Kerry poised to cap long journey; Will lead panel that thrust him to fame in '71

[Faygo Kid]

Source: Boston Globe

WASHINGTON - More than three decades after he first appeared before the panel as a 27-year-old Vietnam veteran-turned-antiwar protester, Senator John F. Kerry will be named chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, giving him enormous influence over President-elect Barack Obama's foreign policy, according to congressional officials.

Kerry, who was elected to a fifth term from Massachusetts earlier this month, will be handed the gavel when the new Congress convenes in January, replacing Vice President-elect Joe Biden, the officials said.

Aides to Kerry said he is already laying out a broad agenda for the committee, beginning with new legislation to strengthen the United States' hand against terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan; provide oversight of efforts to end the war in Iraq; and seize what he sees as a new opportunity to curtail the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

Kerry, 64, is still considered by some political observers to be a possible pick for Obama's secretary of state, but Senator Hillary Clinton of New York and former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, each of whom met separately with Obama at his Chicago transition office last week, are considered far more likely selections for the position of top diplomat. . .

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/20/kerry_poised_to_cap_long_journey/

---

This is great. I remember his testimony in 1971. What an extraordinary journey.

He would make a great Secretary of State, but this somehow seems just right.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Talk about coming full circle.......

[blm]

2. Boston Globe reporters are discouraged from mentioning IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning.

Kerry will never get public credit for those matters because the fascists who own most of corpmedia are still trying to rewrite history. Ronnie Reagan is a saint, y'know...and Poppy Bush was a beloved statesman with a lifetime of service....dontcha know?

Kerry will never be discussed rationally and fairly by the corporate media and many of the left blogs don't do much better because they mostly rely on the corpmedia for their own education.

Focking BCCI opened IranContra wider, CIA drugrunning, S&L scandal, and CIA drugrunning that also funded armsdealers and global terror networks.

With the world economy in dire straits and global terrorism STILL a disturbing reality, you'd think the media would NOTICE that one lawmaker has more experience in those crucial matters than most of DC put together.

[RB TexLa]

46. I remember the drug running like it was yesterday there was so much money flowing around Louisiana

from it. I mean, bags upon bags of money.

[blm]

69. Yep - all that cheap IranContra cocaine was dumped in cities all over America, and THAT triggered

the crack epidemic of the 80s and still destroying so many communities today.

[truedelphi]

75. That is when many hopeless communities became

Even more hopeless

Teenagers in Oakland CA are now out on thestreet by themselves by the time they are thirteen.

And in so many families, the grandparents are raising the children.

[blm]

76. And still Clinton sided with the secrecy and privilege of Poppy Bush when the CIA drugrunning story

hit the news in 1996.

The US government should have spent some money and time rehabbing those communities and funding fullscale treatment for those who succumbed to the government's deliberate and sinister actions.

Instead, 'officials' back then targeted the Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter for a takedown and smear campaign worthy of Rove and BushInc......in 1996. In 1996.

[moodforaday]

83. You can be sure

it *was* happening yesterday, and the day before too. I don't for a moment believe it's a thing of the past.

Seriously. I'm in the middle of "The Outlaw Bank", a fantastic book (published 1993) by two TIME reporters who originally did most of the investigative reporting on BCCI. (The book goes into some detail about how Kerry's investigation was stymied, but it's not a major focal point in the story.) The kind of fraud and sheer banditry that was going on, practically every page makes me scream. But there is a danger in thinking - OK, this was then, the business was rotten but ultimately exposed and now it's over.

If, for example, CIA was using BCCI for secret slush accounts, then there is a market for secret slush accounts, and with BCCI gone another entity must have replaced it. CIA is still running drugs through proxies (check Daniel Hopsicker's frequent postings), money is still siphoned away to the Caymans, it's all going on right now, tonight.

[lisa58]

3. I remember too and I was proud to vote for him for President in 2004...

...I still believe he won and I still believe that election was more important that the 2008 election. I'm very happy for Obama and I'm sooooooo glad he won, I just think if Kerry took over in 2004 we wouldn't have the economic crisis we have.

Just my opinion.

[blm]

5. You're right. Kerry flagged the credit and mortgage crisis back then and put it in 2004 Dem platform

He also promised in June2004 to fully fund the 16 billion EMERGENCY FUNDING the Gulf Coast needed to re-inforce the coastline. Gee - imagine if THAT project had started in Jan2005.

Funny how the corpmedia really had NO INTEREST in those serious matters back in 2004. Too many actual FACTS they couldn't comprehend.

[HillbillyBob]

6. He did win so did Gore. Think where we would be if it had been so

and not two stolen elections?

[BlueIris]

9. Excellent post!

And so true.

[Faygo Kid]

11. Seconded. And President Kerry would have shaken hands with the G8 leaders.

Extraordinary video here on DU's front page. We were cursed with George W. Bush in 2000, doubly cursed in 2004, and as he falls apart and the bubble around him collapses, we are likely in danger.

[Alexander]

4. He would be great as chair of the SFRC.

[fascisthunter]

7. nice!

:thumbsup:

[BlueIris]

8. Congrats to Senator K!

Kisses.

[Posteritatis]

10. Nice; wonder if he had any inkling of this happening back in '71 (nt)

[pacalo]

12. How poetic...yahoo!

I still have a huge crush on this man, I confess.

[Democrafty]

22. "I still have a huge crush on this man, I confess. "

Amen to that!

[saigon68]

34. Nice Photo

We were young then

[Chulanowa]

13. Excellent

I really think this is the best place for him. It just seems so... Smooth.

Kind of a silly picture, though.
Obama: John... John... John? It's okay John. Yes, I know it's the media John, I won't let them hurt you. Deep breaths John. Look at me. it's oooookaaaaay.

[fedupinBushcountry]

16. Silly picture?

Do you even know where they were marching to? I doubt it, from your idiotic remarks. They were on their way to Arlington Cemetery to meet up with a goldstar mother to visit his grave and the security would not let them in. Real silly, huh?

Sometimes I wish people would educate themselves before throwing out stupid posts.

Watch "Tour of Duty" you might learn some things on how serious that pic is.

[Chulanowa]

19. I didn't, actually, since the picture was unsourced

You know you could have simply made me aware of the background of the picture without being a complete fucking asshole, right?

[fedupinBushcountry]

21. Actually

just saying the picture was silly was being a complete ...

[Chulanowa]

26. Wait - just a second here - We've got a mixup

I'm talking about the picture in the OP. You know, the post I was responding to?

This picture:


Not the one 8_Year_Nightmare posted.

Jesus jumping christ, you really think I was making fun of the VVAW picture? You should really learn how the post cascade on DU works before you call someone's post stupid or idiotic.

[mt13]

35. in defense of Chulanowa

i don't mean to be rude or anything like that but i do believe that Chulanowa was commenting on the photo of Barack & Kerry in the original post and NOT on the absolutely amazing photo of Kerry marching with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

corrected my typo on edit! duh...

[karynnj]

38. Then he should have seen the mixup - as there is no way that

is picture is a march to a cemetary. Not to mention, 2 US Senators would not be denied entrance. In addition - he was rude - there was no excuse for the attack.

[mt13]

41. i am sorry, but...

he was only "rude" (i call it self-defensiveness) in response to real rudeness from fedupinBushcountry who was down right nasty. all one has to do on this blog is look to the right and one will see what post one is replying to. you should know this as you have 1000+ posts. and by the way, you are pretty rude too. he realized eventually that there was a mix-up and addressed that but you keep attacking him as if he really did mean to post on the VVAW photo.

what happened to the love that was on this blog just last week?

[fedupinBushcountry]

55. This is not a blog

it is a forum. I don't need to be educated on this forum since I have been here for many years, thank you very much.

[mt13]

57. but...

MY apologies:
a blog is short for Weblog and is more of an online-diary than anything else.
A forum (or Board, more properly) is a full-blown discussion system, with users, permissions, fora, etc


BUT since you have been here so long, then you know that the full posts at the bottom of the page are in order of posting not in order of replies so you should not have assumed he was replying to the post directly above his reply.

grow up.

[karynnj]

78. I responded after his first response

which seemed to tacitly accept that it was the VVAW photo.

Neither Fedup or I responded with the type of insulting language he used.

[Chulanowa]

48. Damn right I was rude.

Just out of nowhere someone comes out slinging "idiotic" and "Stupid" at me while accusing me (As it turns out) of being such an asshole to mock the VVAW march pictured? Hell yeah I'll be "rude" once the standard has already been set so low.

I was a bit puzzled as to what FedUp was talking about at first, but I figured that not only would anyone taking the time to reply notice what picture I was talking about (especially in the context of the joke), but also that such vitriol had to have had some sort of reason. if it hadn't been for later posters, I'd probably still be confused.

Never said I was a genius, just that I'm not an idiot :)

[mt13]

49. i know...

that's why originally posted that you were replying to the OP and NOT the VVAW image! fedupinBushcountry must have been reading the complete posts below where the threads are not visually obvious as to what reply goes with what post. it takes some effort to figure that information out. but once it was established that you were not being a dolt, she should have acknowledged that and apologized. her greatest defender, karynnj, should also apologize as she is just plain wrong in her defense.

[fedupinBushcountry]

53. Apologize for what?

I did not call anyone " a complete fucking asshole" I might have if he/she not been so friggin rude. I was not rude and did not stoop to expletives.

[mt13]

56. perhaps...

his language was a little rough but you did insult him first:

"Sometimes I wish people would educate themselves before throwing out stupid posts.
Watch "Tour of Duty" you might learn some things on how serious that pic is."

you didn't even take the time to see what post he was replying to you just jumped him.

[fedupinBushcountry]

58. Do you always

butt in on other people. Who made you the referee. Grow up, yourself.

[mt13]

59. this is a public forum...

as you corrected me and i am a registered user therefore i am not butting in on anyone. i do take offense when i see an injustice done to someone for the wrong reason. and yes, i do voice my opinion when i think i am right. i can also admit when i am wrong. unfortunately, i can already see that you are not that grown up and cannot do that. that is sad.

[karynnj]

79. It might make sense to wait until you know posters better

The fact is that Fedup has many thousands of intelligent, sane and polite posts. The attack on her was unwarranted and there is no way to take it as anything but that.

You are not the moderator. (that's why there's an alert button)

[Democrafty]

23. The banner? In the photo?

Says Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

[karynnj]

25. Her response to you was fine - what is your problem?

You owe her an apology.

The problem was that you decided to snark without knowing what you were talking about. You would think that you might have learned something about this in school or at least when he was the nominee. Kerry was absolutely incredible then - and he was standing up for the vets as well as calling for an end to teh war. He risked never having a political career doing so. There was a clue - in that Kerry is very young there and the op spoke of his Senate testimony.

[karynnj]

24. How idiotic!

1) It was KERRY who had Obama's back as much as anyone during the election. In his own articulate, polite way he was the best attack dog any candidate ever had. It was no contest between the cool Kerry and the bad tempered Bil Clinton in the primaries and in teh general election he killed every McCain surrogate - even on FOX News.

2) Do you have an inkling of what that "silly" photo was showing. Nixon was scared by one and only one protester - John Kerry. He completely organized and ran a peaceful protest that lasted about 3 days. He ruled out any anti-war celebrities - keeping it the veterans and their friends. This led to a protest that Congressmen, Senators and their staff were comfortable joining. (Remember all the posts asking why few elected figures would go to the ANSWER rallies? ) The testimony and the positive coverage reached many who before that thought that to be against the war meant you were a hippie communist etc.

[Chulanowa]

29. You do realize I was talking about the photo in the OP?

You know, the one with Obama gripping Kerry while Kerry points at the camera with a startled look? The photo where the obama-to-Kerry dialog joke I made actually makes a modicum of sense? That one? With the Obama campaign signs? In hte post I was replying to?

I agree with your first point, at least

[Faygo Kid]

31. OP says, idiotic.

That was the pic that accompanied the article in the Boston newspaper article.

Really doesn't call for your criticism, but thanks for posting here, anyway.

[Chulanowa]

32. I know. I found it an amusing-looking picture

And made a little joke about it, as a side note to my thumbs-up on Kerry getting the position and calling him the best man for the job.

If having a chuckle in addition to feeling good about who's filling the cabinet makes me an idiot in your book, well, then I guess I'll just have to be an idiot in your book, won't I? :eyes:

[karynnj]

39. this is NOT a cabinet position - this is the chair of a Senate committee

[Chulanowa]

47. Okay, on that I can admit idiocy!

Thanks for the correction :)

[Divine Discontent]

33. you were owed an apology, but don't sweat it, people are hyper here sometimes

yes, the OP pic is silly somewhat being in "still" capture, becuase he's pointing forward and Barack is grasping on him in what you jokingly call Obama tell him, John John, it's ok, they were wrong to you, I know...

people sometimes... like you'd mock the VVAW photo! they just are edgy and very defensive, understandably, about that time. Kerry is a hero to many, I'm sure if they understood you were replying to the ORIGINAL post they'd apologize. ha

[karynnj]

40. He was the one who was insulting

Not to mention - her description was of the 1971 photo - the other was clearly a campaign rally (it was from Kerry's endorsement of Obama.) it could not possibly be a march to Arlington cemetary.

He could have pointed out that that was not he photo he was speaking of - and he could have avoded the insults that make him sound like he is in Junior high.

[mt13]

54. follow the thread DIRECTLY under the post and...

you will see that you are wrong.

[karynnj]

73. No - look at the first two

1) Her post is angry and it is clear she is speaking of the 1971 picture. The worst word used is "idiotic" At worst, she was reading down the thread and took the response to be to the picture, which at that point was immediately before it.

2) His response could have been - whoa that's not the picture I was speaking of - pointing to what he responded to. Instead, he attacks WAY out of proportion and extremely rude. Nothing justifies that attack - it is bad behavior.

[mt13]

74. i agree...

that he should not have used foul language but why is it his responsibility to assume she was referring to the wrong picture? her anger at him was confusing until he realized where the mistake was. he addressed that almost immediately.

i apologize that i have taken up so much space on this. it was late and i was a bit cranky. and honestly, they each owe the other an apology.

[Chulanowa]

85. Well, there's some "stupid" in there for good measure

Basically I got called stupid, my post was called idiotic, and I was accused of making fun of the VVAW march to Arlington. And now apparently a lot of other people who just went along with the ride to be pissed at me because they thought I was talking about the 1971 picture as well, are now wringing their hands about how rude and terrible I am, to cover for their own screwups.

Welcome to the internet. Bring a raincoat. Every night is sledge-o-matic night.

[karynnj]

37. Your response to her doesn't make sense then

Does that look like a march to Arlington? Is that consistent with the mood? Would 2 US Senators be denied entry?

[Chulanowa]

62. I addressed that above

I figured it was obvious which picture I was talking about, and thus someone coming at me with htat sort of, ahem, rebutta, had some quantifiable reason for doing so. it never crossed my mind that she thought I was speaking of the march photo, until other posters alluded to such.

Mea culpa for not guessing that she was very confused?

[blm]

70. Obama NEVER got Kerry's back like Kerry has gotten his. Obama COULDN'T - he hadn't the experience to

do so.

Further - there isn't a lawmaker in DC who'd take a bullet for you or any one in your family as Kerry would....it's the unselfish nature and brave character trait you rarely see in people.

[LSK]

82. ITS A BAD JOKE PEOPLE, LIGHTEN UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[underpants]

14. That was a phenominal 45 minute performance by a 27 year old

and it probably forever killed his chances of the power elite EVER letting him actually become President. He broke the two cardinal rules
1. never draw the attention of the outside world
2. never ever take money out of the pockets of the people you are waiting to replace

Still it is a remarkable journey

[karynnj]

27. Actually - he came very close - had there been more voting machines

in Ohio....

He fought the power elite from a greater position of strength as a Senator too -

People went to jail for things they did with BCCI - which he uncovered. He also stood against everyone who wanted the Contras (RW thugs that they were) armed - against the Boland amendment.

It says something that he fought then 3 times and still had the strength to almost become President. Had he ignored the need to fight these things - he likely would have had an easier path to the Presidency.

[KoKo]

15. Sounds Good...Fiengold was in Contention and also Ben Nelson...article here:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/outspoken-feingold-could-lead-senate-foreign-relations-2008-11-06.html


Feingold could lead Senate Foreign Relations
By Walter Alarkon
Posted: 11/06/08 06:27 PM

Vice President-elect Joe Biden leaves an open chairmanship on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that could end up being filled by one of the most outspoken critics of the Iraq war.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), among the chamber’s most liberal members, is the fourth Democrat in line on the committee, behind Biden, Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Sen. John Kerry (Mass.).

Dodd said Thursday he plans to stay on as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Kerry is reportedly lobbying to be President-elect Barack Obama’s Secretary of State.

That leaves Feingold, an unapologetic champion of civil liberties and a staunch opponent of the Bush administration’s war in Iraq, next in line. Feingold opposed the war from the start and was the first senator to call for a U.S. troop withdrawal timetable.

Democrats could bypass the Wisconsin senator and choose a more centrist member, such as Sen. Bill Nelson (Fla.), who initially supported the war and could be more open to compromise. But that would rile the party’s left wing.

"It would seem like an extreme move to bypass senators with a great deal more seniority," said Christopher Anders, a senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

In addition to opposing the war, Feingold has been fiercely critical of the current administration's policies toward terror suspects, which he has viewed as unconstitutional. Feingold earned plaudits from the ACLU for calling for the closing of the prison on Guantanamo Bay for terror suspects and by demanding a stop to the transfer of suspects to countries with less strict standards on torture, a program known as "extraordinary rendition."

And he was the only senator who voted against the anti-terrorism law known as the Patriot Act, in the days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"Without any hesitation, would be a terrific chairman," Anders said.

The ACLU would expect Feingold as chairman to conduct oversight hearings of the extraordinary rendition program. The next chairman should also press to close any secret prisons abroad and should make sure that other countries understand that the United States won't engage in or support torture.

He added that the ACLU would feel just as confident with Kerry or Dodd as chairman of the committee.

After Feingold, next in line is Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and holds similar views on foreign policy, followed by Sen. Nelson.

Dan Senor, a former Bush administration spokesman in Iraq, said that Democrats should choose Nelson, who had been skeptical of a troop pullout just two years ago.

Senor said that the Senate Democratic leadership and Obama's transition team would have concerns about "a hard-left chairman of important committees that's going to make it harder for Obama to make compromises."

more...link at top of article.

[Mass]

51. Probably Bill Nelson. Feingold would have been named if Kerry had had SoS.

(probably another reason some did not want this to happen, the same ones who were planning to have Ben Bill Nelson to jump over Feingold and Boxer to have it (we cannot contemplate having these two in such a position, could we).

[DeepModem Mom]

17. K&R!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. EXCELLENT NEWS!!!!!!

John Kerry is a great guy and this is just right!!!

I am so happy!

[2Design]

20. wish he had the 'balls' he had then - he does at least investigate things n/t

[karynnj]

28. Who led on Kerry/Feingold and on stopping Alito?

He knew a wing of the Democratic party didn't want either done - they both needed to be done. He spent 5 years on BCCI - with people in both parties demanding he stop. On the Contras he and his staff were threatened and ridiculed.

Name one other leader who has fought half the battles Kerry has.

[2Design]

30. I understand that - but during the election and after he did not

fight or attack or go back

[karynnj]

36. He did fight back in 2004

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_fire_fighters.html

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.

[gtar100]

60. Wow. Makes me realize just how bad things were in 2004 with the media and this country

Repugs in droves were willing to believe that SBVT bullshit. Even at face value it should have been dismissed. But we have too many people so willing to believe anything if it justifies their ideology. Sad thing is, they are still around, still passing around stupid bullshit comments about Obama, liberals, and democrats, and looking for opportunities to strike.

I hope Kerry is sufficiently pissed about what happened in 2004 that he goes all out in his new position as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Many, many congratulations to Senator Kerry.

[politicasista]

66. They'll never get it. They just love to bash and use Kerry as a scapegoat

Hear how the crickets chirp after a fact-based post.

[karynnj]

72. I think it did motivate Kerry for the last 4 years

Most notably in 2006 when he personally acted as an attack dog for three vets running to be first year Congressmen. Their records were hit and Kerry defended them. How often does the last standard bearer of the party personally do this for newcomers to Congress. It also was likely why he was incredible as an Obama surrogate. He did as good a job as anyone framing McCain - his "Senator McCain vs Candidate McCain" which he started while still in the primaries was what many Democrats used - because it offered people who had liked McCain in 2000 a reason to change their minds. He also was the first to use the word "erratic". He also helped in the framing of Obama - he was the first to use the word "transformational". (Obama is transformational -but that is not something you can say about yourself.)

I agree that these people are still out there - all you have to do is turn on the radio in any city and hit scan - or turn on cable news. Kerry is fighting them directly, but not from the Senate. Kerry's leadership PAC funded a stop the smears site - that is intended to defend all Democrats. (It was done to compliment Obama's which only could defend Obama because it was out of his campaign - it also meant that it would help campaigns that could not afford the staff time or money to do it themselves. They could pass relevant links to their supporters.) Kerry's was designed so people could send in smears they were getting - and they could be debunked. They also made a point of stating the truth very succinctly first, then explaining the smear - to give the smear less prominence than the truth. when it was introduced, it was pointed out that it was not tied to a campaign. I think that meant that it would continue. The link is http://truthfightsback.com/

I was stunned in retrospect by 2004. In addition to the lies, there was the absence of the normal positive coverage. While it was happening, I was reading the Kerry blog (but was too shy to post other than a few times when people were worried about NJ), clicking to watch local coverage, or watching CSPAN (the Kerry blog did an exceptional job alerting people to coverage). The campaign I saw was not the campaign most Americans saw. The last month of the campaign had incredible rallies - which completely blew out attendance records (which Obama broke) - yet unlike 1992, where the media helped Clinton's momentum grow by showing the rallies - the coverage never showed much - instead you got people like Candy Crowley speaking from outside the venue and a minute or so of Kerry. Also, EVERY major party Presidential nominee has had the TV puff piece biography - where the candidates life is shown to explain why he rose to that position. They even did this for W in 2000 - though it likely wasn't easy. Not one station did that type of biography for Kerry - though his life makes it easy.

[blm]

71. BULLSHIT - the corpmedia edited his campaign heavily - they refused to broadcast attack on swifts

and his challenge to Bush to stop hiding behind the lies of swifts and come forward and publicly DEBATE their services during Vietnam. No news channel would broadcast that speech to the Firefighters Convention, and few would even report that it happened. Then a month later they were all acting as if Kerry never made the speech.

And it was McAuliffe's DNC that made sure Kerry would never have the evidence to to take to court on the vote stealing in Ohio - McAuliffe refused to secure the election process for the entire four years the RNC and GOP officials were setting up another steal.

The DNC under Dean worked their ASSES OFF to rebuild the party infrastructure state by state that had been left to collapse by previous chairs...and THAT is what made the difference in 2006 and 2008.

[politicasista]

42. Kick

:kick:

[wisteria]

43. No news here. This was the position he was going to get anyway.

You know, the one Biden abandoned and Dodd didn't want. And, of course it was good of Obama to remember someone who worked so hard for him by giving a plum positron to someone less qualified. Ah, you work hard, you support your party and it's candidates, you go out of your way to campaign for them and you get snubbed. Of course Kerry will do all he can to be a good soldier and work to make the best out of this lessor position all the while others take credit for what he did. What an unfortunate ending for someone who is a gifted man with such leadership qualities.Again, this is not big news. I really wish people would stop making this out to be a big monumentally deal like a toddler's first doodle in the toilet.

[politicasista]

44. ...

:grouphug:

[wisteria]

50. Same to you. n/t

[hangman86]

45. Nothing those swiftboat assholes can do on this one.

I had some problems with Kerry during 04. Anyone who says he going to use some of Regan's ideas in his economic policy automatically sends a chill down my spine. But many people still didn't understand how neo-conservatism was going to utterly ruin this country and were still being brainwashed by the "turd blossom," so I guess he felt compelled to say it in order to reach out to the swing states. But I do believe he has a sound mind for foreign policy and will make good on his word to reverse the idiotic policies of the Bush Administration. It's good to see he hasn't been forgotten after his win in 04. And yes I mean WIN!

[karynnj]

77. There was nothing Reagan like in Kerry's economic proposals

1) Kerry was pro-regulation and an advocate of accountability (These were not anti-consumer - He had a plank that would have outlawed most balloon mortgages and other credit card and mortgage abuses.)
2) Kerry was campaigning on rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy - the antithesis of Reagan economics
3) Kerry was calling for investment in alternative fuels and energy efficient technology - to benefit both global warming and the economy. Kerry and McCain fought for rises in CAFE standards that were defeated by the Republicans and Michigan Democrats. Kerry then spoke of the fact that he had auto execs coming to his Senate office pushing him to drop it - but that he told them that they needed to do this to succeed.
4) He had the fullest best health care plan that year.
5) As Kennedy said, Kerry had written the precursor bill to S-CHIP with him
6) Kerry had been the Senate sponsor to Youthbuild which was a program that helped at risk youth learn skills while completing high school.
7) Speaking more globally on the need to help the poor - Kerry was clearly influenced by the Catholic social justice teachings
8) Kerry had a proposal to eliminate tax preferences to sending jobs out of the country

The only thing you could be thinking of was that Kerry did vote for Gramm/Rudman which required a balanced budget. He was also in favor of Pay/go where you had to "pay" for each non-budgeted item with a corresponding increase in revenues or a cut in something else. He also has been clear that this is not true of stimulation packages - where you are consciously doing more deficit spending. Here is a link to a video where he speaks of the budget in Nov 2004 - http://www.kerryvision.net/2008/09/post_

As to what Kerry thought of the Reagan years - this early 1990s 9a decade before JRE's 2 Americas) Senate speech shows his views:

In many ways, we are witnessing the most rapid change in the workplace in this country since the postwar era began. For a majority of working Americans, the changes are utterly at odds with the expectations they nurtured growing up.
Millions of Americans grew up feeling they had a kind of implied contract with their country, a contract for the American dream. If you applied yourself, got an education, went to work, and worked hard, then you had a reasonable shot at an income, a home, time for family, and a graceful retirement.
Today, those comfortable assumptions have been shattered by the realization that no job is safe, no future assured. And many Americans simply feel betrayed.
To this day I'm not sure that official Washington fully comprehends what has happened to working America in the last 20 years, a period when the incomes of the majority declined in real terms.
In the decade following 1953, the typical male worker, head of his household, aged 40 to 50, saw his real income grow 36 percent. The 40-something workers from 1963 to 1973 saw their incomes grow 25 percent. The 40-something workers from 1973 to 1983 saw their incomes decline, by 14 percent, and reliable estimates indicate that the period of 1983 to 1993 will show a similar decline.
From 1969 to 1989 average weekly earnings in this country declined from $387 to $335. No wonder then, that millions of women entered the work force, not simply because the opportunity opened for the first time. They had no choice. More and more families needed two incomes to support a family, where one had once been enough.
It began to be insufficient to have two incomes in the family. By 1989 the number of people working at more than one job hit a record high. And then even this was not enough to maintain living standards. Family income growth simply slowed down. Between 1979 and 1989 it grew more slowly than at any period since World War II. In 1989 the median family income was only $1,528 greater than it had been 10 years earlier. In prior decades real family income would increase by that same amount every 22 months. When the recession began in 1989, the average family's inflation-adjusted income fell 4.4 percent, a $1,640 drop, or more than the entire gain from the eighties.
Younger people now make less money at the beginning of their careers, and can expect their incomes to grow more slowly than their parents'. Families headed by persons aged 25 to 34 in 1989 had incomes $1,715 less than their counterparts did 10 years earlier, in 1979. Evidence continues to suggest that persons born after 1945 simply will not achieve the same incomes in middle-age that their parents achieved.
Thus, Mr. President, it is a treadmill world for millions of Americans. They work hard, they spend less time with their families, but their incomes don't go up. The more their incomes stagnate, the more they work. The more they work, the more they leave the kids alone, and the more they need child care. The more they need child care, the more they need to work.
Why are we surprised at the statistics on the hours children spend in front of the television; about illiteracy rates; about teenage crime and pregnancy? All the adults are working and too many kids are raising themselves.
Of course, there is another story to be found in the numbers. Not everyone is suffering from a declining income. Those at the top of the income scale are seeing their incomes increase, and as a result income inequality in this Nation is growing dramatically. Overall, the 30 percent of our people at the top of the income scale have secured more and more, while the bottom 70 percent have been losing. The richest 1 percent saw their incomes grow 62 percent during the 1980's, capturing a full 53 percent of the total income growth among all families in the entire economy. This represents a dramatic reversal of what had been a post-war trend toward equality in this country. It also means that the less well-off in our society--the same Americans who lost out in the Reagan tax revolution--are the ones being hurt by changes in the economy.
You might say that we long ago left the world of Ward and June Clever. We have entered the world of Roseanne and Dan, and the yuppies from `L.A. Law' working downtown.
Many, many commentators have explained how the assumptions from that long-ago world will cripple us if we do not have the courage to look at today's economy with a clear eye.
Back then, we were the only economic superpower. American companies had virtually no competition and, since they produced almost entirely in the United States, their workers felt no particular threat from workers abroad. This was the era when `Made in Japan' meant something was cheap--not good, just cheap.
Throughout the 1950's and 1960's productivity was rising rapidly throughout the American economy, so that people could expect over time to work less, but earn more.
Back then, free trade for America meant more markets for America, not competition. We maintained the Bretton Woods rules, the GATT, and other treaty obligations not only to buttress the free world against communism, and not only out of the goodness of our hearts; we enforced a basic level of stability in the world because a stable world meant open markets for us, and we made the products people most wanted to buy.
Back then, large corporations and large unions set the pace for middle-class prosperity. Remember it was Henry Ford, no fan of unions, who created the mass production line to turn out cars cheaply--cheaply enough so that his own workers could buy them. When he finally capitulated to the United Auto Workers, he gave his workers the largest settlement of the Big Three.
In those days, Fortune 500 companies controlled well over 50 percent of our total economy, and employed three-quarters of our manufacturing work force. If the New Deal built the floor for personal security in America, the corporate economy put up the middle-class safety net, with pension plans and health insurance.
In those days, American families lived on one man's paycheck, from one job that lasted with one company for an entire lifetime.
If you were laid off, you were laid off for the duration, and you were called back when business picked up.
No more.
And two key words summarize the difference: globalization and technology. Each one feeds the other. Each one confronts American employers with a choice: Can I beat the competition by making a stand in America with my own workers, or must I beat the competition by going abroad? Will my workers join the ranks of the 70 percent falling behind, or will they join the ranks of the 30 percent--or fewer--who will get ahead?
The dynamics of this are familiar to anybody who works. Technology, particularly computer technology, makes it possible to move production anywhere in the world. Technology makes it possible for formerly large corporations to make do with drastically fewer people at home. Remember those bar-code readers.
Increasingly freer trade amongst nations means that competition comes from low-wage workers in developing countries, or from high-skilled, highly productive workers in the industrialized countries. The choice is a stark one: either a nation must secure more technology and become more productive or it must underbid all others for labor and other costs. Most countries understand that this is a choice they have to make.
I submit to you, Mr. President, that this is a choice which we are not making, and the consequence is that the choice is being made for us--toward low costs, leading to the unprecedented wave of downsizing underway in our economy.
Two weeks ago an American Management Association survey reported that nearly half of the companies polled had reduced their work forces in the last year. A quarter reported that they will do so again in the coming year, some for the second or third time in 5 years, and experience shows that the number of companies that eventually downsize is twice the number that predict they will.
Workers who are downsized in today's environment are not out for the duration. They are out for good, and their ability to climb back into the economy is utterly dependent on the match between their skills and the needs of the small and midsized companies which now represent the pivot point for American economic success. Central to this division is skills: those that have them win, those that do not have them lose.
Workers with high skills can reap the rewards of the new technology, which is higher productivity. Higher productivity is not only the basis of increased pay, it is the ticket of admission to world markets, hence to growth, hence to new jobs and higher pay.
Recently Princeton economist Alan Krueger showed that workers who used computers on the job earned a 10- to 15-percent higher wage rate than otherwise similar workers. On the basis of this study, Microsoft Corp., the software giant, ran advertisements in Time magazine and elsewhere declaring `we make it easier to get a 15-percent raise.'
On the other hand, there is a growing disadvantage to not being well educated and flexibly skilled. Workers with lower skills find that technology either eliminates their jobs or moves them overseas. It is this disadvantage that lower skilled
workers face in the new global, high-technology economy that explains why they are faring increasingly poorly in terms of wages and incomes. It is these lower-skilled workers who are having the rug pulled out from under them. And it is no wonder they are scared by NAFTA .
Now, I do not come to this issue as some latter-day luddite, ready to smash bar code scanners in the supermarket and wall off our borders from foreign imports.
I believe that the change we are witnessing--whether we like it or not--is inevitable. What is not inevitable is our passivity, and our inability to make change work for, instead of against, American workers.
In the past few months I have visited any number of companies in my home State of Massachusetts that have made technology work for them and their workers. Through aggressive R&D, advanced manufacturing technology, and continuous worker training and involvement, they have maintained and often increased manufacturing jobs in Massachusetts, a State where manufacturing is supposedly dead and buried. These include the Bose Corp., a major player in the Japanese hi-fi and automotive parts market, thanks to its constant innovation; and Modicon Corp., which brought jobs back from Asia when it radically upgraded technology and workplace organization. In my State, you simply cannot create new manufacturing jobs with a low-skill, low-wage strategy. You must go the high-technology, high-skill route, and you must export.
The question is, Are we going to learn from the Boses and the Modicons?

[The Backlash Cometh]

52. It's like I'm living a dream.

So many good people in high places.

[wisteria]

61. It's not really a dream, it is the bursting of a bubble for a man who should be president. n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

68. Well...true.

[Triana]

63. DAMN good choice. I love Joe and John both....

...John deserves this and more importantly, is an incredibly appropriate and capable pick for this. This is GREAT news!

[Spiffarino]

64. An absolutely perfect choice

The next best place for JF Kerry after Secretary of State. He carries a lot of weight in foreign policy circles and he'll be a great legislative ally for the Obama administration.

[wisteria]

65. It wasn't a choice, he was next in line. Biden has VP and Dodd didn't want it. n/t

[TomClash]

67. IT COULDN'T HAPPEN TO A NICER GUY NT

[politicasista]

80. Kick n/t

[LSK]

81. I LOVE IT!!!

:)

[politicasista]

84. Kick for the Friday evening crowd

:kick:

[SalmonChantedEvening]

86. This calls for an autographed Mel Allen

How 'bout that!

:patriot:

[politicasista]

87. Kick n/t

[SharonRB]

88. He's come full circle.

He'll do a great job. I'd like to see him in the cabinet, but maybe we need him here more now that Biden is VP.

[politicasista]

89. Nice pic

:hi:

[SharonRB]

91. Thanks!

[wordpix]

90. Congratulations, John Kerry! One of my presidents, except for Ohio stolen 2004