maybe they couldn’t push their base enough this time. Quien sabe?
We know never to underestimate, but that’s all we know.
A little in or out of power, creates the same limitations, unless we can maximize the power we have. Encourage our leaders, and understand just how far they can push.
There are many ways our perceived failings, created and amplified by the media, will be pushed back to favor McCain, for instance. Complete with their push to divided government. Media could say not to repeat the tyranny of George, and his single party rule.
We have to prove just how bad they were, and how much better we are at governing. All at the same time.
I’m actually more upbeat than I sound, but very mindful how complicated our challenge.
Marjorie G | November 24, 2006 3:05 PM
“The media will create and destroy what they want, for reasons we’ll never know, to create a personality contest they can position. Leaving us with whoever they let still standing.”
You hit the nail on the head with that one, Marjorie, except I think we do know the reason. One might argue that it’s ratings or media ownership or ideology, but in the end, it’s about the cash.
When the talking heads on MSNBC/CNN/FOX say “there were a lot of Democrats who voted for the war” and that statement is left unchallenged, that’s a problem.
When the media covers two dropped letters from a speech and repeats the same spin for three weeks, and yet won’t spend a minute on a veterans bill sponsored by, or a half dozen major speeches given by the same person they’re obsessing over, that’s a problem.
And when the media follows George Bush around like a lost puppy, when they broadcast John McCain’s take on every issue, and when they pretend Tom and Katie’s honeymoon is news that affects peoples lives, that’s a very serious problem.
I think if I heard some cable news reader say “But did you know McCain was rated a ‘D’ by the IAVA on veterans issues?” I’d drop dead.
The media is not just A problem, it’s THE problem. Repetition 24/7 makes fabrications and half-truths the common wisdom, and we’re just not calling them on their bull the way we need to.
And it will continue unless Dem leaders and strategists start to defend themselves and each other against it. Some, like Sen Kerry are willing to go to bat for other Dems when the media attacks. Others, who I won’t name but we all know who they are, would rather toss in a bit of chum and feed the media frenzy.
Some get it. Some in the media even get it. But they’re few and far between.
As evidenced by this blog post, it looks like the bloggers are way ahead of the ‘mainstream’ media when it comes to reporting the truth.
Your nail hitting, GV, was very on target. Media has so many reasons to deceive, and none to help our government or its people to improve.
Maybe a deal that media gets better breaks to consolidate with a certain candidate, either party, or maybe ratings on entertainment fluff. Maybe because they don’t have to work on issues of substances, work at all.
As always, I like Mark Barrett’s comments:
“Everyone else wants to have a personality contest, but if John Kerry runs they can’t. They’ll have to campaign on the merits, and they can’t beat John Kerry on the merits.”
The bee in my bonnett, or usual black hat, is Democrats eating their own, either out of fear, or their own next races. The lack of support in 04, to prepare for 08, was very marked.
“Pronoungate,” or joke that had to be manufactured as an insult, was a White House campaign. Also a missed opportunity to stop swift-boating.
I decided two years ago that the Media and Election Reform were key. Nothing has changed my mind.
Nice compilation, thanks. The media/pundits are too caught up in their own spin to acknowledge that Senator Kerry was right! However, in a great display of reality trumps denial, the media began to report something that Senator Kerry has been saying for months: Iraq is in a civil war.
I decided two years ago that the Media and Election Reform were key. Nothing has changed my mind.
Posted by Marjorie G | November 24, 2006 9:56 PM
No doubt those are the primary issues, yet it is not the media that needs to be reformed. Rather, it is how well we can help others to understand that their primary source of information is poorly serving the citizens of this country. So it is not the media that needs reform, it is people’s expectations of what the media delivers that needs reform.
We are the ones responsible for being the media and not being hesitant to let others know that the media has, for all practical purposes, written off the the most qualified person to be our next President. We have to deliver the clarion call that the media is poorly serving all of us while ignoring the most experienced and qualified individual (?candidate) to be our next President.
Sorry that I misstated, oncall. Good explantion of where we are and yet to go.
The media, generally, may not change in the near future without a fairness doctrine for time on the air, and as much as the corporate interests trump all.
We have a lot of messages to share, and understanding the messenger is a big one.
I also believe the botched joke won’t have a lasting impact on John Kerry’s chances in 08.However, it will be very difficult for him to beat Hillary and Obama during the primaries….
Nice compilation! Thanks!
I saw a MSNBC headline this morning about Hillary, Condi, and Nancy Pelosi about being the new women in charge and how it may impact 2008.
I didn’t watch it in detail, but it is clear that the media is pushing Hillary, Obama, McCain, Guilani, and Condi for the primaries and GE.
It’s still the corporate media, stupid.
Marjorie,
You make good points. The media is biased, but we as dems can still make our point in spite of the them. Sen. Kerry was able to win the nomination even though most polls showed Lieberman winning. Media later proclaimed Dean the winner but the voters had different ideas and picked the most qualified candidate - Kerry. The voters don’t have to pick the candidate they like the most, they often vote on issues especially when there is a war going on. The media often picks dems they think won’t be able to win a general election.
That is why they favor Clinton, Edwards and Obama. They know these candidates could win the nomination but they can’t win the general election. They also know that Kerry would make a formidable opponent that’s why they ignore him. I do agree that if we required e-voting machines to provide a paper trail then we might have picked up more seats. Now that dems are in control perhaps we will see passage of the Count Every Vote Act. It is practical piece of legislation and should pass.
I would also like to see legislation that addresses the issue of memory cards used by the Diebold Company. As the documentary on HBO ‘Hacking Democracy’ indicated, the memory cards have executable files which can be manipulated without ever touching the vote tabulating machines. The memory cards must only be permitted if they don’t have executable files. Diebold denies that their memory cards have executable files. This is not true. If a virus is added to an executable file, the memory card can be made to give the wrong vote.
If the Count Every Vote Act could address this issue it would solve many problems with fraudulent voting.
Max,
I agree that it will be hard for the senator to beat Clinton and Obama. People will realize that Clinton and Obama are in favor of withdrawal but aren’t in favor of setting a specific date and want conditions on the ground to dictate when the troops will come home. It is not enough to be in favor of withdrawal, the withdrawal has to be date specific. That is starkly different from Sen. Kerry’s plan. Once things start getting worse in Iraq like the violence that took place on Thanksgiving Day, people will want specific benchmarks and they will want more pressure on the Iraqi government. They will want the administration to impose strict penalties on Maliki if he doesn’t comply. It is an uphill battle but it’s one that can be won.
I believe Clinton’s and Obama’s strength is overated. Hillary strength is her last name and money not on issues or record. Thats not real strength. Obama is popular with the media and young and charismatic. Obama is still green and inexperienced. Clinton and Obama are darlings of the media which is big part of their appeal. Kerry has substance, record, and money. I would not be surprised at surprise win in Iowa and a certain big name candidate drops out of the race.
Lothario’s points are all valid. The only thing I would add is that I’m not all that sure that Obama will even run. Barack Obama may or not be all he’s hyped up to be-but he IS definitely smart.
This has all the earmarkings of Ronald Reagan in 1968. Reagan wanted to run but knew in his heart of hearts that he wasn’t ready for the presidency (which he later admitted to Lyn Nofziger). Because of nominating rules that prevailed at that time, he WAS able to make a kind of back door run at it, but couldn’t even garner the support of right-winger and Reagan lover Strom Thurmond. Seeing how nominating rules have changed since then, Obama couldn’t make a run-in-no-primaries run for the nomination that Reagan did in 1968. Obama knows this… and so he won’t run. Reagan was 57 in 1968, Obama is only 48 in 2008. Obama could sit out 2008, and even in 2016 be a year younger than Reagan was in 1968-and be 13 years younger than Reagan when Reagan launched his successful run in 1980.
Actually Obama is 45 years old and I agree may not even run this time. Obama knows that he could possibly hurt his future prospects by running so soon. Joe Biden in 1988 was considered a young up and comer who never quite recovered after his loss in the primaries.
It is a very distinct possibility that Obama may not run at all. But if he does in fact run, he won’t last very long in the presidential race. It is grueling and tough and I don’t think he’s ready for it. His win in the Senate only came about when his repug opponent quit the race after a scandal. Alan Keyes who replaced him was an ineffective and weak candidate who never had any momentum in the race. It remains to be seen how much money Obama can raise for himself. Sen. Kerry is wise to not announce his candidacy this year. It is wise to wait till next year. I don’t know who’s advising Obama but I think it’s very strange that he would want to run after only 2 years in the Senate. He has a lot to learn. The candidates who are favored early on are often not the candidate that is chosen by the voters.