Kerry vows to avoid lobbyists, fund-raising while on ‘supercommittee’

[ProSense]

Source: Boston Globe

As one of the 12 members of a congressional “supercommittee” charged with developing a plan by Thanksgiving for cutting $1.5 trillion from the federal budget deficit, Senator John Kerry has the potential to influence huge decisions about the future of social and military spending.

For that reason, he and the other committee members are certain targets for lobbying by all manner of individuals and organizations.

Kerry says he will have none of it.

“I’m not meeting with a lot of lobbyists; I’m meeting with people I choose to meet with, who can inform me, assist in the process of crunching numbers and dealing with consequences, and so forth,” Kerry told the Globe last week in his first extensive interview about his committee membership.


Read more: http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/09/kerry-vows-avoid-lobbyists-fund-raising-while-supercommittee/wUtCh7v6qMwFFQu2r1zrsO/index.html

---

Think Progress: Kerry Cancels Fundraisers, Vows To Avoid Lobbyists While On Super Committee

[bluestateguy]

1. I don't think Senators should meet with lobbyists ever

Of course to do that realistically would probably mean a lot of one term senators would result.

[ProSense]

2. When

people hear the word lobbyist, the first thing they think of is Wall Street. There are lobbyists for every group imaginable, and they're complaining about the administration's new rules

<...>

Several senior nonprofit officials participated, including Allison Herwitt of the Human Rights Campaign, Dave Hirsch of Friends of the Earth, Caroline Fredrickson of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and Thomas Susman of the American Bar Association. Others, like Stephen Rickard of the Open Society Policy Center, Sean Parnell of Center for Competitive Politics and Michael Macleod-Ball of the American Civil Liberties Union, participated in interviews.

The administration’s revolving-door ban requires officials to obtain a waiver if they have contacted an executive agency more than one time during the past two years and requires a two-year cooling-off period for officials leaving the administration, which prohibits them from lobbying an executive agency during that time. The administration has also nixed federally registered lobbyists from becoming members of federal advisory boards.

The report also details several examples of seemingly qualified senior nonprofit employees missing out on appointments because of their lobbyist status. Pamela Gilbert, a partner at Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, believes she was not nominated as chairwoman of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission because she is a registered lobbyist.

Tom Malinowski, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, isn’t serving as human rights chief in the State Department, and Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, isn’t the nation’s chief food safety expert, reportedly because of their status as registered lobbyists.

<...>

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

15. I appreciate the condundrum here...

... but you have to draw the line. At first look most would say anyone that, "sold their soul", to become a lobbyist should be barred from government for LIFE. When it comes to lobbyists, I do not see any other way to deal with it and be equitable, fair and cut the baloney. I realize the good gets tossed with the bad, but is there any other way to do it?

You can't say, "oh so and so lobbied for PAC Alpha so they are okay, but whatstheir name lobbied for Corp Gamma so they aren't". No Lobbyists. (Period).

[No Elephants]

16. Lobbying is lobbying.

Charitable organizations were certainly not among the first lobbyists. Rather, they had to begin lobbying in self defense. If lobbying were outlawed entirely (which will never happen anyway), they'd be better off.

[ProSense]

25. And

pressuring members of Congress is pressuring members of Congress.

Call it whatever. When a group presses members of Congress on an issue, by any other name, it's still lobbying.

The activity in its purest form is not the problem. It's the K-Street perversion that it has become associated with that's the problem.

[No Elephants]

37. ?

"Call it whatever. When a group presses members of Congress on an issue, by any other name, it's still lobbying."

What other name did you perceive I was calling lobbying? My said, "lobbying is lobbying."

The whole point of ALL lobbying is to press Congress or the President or whomever for a particular result or results, usually, but not always, legislative.

"The activity in its purest form is not the problem."

I am not sure what you mean by "in its purest form." However, for the sake of discussion, let's ASSUME that you and I agree that there is such a thing as a "purest form" of lobbying and also ASSUME that you and I both agree as to what the "purest form" of lobbying is. How would we ever know for certain when the "purest form of lobbying" was all that was going on?

IMO, the purest form of lobbying is what is done in court cases, namely, those who desire a particular result submit a legal brief on one side of the issue or the other.

I see no reason why the "purest form" of lobbying would not be submitting a memo to all members of a House or Senate Committee and being willing to make it a public record.

[ProSense]

38. So

"I see no reason why the "purest form" of lobbying would not be submitting a memo to all members of a House or Senate Committee and being willing to make it a public record."

...your objection is that lobbying is done in person and not in writing?

Lobbying can be made public (disclosure) even if done in person.

[No Elephants]

40. My objection to what?

"Lobbying can be made public (disclosure) even if done in person."

Well, we could discuss that, but it's a big subject.

I think we can also agree that you or I characterizing what happened between us would not as reliable as as my giving my memo to your aide being our only interaction, even if we both tried hard to be accurate and complete. And somehow, I doubt that would be the only motivatioin.

But, I think we are somehow wandering far afield from the subject of this thread. Candidly, I don't know that either of us is prepared or qualified to give a dissertation on the merits of lobbying generally or how it should be done. Well, I'll speak for myself. I'm not prepared or qualified. I'd have to do a lot of work before I was.

This thread about whether Kerry, a Senator of many years who is also independently wealthy (partly on his own and mostly via his wife), voluntarily isolating himself temporarily from lobbyists is really as meaningful as some suggested. I've given my thoughts on that.

[ProSense]

43. What?

"This thread about whether Kerry, a Senator of many years who is also independently wealthy (partly on his own and mostly via his wife), voluntarily isolating himself temporarily from lobbyists is really as meaningful as some suggested. I've given my thoughts on that."

So it's only meaningful if the Senator isn't "independently wealthy"?

[yurbud]

4. they should only meet with them in their office or a congress cafeteria, always pay for their own

lunch, and wear a wire with the understanding that anything said will be a matter of public record.

Former congressmen and senators should be barred from being corporate lobbyists, CEO's, or corporate board members for at least as long as they served in office, preferably for life.

The only problem with the latter is that it would make it tough to recruit ONE candidate for each seat, let alone two or more to make it a race.

[No Elephants]

17. Don't underestimate the lure of being powerful

[HDPaulG]

3. Too late....

He knows what they are looking for....

[valerief]

5. Bwahahaha! A senator not meeting with lobbyists. Bwahahahaha!

:rofl:

[ProSense]

7. Why is

that funny?

Most people who follow Kerry's career knows the issue of money in politics is an important one.

It's part of the reason he fought against Alito and Roberts. He also ran the first PAC-free campaign for Senate and wrote one of the strongest campaign finance bills to date, the one most people associate with Wellstone (who helped).

[valerief]

8. And he's my senator and I always vote for him, whether for senator or prez.

I think it's just funny he says that. A member of Congress without lobbyists is like peanut butter without jelly, salt without pepper, right without wrong, up without down. Congress serves capitalists whose agents are lobbyists. It's how it's all set up. That's their job. That's why it's funny.

[politicasista]

13. Unfortunate that they don't

even respect their own Senior Senator. Always wonder why many never see him as successor to Kennedy or Wellstone rather than someone that has not been proven yet.

Guess Senator Kerry can never catch a break with anyone, not even some (not all) Obama supporters. Go figure. :shrug:

[No Elephants]

18. Because he is not a successor to Kennedy. For one thing, Kennedy and he voted very differently on

the Iraq War Resolution and the Patriot Act. And Kennedy was not a founding member of the Senate New Democrat coalition.

There are many reasons why Ted Kennedy had the reputation he had. And why Kerry does not share in it.

Yes, they were both Democratic Senators from Massachusetts, but Kerry is no Ted Kennedy.

[politicasista]

21. Let's trade Senators

You can always have Alexander and Corker, but keep Brownie.


Maybe you should try saying something positive. Even Kerry supporters who are not from MA would disagree with you.


Senator Kerry will continue to be out there doing Uncle Ted proud whether you and others like that or not. Sorry that bothers people so much.

[No Elephants]

22. Disagree with me about what?

" Sorry that bothers people so much"

You're the only one who seems bothered. I simply stated my view of Kerry vis a vis Kennedy in reply to your post. You're the one trying to make it personal.

[politicasista]

23. Nothing personal. You seem to always love throwing shade

at your Senior Senator. You never seem to be out there attacking Brown, but always go after Kerry for lots of reasons (i.e. personal wealth, etc).

Just saying that if your not happy with your own senator, you can always have two GOPers representing you along with racist, sexist, xenophobic Teabaggers.

And Uncle Ted did admire Senator Kerry even when they disagreed, they were very close.

[No Elephants]

35. Do you not even understand when your comments ARE personal, rather than substantive?

[karynnj]

28. They voted the same on the Patriot Act - only Feingold voted differently

No one said that Kerry is Kennedy - and not all the pluses are on Kennedy's side. Kerry was always at most a periphery member of the DLC and his voting record showed it.

The fact is that Kennedy clearly had a lot of respect for Kerry - he endorsed him for both 2004 and 2008 for President. I saw a video, no longer posted, of Kerry's and Kennedy's comments at a celebration - in the SFRC room (Kerry had just become chair) and it was clear from both their comments that there was a very strong bond of both respect and friendship that went both ways.

[No Elephants]

41. I stand corrected then. I believe my Reply 39 covers the rest of your post.

[ProSense]

36. What's

your opinion on Kennedy's NCLB, the education policy he championed?

[No Elephants]

42. As you may know, Kennedy explained that himself. But what does that have to do with the thread?

[ProSense]

44. Um

"As you may know, Kennedy explained that himself. But what does that have to do with the thread?"

Let's see, hmmmm?

Still, the question was what do you think, not what Kennedy explained.

[No Elephants]

45. As is often the case, your link just doesn't support the point your posting implies it supports.

The post to which you linked was my REPLY to POLICASTA'S post about viewing Kerry as successor to Kennedy.

I was not the one who brought Kennedy into this thread out of nowhere.

Moreover, while POLICASTA's comment was indeed somewhat off topic, at least the Kerry part of the comparison bore some relation to the topic of this thread. Neither her post nor my respose, however, make anything and everything related to Kennedy somehow relevant to this thread, or even to the subthread.

Clearly, NCLB is not relevant to this thread. I can't believe that you even tried to pretend that linking my reply to Policasta proves otherwise.


" Still, the question was what do you think, not what Kennedy explained.


In fact, your question actually was, "What's your opinion on Kennedy's NCLB, the education policy he championed?"

Adverting to Kennedy's explanation was simply a nice, more subtle way of making a point. However, since you've chosen to press the issue, I'll be more blunt about it: Your question was both leading and misleading. Moreover, neither Ted Kennedy nor my opinions about anything are on trial and, even if they were, you are no Perry Mason.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. “I’m not meeting with a lot of lobbyists"

His quote seems to be a little less absolute that the headline of the article.

[Badsam]

12. He only needs a few heavy hitters. No time for the little lobbyists

[karynnj]

30. The more pertinent comment is that he will reach out to people he

wants comments from - and he explained what he wanted.

I wonder if I am the only person here who ever met someone who worked in support of a lobbyist. The person I knew was an excellent statistician, who after years in an internal consulting group doing statistical analysis moved to the group that included the people who lobbied Congress. (This industry had two major competing sets of large companies - and Kerry was considered not to be aligned with either - meaning he was independent. )

I agree that PACs giving money is wrong - and Kerry actually did the extra work that came of raising money while refusing PAC money for 4 Senate terms.

I think that companies should be able to have people explain their positions on the issues - as long as they are clearly identified as employees, so their vested interests are known.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. How many lobbyists is a lot of lobbyists?

Headline oversells the actual quote.

[ProSense]

11. Maybe

if the other members made the same commitment we'd find out?

[iamthebandfanman]

10. lmao n/t

[gtar100]

14. And on the other side of the isle, they will revel in it.

Repugs make no such pledges...the political whores that they are. So why are there so many "independent" voters willing to give the repugs the benefit of a doubt they don't deserve? Makes no sense. Problems exist in the Democratic Party, for sure. But there is *no* comparison on who has the real interests of the people and our country closer at heart. Good on Kerry!

[No Elephants]

19. As if avoiding lobbyists for a brief time makes a difference.

Seriously, how dumb does he think Massachusetts voters are?

Also amusing coming from a Senator with over $120 million. (And he's only the third of fourth richest in Congress.)

[politicasista]

20. LOL! You calling your own senator "dumb" and RW smears

:rofl:

Uncle Ted would highly disagree with your comments here and above.

OTOH, you can always have Alexander and Corker representing you, but keep Porno Brown. :rofl: :rofl:

[No Elephants]

24. Read much? I did not call Kerry dumb. And please do not pretend to know

what Senator Kennedy would agree or disagree with.

My post above stated the facts that Kerry was a founding member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition and voted the wrong way on the Iraq War and Patriot Act. Only a liar would disagree with that.

Your posts to me, however, have been remarkably short on facts. Doesn't say much about your points that the only responses you can manage are personal.

[politicasista]

26. You are saying that he thinks you all are "dumb"

implying that he is dumb also.

Based on all of your comments you must have supported Dean back in 04. It's all good. Alot of his supporters seem to hold that grudge against Kerry because he lost. He was helpful to Senator Kerry when few Democrats were, and he helped the DNC and Obama get elected. He deserves kudos there.

But after seven years, people will never, ever forgive Kerry for beating Dean and will always help the GOP smearing Democrats or finding fault. And despite the fact that he and Momma T have given back, it will not stop the Senator from working for progress and having the ear of our President (no matter how hard people work to try and destroy them). It is a wonder why more are not attacking those that are holding up progress, say Brown and the Republicans.

Some hold grudges for a long time, can't help them there, but they will find happiness someday. :hi:

[No Elephants]

27. Making it personal again. Also, you've proved that

you really should not presume to know the thoughts of others. You are not good at it.

"Based on all of your comments you must have supported Dean back in 04."

Wrong again.

[politicasista]

29. Again, nothing personal.

You just seem to throw shade a lot at Senator Kerry. Surprisingly not even attacking Brown, the one along with the GOP that are really holding up progress.

And ok, you may not have supported Dean, you may have supported Kucinich or anyone else. A lot of the New Democrat, DLC memes did come from that section of several candidates supporters.

A lot of good Kerry supporters have spent lots of quality time pointing out the opposite that you are posting about him, but will let you have your opinion, it may not be a fact. It's all good, me been attacked from both sides here

Again, better time is spent going after Brown and the GOP.


Peace.

[No Elephants]

32. LOL! Your posts to me have been all about your incorrect assumptions about me.

That's personal, not substantive or factual.

And your score on guessing and mind reading is still zero.

Did you have any substantive point at all?

[karynnj]

33. I would suggest that you do not know what Kennedy thought either

I do know that Kennedy asked Kerry to do the 2008 Barnstable rally the eve of the election that Kennedy always did, but was too ill to do. In addition, I heard Kennedy's comments when Kerry opted not to run, read Kennedy's comments on Kerry in his book, and heard Kennedy's comments at a celebration when Kerry was sworn in 2008. I also know that Kennedy worked very hard Kerry in 2004 and endorsed him until he opted not to run for 2008. I also heard Kennedy's comments in 2005 when Kerry was honored at the Kennedy center. I could give you links to the Barnstable rally (which I attended and the Kennedy people clearly liked and respected Kerry) and the 2005 comments, but I doubt you would watch.

All suggest that Kennedy had more affection and respect for Kerry than you do.

[No Elephants]

39. I never presumed to speculate about what Kennedy thought or felt.

I posted my own opinion that Kerry was not Kennedy's successor and some facts to support it.

As to Kennedy's relationship with Kerry, I never said they were enemies. Kennedy was known for being extraordinarily gracious to everyone, regardless of politics, as was evidenced by several prominent Republicans speaking at his memorial service. That does not mean that a close Republican friend of Kennedy's could be said to be his successor. Kennedy was also for supporting Democrats to the hilt.

You and Policasta seem to be taking it very personally that I dared post in response to Policasta that Kerry is not Kennedy's successor. Or that I dared say that a Senator of many years isolating himself from lobbyists temporarily is not especially meaningful (as others on this thread also posted). For me, neither is a personal issue.

[karynnj]

46. Brown is Kennedy's successor in terms os his seat; Kerry is his successor in terms of

being MA's senior Senator. As to Kennedy's role of being the lion of the Senator, that was Kennedy's uniquely - and Kerry himself has said no one fills that. I think it belittles Kennedy and Kerry to say that Kerry is Kennedy's successor in terms of the role in the Senate. They are not the same - and each used their position to help MA and the country. Kerry is not Kennedy's clone, he is Kerry.

I don't really get why you feel a need to use Kennedy to essentially belittle Kerry. Kennedy did support Democrats, but there is no (non Kennedy) Democrat - including Obama, who he importantly endorsed after 4 primary events - that Kennedy worked harder for than Kerry IN THE PRIMARIES. This was not just because they represented the same state. It also was likely not because of strong personal friendship - he did not help Dodd, often called his closest friend in the Senate, who was a closer match in personalty and age.

You also repeatedly said Kennedy voted against the Patriot Act, but he voted for it - as did all Senators other than Feingold. Feingold himself said that he agreed with a large percent of the bill - either 80 or 85%. Kerry actually made a huge contribution to the bill. In the 1990s, Kerry wrote legislation after his tedious work with Jack Blum in unravelling BCCI that increased transparency in international money transfers to make it easier to trace or stop transactions for international crime rings and non state terrorism. Kerry's legislation was fought by banking interests in the 1990s. It has provided tools to "follow the money" - the smart way to fight non state terrorist rather than invading countries. Yet, if you look in the Senate record, even though Kerry contributed this important piece, he opted not to sponsor the bill and was one of the leaders in requiring the sunset provision for the provisions that many - including both Kerry and Kennedy opposed. Many, but not all, of those provisions were eliminated in the 2005/2006 bill after a few filibusters, which both Kerry and Kennedy joined.


As to the no fund raising, I never suggested that this was anything amazing. I do think it was smart of Kerry to do, because Politico and the WP were already making it an issue that the 12 would be lobbied extensively - and just like some here - were proactively labeling all of them dirty because of it. Kerry has a better than average record on lobbying and campaign finance, an issue that Kennedy never made his.

[No Elephants]

48. "As to Kennedy's role of being the lion of the Senator, that was Kennedy's uniquely"

As I'm sure you know, Kennedy's title or nickname, or whatever you want to call it, was the LIBERAL lion of the Senate, not simply the lion of the Senate.

And yes, for the last however many years, Kennedy was uniquely the liberal lion of the Senate. And that was my point.

"I don't really get why you feel a need to use Kennedy to essentially belittle Kerry"

That is not at all what I did. I responded to Policasta's remarking about Kerry's being Kennedy's successor. Kerry isn't, except in the technical sense of having become senior senator from Massachusetts once Kennedy died (duh, not really worth mentioning). Then I responded to some of your claims about Kennedy and Kerry, but did not belittle Kerry in responding to you. I simply said that none of things you were posting proved anything or were to the point.

In fact, I have less than no need or desire to belittle Kerry.

"Kerry has a better than average record on lobbying and campaign finance, an issue that Kennedy never made his."

First, I never said a word about Kerry's record on lobbying, except to say that Kerry was not as vulnerable to lobbyist money because of his personal situation. He is not going to worry where his or his kids' next meal or next job is coming from. That is not a bad thing. In particular, I never compared his record to Kennedy's or said anything about Kennedy's record as to lobbying. So, you are not merely responding to me as I was responding to Policasta. Would it therefore be fair (or even rational) for me to claim you have a need to use Kerry to belittle Kennedy?


It's a shame, in my opinion, that some posters here seem so tied into this individual or that. If I don't worship at Kerry's feet, why then I must be belittling him and I must have voted for Dean or Kucinich or I must hate Kerry. None of those things happens to be true, but seeking truth doesn't seem to be the point of most of these posts.

"You also repeatedly said Kennedy voted against the Patriot Act,"

I did post above that Kerry voted for it and Kennedy voted against it. You corrected me and, as soon as I saw your post, I both took you at your word (no googling on my own) and immediately posted that I stood corrected. That was hours before you posted this claim.

"As to the no fund raising, I never suggested that this was anything amazing

Who said you suggested it was amazing?

[No Elephants]

50. P.S. although you are technically correct about Brown, I would never put him and successor

to Kennedy in the same thought.

Mostly, the only thing I put together with Brown on a regular basis is "turd," as in "the Brown turd."

[karynnj]

31. Gee, it is amazing that you quote the $120 million with a straight face

- when you know the lion's share of that is Teresa's. You also likely know that - unlike any other spouse in either party - Kerry's primary opponents and the media argued that it was illegal for Teresa to contribute more than the maximum amount for anyone.

I doubt Kerry thinks MA voters are dumb - and I bet you would be one of the people posting Politico articles arguing they should all do this.

[No Elephants]

34. As you well know, that is how figures are reported and most of us here

know that the lion's share is Teresa's, nor did I say otherwise, so your implication about posting the public figure with "a straight face" is way off base.

Besides, in the context of this thread, the point obviously was, Kerry does not have to depend on lobbyist money for his economic well being. Nor does he need to line jobs from lobbyists for his family or his future. For that purpose, it matters not who brought what to the marriage.

Do you disagree with that, or did you simply want to imply that my posting the ONLY figure publicly available is somehow dishonest on my part?



"You also likely know that - unlike any other spouse in either party - Kerry's primary opponents and the media argued that it was illegal for Teresa to contribute more than the maximum amount for anyone. I doubt Kerry thinks MA voters are dumb - and I bet you would be one of the people posting Politico articles arguing they should all do this.

First, you, too, should stop making assumptions about me. Not that it is the business of you or anyone else here, but I've never posted at Politico in my life, so you lose the bet. And even if I had posted there, I would post no differently than I post here--and you have no basis whatever for claiming otherwise.

But this is not about me defending my life or being obligated to respond to what you decide to imagine or imply about me.

If you actually have a substantive point to make about what I posted, feel free, but I am not responding to any more things you or Policasta decide to pull out of your ears about me personally. It's childish and, worse, boring.

[karynnj]

47. Unless they are breaking the law, no Senator relies on

lobbyist for their "economic well being".

The point I was making is that as Teresa's money could (and likely) can not be used to fund his campaigns, the statistic is meaningless. Incidentally, the same Senate report DOES break down what is John's and what is Teresa's. I do agree that he, as was true for Kennedy, does not need any future income from lobbyists. Here, Kennedy was extremely wealthy throughout his Senate career, Kerry, with all his connections to the social elite, was not.

I never said that you would post at Politico. I was saying that you would likely post (implicitly here) on threads saying that the 12 should not fund raise while on the committee. I agree that my comment was conjectural - and it was based on comments I have seen where you have (rightly) criticize that lobbyists have written parts of the tax code - something I wholeheartedly agree with. I think you often made the point that both parties were guilty of this, although the Republicans were worse. If my memory was wrong, I apologize - but I hope you note that as written, my sentence does not say that you ever did anything.

My memory of you as a poster, if you are interested, is that you post your opinions in a usually very forthright, independent manner. From the posts, my impression is that you are to the left of Kerry, and likely to the left of Kennedy, who you have written very warmly about. Though likely of no interest to you, I have often enjoyed reading your posts as they are usually interesting and insightful, which is the best that can be said of any poster. That is likely why I responded on this thread. I don't think Kerry's action here was in any way "heroic" or deserving of great praise, but it certainly does not deserve criticism.

I also admit to having poorly read this thread and did not notice Politicasista was the first to mention Kennedy. For that, I do apologize for jumping on you for bringing in Kennedy to essentially bash Kerry.

[No Elephants]

49. "Unless they are breaking the law, no Senator relies on lobbyist for their "economic well being".

Well, we can nitpick wording, but there have been Senators who have had wives and other family members working for the same companies that employ the lobbyists who lobby them. And not needing to kowtow to any company or industry because your kid or wife needs a job or because you may need one if you are voted out of office, is a good thing, not a bad one.

The context in which I put it was only to say that not speaking to lobbyists temporarily is not a big sacrifice, or even, to my mind,
especially meaniingful. I am not even sure you are disagreeing with that. Do you really think Kerry saying he's only speaking to certain lobbyists while he is on the Super Committee means a lot?

Incidentally, the same Senate report DOES break down what is John's and what is Teresa's.

I got my info from one of those disclosure sites that are run by private persons (or entities), not from a government site. But, as I posted before, for the purpose for which I used the figure, it was irrelevant whether the bulk of the money was Theresa's or John's. Nor did I think I would fool anyone here. Attempting to deceive anyone here or anywhere about Theresa's being richer than John never came close to my mind. Don't think I could fool anyone on that even if I were to try, trying would never occur to me.

FWIW, I do not believe myself to be to the left of Kennedy, as far as what (I imagine) he believed in his heart. And possibly not even to the left of Kerry, as far as what (I imagine) he believes in his heart. It's only that I have the luxury (right now) of having to concern myself only with talking or posting, not with re-election or with getting legislation passed.


I don't think we really disagree on all that much. More of differences in style and perception. The fact that I may say, for example, that Kennedy's campaigning for Kerry does not prove Kerry is Kennedy's successor is not, in my mind, an insult to Kerry (or to you)--or a compliment to Kennedy, either. It pretty much means exactly what it says: what you specified did not prove yor claim. That's all. However, people seem to read into what I post more than what I specify.

Thank you for your compliments and your apology, which is accepted. I have probably jumped the gun or jumped to a conclusion when responding, too. It's a pitfall of posting; and I apologize as well.

[SOS]

51. That's good

But with Max "Wall Street" Baucus on the committee, the results of all votes (7-5) are preordained.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/max-baucus-hearts-lobbyists-397th-edition