"4 years later, Kerry adjusting to a narrower stage"

[MBS]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/09/23/4_years_later_kerry_is_adjusting_to_a_narrower_stage/

I found this article (another Matt Viser special) very frustrating -- to me, it circled around the question (which supposedly is about how politicians pick themselves up after a presidential-election "loss"), but never gets the point about who Kerry is, and why, in fact, he's so different than all the people he's compared to in this @#$* article:
namely, that he picked himself up IMMEDIATELY after Nov 2004, and has been fighting for our country with doubled energy, renewed focus, and fierce commitment.

Some of the sentences that bugged me the most

The closest parallel to Kerry's story is George McGovern's, who was defeated by Richard Nixon in 1972 and then in 1974 was stumping around South Dakota farms before his reelection to the Senate.

George McGovern? :wtf:

What most of the losing presidential candidates have in common is that they all threw themselves into a major cause, with great gusto. Gore, after retreating to Europe for several weeks and then dabbling in teaching, gave up public office to raise awareness about global climate change. Jimmy Carter became a world statesman. Gerald Ford concentrated on his presidential library.


Without a signature issue, at least not yet, Kerry insists that his focus has been the Senate.

"I feel at the top of my game, I really do," Kerry said last week, as he boarded the trolley beneath Capitol Hill on his way to a hearing of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. . .

No signature issues? Veterans? environment, including alternate energy and high-speed rail? small business? foreign policy? Hasn't the reporter paid any attention to what JK has been doing the last 4 years? 35 years?
Good God.:banghead:

[karynnj]

1. I agree with your take

He ignores that McGovern himself in late 2004 or early 2005 in an article advised Kerry to take a low key role in the Senate and recover from the race. (I can't find it and the words are likely not accurate, but the tone is) Kerry did the opposite, becoming a force in both the Senate and the party.

The author also is completely off base that most find a "cause". Gore and Carter are the only ones who have and Carter was an ex-President, where it is normal for a young ex-President to strive to find a role. Having a Presidential library is NOT a goal - and if you can define what Ford stood for in off or out you beat me on this. As he took McGovern, I will use 1972 as the beginning of the time period, there are 9 losers - where Gore and then Kerry were the closest to having won. Of the losers, 4 years later, Kerry is the most politically powerful. Of the others, only Gore, though outside of politics, has any political power. (Remember that in early 2008, the big 3 for endorsements on the Democratic side were said to be Kennedy, Kerry and Gore)

Look at the others. McGovern lost in a landslide and although he has written some great articles, he was completely abandoned by the party. The Republicans always invited Ford to conventions etc, but after losing he was insignificant. Politically, the Democrats were shameful in their treatment of Carter and he was not even given a time slot in any convention until 2004, Dukakis was not where Kerry is, GHWB has done nothing (and his son has likely destroyed the family name), Dole ( went on to do a Pepsi ad oogling a 19 year Britney Spears and later told the media that Kerry did not bleed).

Of these 9 men, only Kerry and Gore are likely to add significantly more to their accomplishments. Gore at this point in the 2004 cycle had not yet made his movie. Kerry, over the last three years did move the policy on Iraq. He also started the bipartisan national security organization that has an ambitious goal of changing foreign policy. If this organization and Kerry himself become a force, it may happen quietly and Kerry's name may not even be the first mentioned- but it would be a change that is bigger than Carter's laudable work helping the homeless. (Carter's post Presidential work on diplomacy has been well intentioned, but often not helpful.) It would fundamentally change the direction of the US in how it deals with the world.

And that - as you mentioned - is only one area that he is working on.

[Mass]

2. Argh! Once again, Matt Viser decided the conclusion of his article before he researched it,

hence the necessity to twist facts so that they could fit the morale of the story.

I also liked the last lines of the article. Somehow, that Kerry (who has been senator for 24 years) will not commit to die in his Senate seat is bad. Come on, what worries me is that Matt Viser could stay at the Globe forever. It is bad reporting at its worst: somebody confusing his opinion with facts.

[Democrafty]

3. Why does he even need a signature issue?

He's a senator, not a spokesmodel, y'know? So frustrating.

[beachmom]

4. I liked the article. I liked the quotes from Kerry:

"It would be pretty lame if you kind of limp off and just lick your wounds and feel sorry for yourself," he said. "That's a pretty stupid waste of time. You wake up two years later, and say, 'Oh, , what did I do with that time?' Well, you know, why not just do something with it? . . . I just went back to work. Kept the fight going."

I also agree with the premise of the article -- he IS on a narrower stage than he was before. It is why I called his campaigning in Mass. for Senate "surreal". It's not what we expect in America -- to go back down a step and actually be at peace with it. You know, Kerry sometimes hides his feelings, so you can't completely blame the journalist if he notices things, draws conclusions, and then goes with it, because Kerry keeps things on the surface. He is not offering up his heart on his sleeve to this BG journalist -- it's probably a good call not to do so. But it just means that you're not going to see an article that totally "gets" Kerry. A lot of us make leaps based on all the things we know Kerry has done. But a journalist can only observe, and he sees ambiguities and contradictions.

So, I actually liked the article because it highlights the strangeness of someone going from running for President to running for Senate, and how it can't quite be explained. He said the "closest" parallel was McGovern, but even he knew it isn't QUITE a parallel. The TNR article and other articles said Kerry was coming back and being redeemed on account of his "man crush" on Obama. That wasn't quite right either -- I think Kerry likes helping Obama, because it amounts to "serving", something he has done his whole life. The thing is Kerry is not willing to spell out exactly how he views this moment in his career. Maybe he doesn't totally know himself, and if so, we can't exactly expect a journalist to know.

[Noisy Democrat]

5. I have video that goes with the TNR article

I had somehow missed that article til Luftmensch told me about this thread, but when I read the article, I realized that the Q&A in Quincy that he was describing -- JK answering a question about Iraq -- was one of the video clips that we've put up at JKMediaSource. I just submitted a comment to TNR with a link to the video. The video is here: http://www.jkmediasource.org/node/102

The TNR article was interesting. The writer just assumes that JK is going to ramble and fail to communicate. Then he's pleasantly surprised, but he attributes this to JK's having changed, rather than the possibility that the MSM has just been wrong about him.

[Firespirit]

6. I don't know -- I think it is spot-on

Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, he had a life dream of becoming President. Any time anyone sees their longtime dream crushed and destroyed, they go into something called "depression," and often rationalize it by trying to convince themselves that their replacement activities are so important as to make that loss worth it. He is not superhuman; it happened to him too.

I have personal experience with this.

You never get over it. EVER. And the replacement activities are NOT sufficient and equal replacements, because if they were, then THEY would have been that longtime dream. Most particularly if these other activities are things that you have done for a very long time, and wanted to move beyond in part because you felt that your (shattered) dream would be more fulfilling, or effective, or whatever your priority is.

Most depression therapy that concentrates on finding "replacement activities" accomplishes only one thing, to create an automaton's state of mind, as you pour yourself into these activities in the desperate hope that maybe they will become fulfilling for you. Some people do manage to delude themselves in this regard. That's not my thing; I'd really rather be a brutally honest nihilist, but for others, I guess it works. But the unfortunate fact is that this specific kind of crap is not fulfilling to JK, and it's abundantly obvious that it's not.

Kerry has to play second fiddle to the likes of Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and the rest of the jello-kneed "leadership." He then has to go home and tolerate being the bitch of a state that seems to think its own local pork is more important than national issues, who will always compare him unfavorably to Kennedy, and nearly a third of his own party voters will try to "punish" him for daring to support a presidential candidate of his own choosing. I have honestly never seen the self-centered dynamic that surrounds Kerry's Senate work. Some states' electorates have problems with Senators for being useless and not doing anything for anyone, being a bump on a log, in effect, but this resentment of Kerry for focusing more on national issues than pork is utterly beyond my comprehension.

With that in mind, the Boston Globe has some damn nerve to belittle him for "not having a signature issue" -- a criticism that I would agree upon. Against all reason, the Republicans won the issue of Iraq, taking that away from him, and that really was supposed to be his signature issue. Another shattered dream, another attempt at adjustment. I personally think that he ought to make his signature issue corruption, to go back to his roots as a prosecutor and the BCCI investigator, but of course that is not my decision to make. But how, exactly, can he focus on any particular issue, if he is hearing from whiners back home who think he "hasn't done anything for them" (a.k.a. pork) and focuses too much on national events? And the Glob was one of the biggest pushers of that particular line of crap.

No matter what this man does, it seems that it will never be good enough.

Of course he's having difficulty adjusting to this. I am sure he understands that better than anyone.

[politicasista]

7. Interesting post

Me thinks that too. Good thoughts. Good luck to you. :hi:

[beachmom]

8. You never get over losing the Presidency of the United States.

But Kerry's dreams were never JUST being POTUS. He didn't have POTUS in mind when he protested the war -- it was something he HAD to do, felt COMPELLED to do. And it may have cost him his dream, 35 years later. But never forget this: when he stood up on the 35th anniversary of his testimony in 1971, he said he was right to do it and would do it again. I felt it was implicit in the speech that his dissenting from the Vietnam War was WORTH losing the presidency. I found that a profound statement. I would also add that his investigations slowed down his career as well, especially when he refused not to go after Clark Clifford.

John Kerry is not John McCain -- he was not willing to change who he is fundamentally in order to get that job. Of course, the loss will always sting. I don't pretend to understand his ambition -- you couldn't pay me $700 billion do be POTUS. I would never want that job. But I do think I understand his reason for being in public service -- that is fighting the good fight. There are certain core values and principles that he fights for that are bigger than the job he holds. And he will never turn his back on them. That is why it is not "replacement" for him, because he kept the promises he made in the 2004 campaign.

As to Mass., I disagree. The fact that it's so damned tough there makes him a better Senator. I can tell you, I wish Georgia was as tough on its electeds as Mass. is on theirs. In case any of you missed it, we have barely any gasoline, so the gas stations that do have gas have long lines. My friend actually saw police at a gas station today, to keep the peace, the tension is so high. We could use John Kerry down here, but Georgian electeds are trained to be lazy, unresponsive, and ineffective. The governor is going to be leaving his chaotic state behind for a trip to Europe. You think Massachusetts would put up with that? Hell, no. Massachusetts is the right state for John Kerry -- he needs to be challenged, and Mass. does that for him.

Finally, I don't pretend to know how satisfied he is with being Senator or whether he would like to be Secretary of State or some other position. But I think your characterization that he is somehow deluding himself into happiness by doing his job as Senator is a bit presumptuous. I am sure he still has bad moments, but I think he is having more good than bad moments these days. Just tonight he was a top surrogate spin doctor after the debate (he was called a major foreign policy advisor surrogate) -- sure he may have had a flashback seeing the debate; but afterwards, I bet you he had a great time defending Barack Obama. He doesn't have to do this; he WANTS to do this. And I say good for him. He is a role model for anyone who has had real disappointment in life, but kept going with his head held high.

[politicasista]

9. delete n/t

Will keep to self. :)

[europegirl4jfk]

13. I totally agree with you, beachmom

I think that Kerry's life motto is service to his country. He will serve happily in whatever position is the best. Senator, President, Secretary of State etc. I think his frustration after 2004 didn't come in the first place from the fact that he wasn't the president but from having to watch helplessly how Bush destroyed the US further. IMO, if.. when Obama will be President, Kerry will feel satisfied and happy to work with a Democratic Administration. He "discovered" Obama, he probably even played a role in Obama's decision to run. We don't know that for sure, but we know for sure how much help Kerry was and still is for Obama on his way to the White House. I really think Kerry is comfortable with where he is now.

[fedupinBushcountry]

14. My 2 cents

for what its worth. LOL IMO JK took that disappointment and turned it into a cause, not for him but for the country. I talked to him on the Saturday after the election in '04( something I will never forget) and you could hear the passion in his voice that this fight was far from over and he was not done and we need to keep fighting hard. He has done that over and over on so many issues and he has brought so many together to do what is right for this country. When Obama wins on Nov. 4th ( pray that we do not have any shenanigans in the voting)that hard work will finally become a reality and we will see that cause turning into not fighting against something that is wrong but finally being able to fight for something that is right. "My country, if right keep it right, if wrong, make it right". I can't wait to see the satisfaction on JK's face come November, although he will never be president, he will be a loud voice in making this country right again.

[YvonneCa]

21. Oh, darn, fedup...

...it's 5:00 a.m. on Sunday morning and you made me cry. But in a good way. ;)


Your words: "...and we will see that cause turning into not fighting against something that is wrong but finally being able to fight for something that is right. "


JK's words: "My country, if right keep it right, if wrong, make it right".

I think that sums up the reason we are all here. And this country NEEDS his loud voice in making this country right again.:patriot:

[MBS]

12. Paragraph #5

"Kerry has to play second fiddle. . . .utterly beyond my comprehension.". . captures my frustration about MA politics to a T.

But I do think he looks and acts like a happy man these days. He certainly is a model to me about how to carry on , and to move on, with grace, integrity, and spirit, after disappointment. (What Viser utterly failed to grasp is how much Kerry has done since 2004, and how happy and feisty he looks doing it). . . Though I have no doubt, as a knowledgeable person wrote on this forum many months ago, that he will always carry the memory of the outcome of 2004 "with a heavy heart". And not just because of the loss of his own personal dream, but because of his grief about the impact of the 2004 outcome (I WON'T call it "loss", as I continue to believe the election was stolen) on the future of our country.

[karynnj]

18. I suspect that you are using your personal experiences color your view of

John Kerry's reactions. In many ways, a question and the answer to a question at the the "Tattered Book Cover" book even captured on CSPAN gives an answer that although you can't get "over" losing, but that he is still fighting. He admits that it is something he thinks about at times, but he quickly turns to the activism on the environment that he and Teresa were involved in (and had been for decades). There is far more energy in his voice when he speaks of what he wants to do.
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=197684-1

This is also consistent with the first email he sent asking people to keep fighting. He was one of the people who really was part of returning the party to power in the House and Senate. His efforts were real and successful.

I like Beachmom's observation that his Dissent speech reaffirms his actions in the 1970s. It was also the start of an intense period where he again challenged war policies - and from the 1970s he obviously had to know the attacks he would face doing this, but in the speech he said that he could not stand silent when people were dying and the policy was wrong. All the other potential 2008 candidates, including Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all opted not to lead or even follow on this. It was about 9 months later when they all adopted policies with elements from his. Some even copied his words. It is never possible to do something like "It's a Wonderful Life", but without Kerry, there well might not have been a Democrat plan for Iraq in 2006. The Levin amendment was a reaction to Kerry/Feingold. All there would have been was the extremely vague position that Clark wrote. There would have been no one arguing for a deadline other than Feingold. There likely would be no Democratic consensus now. Nor would the American people have moved to this position. If Obama wins, he now has an electorate where the majority would welcome this plan. That is an enormous accomplishment.

Now, I know you will say, but he is not given much credit on either of these things. Even if that remains true forever, it does not change that these are things he did. He also was instrumental in assuring there was a treaty that came out of Bali - even if the credit for that is mostly heard only in Senate hearings. One of the members of the official US delegation said there would have been no agreement without Kerry. A President Obama is in far better shape on this because this multiyear process was not derailed. These are all real accomplishments that occurred since the election.

Maybe because I am older, I feel that a person's own knowledge of what good they have done and the way they lived their lives is more vital to whether they consider themselves successful than the views of others. In his case he also has a wife, family and friends who know what he has accomplished. (Not to mention, being a 5th term Senator who was one of the few people in his generation to be the Democratic nominee is not nothing.) He also is becoming increasingly powerful as a Senator. I thought it interesting that in a Senate floor speech honoring a long time SFRC staffer, in addition to speaking of all the things they worked on together (including some I never knew) he spoke of her college thesis that spoke of the impact an influential Senator could have.

As to MA, he got 69% of the vote - and unenrolled were able to vote. I have not seen any information on the relative numbers of each. The likelihood is that the % of Democrats was higher. At any rate, he will to be re-elected, probably with over 60% of the vote - just like Kennedy was. Even before the primary he was given a 99.9% chance of re-election. (this is not exactly McGovern losing in 1980) As this is an angry time when people across the country are angry with their elected officials, you would expect that number to be higher if they did not respect him. All I know, was that in making some calls to people who likely were Democrats, I found out several unexpected things - 1) I got 30 solid Kerry people and 2 lean to Kerry and NO solid or lean calls for O'reilly. (There was 1 undecided, and about 7 refused to say. 2) MANY of the Kerry people said "I always vote for John" Now, I am from NJ and have phonebanked here - not one person ever referred to Corzine as "Jon" or Lautenburg as "Frank" etc I was also thrilled that not one call expressed the sentiment that they were all corrupt - a comment I heard a LOT in NJ. Also, look at the videos that people had links to for Kerry on Your Corner.

[Noisy Democrat]

19. I don't think any of us knows how he feels

Can we reasonably assume that, as any normal person would, he still has feelings about losing the presidency? Sure. Can we reasonably assume that he's burdened with a heavy weight of depression, and that when he acts as if he actually enjoys meeting voters in MA and so forth, he's faking it to avoid succumbing to despair, and all the rest of the Tragic Tale of John Kerry claptrap that the MSM seems to want to peddle? I really don't think so. I've spent many hours following him around at events, and he doesn't seem depressed -- he seems energetic and determined, and very happy to meet people. I don't know how he puts up with the crap that some MA voters dish out, frankly (in the states I lived in before, I never heard anyone whining about how we hadn't seen our senators hanging out at the local Dunkin' Donuts or how our senators were too busy trying to save the country and so that must mean they didn't care enough about *us*), but it doesn't seem to get him down. And the people he meets out there at these events are thrilled to see him -- genuinely thrilled; I notice that the MSM never mentions that, either. In any case, whatever feelings JK has about 2004, I think it's asinine for the MSM to keep harping on that instead of engaging sincerely with what he's doing right now. Who, exactly, is having such a hard time adjusting to seeing John Kerry on a smaller stage -- JK, or the media?

I think there may be an interesting story in there somewhere, about how a person can miss out on one dream but still fulfill other dreams, and find a renewed sense of purpose in fighting for the things he believes in in the Senate. But the media doesn't want to tell that story.

Personally, I've found it very interesting to see how very good JK is at being a senator. Following him around at these events and listening as he talks on a wide variety of issues, and as local electeds introduce him and comment on how he's worked with them to get things done for MA -- it's been truly eye-opening, because my natural tendency is to want to talk about Iraq or the Constitution or Guantanamo, and yet here is JK, clearly both very competent and very sincerely concerned about heating oil or care for veterans or funding for local projects that I've never heard of and wouldn't have given two seconds' thought to. I'd like to hear more about how *he* sees the continuity between wanting to serve the country as president and doing all he can on these issues as a senator. But that's not what the media wants to talk about. They want to tell a tale of depression and denial, and frankly, I don't think either the media or any of us is in any position to be making assumptions like that about where JK is coming from, with no more evidence than anyone has.

[sandnsea]

20. Oh nonsense

You will get over whatever it is that was your life's dream. Everybody has dreams unfulfilled. You grow, you learn, you take stock, count your blessings, and realize that everybody has a place. If John Kerry had won, I don't know that we would have Barack Obama today. I'm sure he sees the stars aligned, as it were, himself. I'm also sure that he would give up the Presidency in a heart beat in order for Barack Obama to take that place, because of the potential that has to change this country and change the world. After all, that is John Kerry's "signature issue" and has been since 1971, to see "America turned" and where soldiers like him, helped it in the turning. Barack Obama as President will be a fulfillment of that dream and I think John Kerry is satisfied to his core that he was instrumental in its occurrence.

[TayTay]

22. Beautiful Post

Very well said.

Sometimes it is about the destination, not just the journey.

[TayTay]

23. I think you don't move on from things, they come with you

I am not just the sum total of the losses in my life. While loss, and it's bitter lessons, are a part of me and have shaped me, it is not the only thing that did so. Love shaped me too. So did friendship. So did hope. I do not strive because I believe it to be some noble but doomed struggle against entropy and decay. I strive and reach for stars because every once in a while I catch one, or at least some of the dust from one.

There are battles still worth fighting. There are people who still need help. This is enormously fulfilling work that means something to a huge number of people. The fights before this country are probably some of the most difficult in our history. This work requires people of heart who can step up and lead. Yeah, maybe it's not from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, but dammit, it is essential work and essential to this nation.

I do not understand people who say that someone will fade from history just because they are not in the top job. This is a myopic view of history. Martin Luther King, Jr. never held elective office. Neither did Susan B. Anthony. They left a stamp on American History that far, far exceeds all but a handful of Presidents.

I think it is quite possible that Sen. Kerry has a proper handle on this. A former crewmate of the Senator, Tom Belodeau, died in 1998. Sen. Kerry delivered the eulogy at his funeral. I think the concluding words of that eulogy, which the Senator had put into the Congressional Record, show someone with priorities straight on what matters in life and who and what you fight for:

Last year when our crew came together as a whole at election time for the first time in 27 years, we departed with the expectation that we were hooked up and on the road to growing old together. But God had other plans. And of all people we should not be surprised. We have always said at our Doghunter dinner that one thing we learned in Vietnam was Grace of God, every day beyond Vietnam was extra. Tommy had a lot of extra days and for that we are grateful.

So today, as we say goodbye, joined with his family and those he grew up with, what we, his friends, celebrate above all in Tommy's life is his special, gentle decency--a loyal, loyal friend of enormous heart who was generous in spirit beyond expectation and sometimes beyond understanding.

To Radarman Seaman, Thomas M. Belodeau , to our friend Tommy: until we meet again, may you have fair winds and following seas. And may we all leave here reminded of the words of the poet William Butler Yeats:

`Think where man's glory most begins and ends. And say, my glory was, I had such friends.'

Congressional Record, Jan. 28, 1998

Yeah, loss is hard. But loss can also teach you more about how to live. Loss does not mean unending sadness, it means a deeper involvement with what matters, what truly matters, in life. I would argue that this is the case here.

[Luftmensch067]

24. I think you've said it best of all here, Tay

That's the spirit I see when I look at his public, working life now. The eulogy you quote here is incredibly beautiful and heartfelt. Thank you so much for posting it here.

[karynnj]

25. Thank you for writing this

It puts so much in perspective. The sentiment in that eulogy might explain why he was able to resume fighting as quickly as he did. Running for the Presidency was part of fighting to change things, but not the only part.

In addition to MLKjr and Anthony, there's someone closer, Ted Kennedy. A long time ago, you posted a 1980 or 1981 Boston Globe article that speculated in the wake of EMK seeing there was no chance to be President that he would leave the Senate and pontificated on who could get that seat. His accomplishments since then may well exceed those of either of the last 2 Democratic Presidents and the tribute paid at the convention was clearly heartfelt. In terms of the national party, Kerry is in a better position than EMK was in early 1981 - especially if Obama wins. But the other things are more important. He can look back at causes he fought and know he did the best he could and that he did move things in the right direction.

The BG ignores that it is Bush who is facing his party rejecting him as a sitting President - with McCain distancing himself openly and even (bizarrely) arguing that Obama is like "Bush" and the House Republicans speaking of him in terms they used to reserve for Democrats. That is just in his party. Outside the party, he is called at best a failed President and at worse a war criminal. Bush "won" the Presidency twice over better men, but what did he really win?

[MBS]

27. this is beautiful, Tay

That eulogy is incredible.
This shows so much who John Kerry is, and the source(s) of his strength and life perspective.

[BlueIris]

10. If you ask me, the "no signature issue" falsity is the most offensive part of that POS.

He has several key issues he is working hard to advance, but I would say his biggest and most valuable effort has been to push for an end to the war. Hello?

Mainstream media really is D.O.A.

[MBS]

11. " " " " " """ " " " " n/t

[TayTay]

15. ...no more important word, ... other than love, than citizen.

I dissent.

That is the essence of citizenship to some. There are people who reserve the right to dissent, no matter what. That is the founding principle of the colony and then Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It has always been the great test of this Commonwealth as well, when the dimensions of dissent and what it really means become clear.

People who differ with me on political beliefs have this fundamental right of dissent. It is incumbent upon me as a fellow citizen to make a way for others to voice complaints. That is a summation of citizenship as well. All will be given a chance to speak, all can be at least initially heard and their own words will judge them.

Citizenship is not the right of kings or the exclusive domain of the rich and well connected. Elected office does not confer a permanent title. This Commonwealth specifically did away with that over 200+ years ago in the American Revolution. The elected are the people. When their service is done or they are defeated, they return to the people at large without title or special recourse. That is not, as is said, a bug. It is a profound feature of democracy. It is also cruel beyond belief. However, a functioning, vital, questioning and involved democracy cannot exist without it.

No one puts a gun to someone's head and makes them run for office. Tough, accomplished people with a vision for what they want to do offer to run and understand that there are no free passes to office. That is not some bad thing that good people merely endure to get to be electeds. Anyone, at any time, who puts themselves up for elected office should have to present their case. That is democracy, in all it's sparkles and warts.

Yeah, sometimes you get these undeserved brickbats thrown at you. Too freaking bad. The best of people understand this, include it in their understanding of the process and press forward. Challenge makes them better electeds and better citizens. The best of people don't whine about it, they take action that shows what they are made of. That is the central challenge. You rise to it from merit or you deservedly sink.

[fedupinBushcountry]

16. Very well said

Thanks Tay. :hug:

[YvonneCa]

17. Beautiful post...

...Tay.

I have that quote framed and on my wall.


"There is no more important word...in my judgement... in the American language, other than love, than CITIZEN. And we have a responsibility, all of us, to be good citizens."

Georgetown University
October 26, 2005

[Inuca]

26. Thnanks for the wonderful reading everyone n/t