Michael Crowley (TNR) is at it again

[Mass]

I am not exactly sure why he hates Kerry to this point, but it seems to be his favorite subject.

TNR is totally irrelevant, though.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060213&s=crowley021306

At these point, the article as two answers, and they are all against Crowley. He cant even convince his own readers.

[ginnyinWI]

1. alpha-male envy, I guess. n/t

[JI7]

2. yup, he sure is bitchy and snarky

i see no other reason for anyone to waste time on whatever that was that he did.

other jealous assholes are John O'Neill and Kos.

people talk about women being catty and things, but look at these men. how it builds up and they can never let it go. and the anger is over resentment at getting their asses kicked rather than any wrong commited against them.

TNR can't get over the fact Kerry won even though he was the only one without any support from any of them in th eprimary.

[Mass]

3. Sure. At the same time I am madder and madder at Reid and Schumer

This is at least the third time I read the comment. It would not be there if it was not true.

[JI7]

4. which comment are you talking about that relates to Reid and Schumer ?

i think i might have missed something.

[Mass]

6. Comments like that

These comments would not be out if Reid and Schumer did not let them out. Too bad if they did not have the courage to act.

In a closed-door meeting of Senate Democrats last Wednesday, Kerry and Kennedy made a vigorous plea for a filibuster. But they were challenged by Harry Reid and by no less a Bush nominee-basher than Chuck Schumer of New York, who, as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, is responsible for overseeing the party's 2006 Senate races. Schumer understood, as did Reid and many other Democrats, that the Alito nomination had already put vulnerable Democratic incumbents and candidates from red states in an awkward position--pulled between pro-Bush voters and the demands of liberal interest groups, activists, and bloggers.

By Monday, the aggravation at Kerry was plain to see. On a typical day, reporters can barely fend off the press-loving Schumer. But, when he arrived outside the Senate chamber for the filibuster vote, Schumer was grumpy and terse. In what may have been an unprecedented event, Schumer blurted out a quick statement to the press mob and then turned heel and abruptly fled into the chamber.

[sandnsea]

7. Schumer and Hillary voted for the tax cuts

Can you believe that? People know you can't promise programs with no money. I don't know what they're thinking about. We got fewer Dems on the tax cuts than on Alito. Kaine says the federal government has been bad partners and aren't funding things making it hard on the states, and then these Democratic asshats don't prove that they're going to stand up for what's right and be better partners. You know I hate hate hate criticizing Dems, but I thought they finally had a plan. Nope. This is just the smoke and mirros era, nothing of substance anywhere I guess.

[Mass]

8. They are afraid

It seems more and more the only plan they are is to be afraid.

They were afraid to be too harsh on Alito.
They are afraid to be too harsh on the NSA wiretapping.
They are afraid to be too be seen as godless.

And now, they are afraid of being seen as tax-spending liberals.

You may wonder when they will realize that the issue is not they are too harsh, but that they do not connect their choices to people's lives.

[JI7]

43. do you think it has to do with if Hillary runs in 2008

i'm sure her strategy will be the same as her husbands. which is the moderate way.

but they have to get through the primary first. Hillary is a front runner, but with Kerry making them do things like take an official stand on Alito they start to have a record where the mostly liberal primary voters can judge them on. and they don't like it.

[TayTay]

9. This is awful. and a stupid vote for the Dems

Jut from a purely political perspective, it's not a good idea to vote for those tax cuts. The $39 Billion in buts that just went through are immoral and will affect real families all across the country. The perverse and obscene idea that what the country needed at a time when wages are going down and all other costs are going up for families is another tax cut for the rich.

What does Hillary have to run on? She can't run on fairness in taxation, she can't run on education, she can't run on health care. This vote is tantamount to saying that none of those things are important. This may be one of the defining votes of the 2008 race. (Remember, it's lefties who vote in the early caucuses and primaries.) This was a poisonous moment for Hillary. She is not what she says she is and this vote is unforgiveable.

[karynnj]

10. The sad thing is she is making the Republican lite thing true

I agree that she will have compromised what she can run on. Maybe she and her people think that ahe can run based on marketing slogans - not backed on substance. This is dangerous because she could win the primaries, then be taken apart in the GE because of the discrepancies.

[_dynamicdems]

5. Meaningless drivel. n/t

[karynnj]

11. Beyond meaningless

How can Kerry both SINGLE HANDEDLY call for a filibuster, when they later mention his "filibuster partner, Kennedy." Is this an inadvertent dis of Kennedy.

Of course few were listening - the Senate no longer really debates. That said Kerry and Kennedy gave very different speeches. I loved both, but Kerry's addressed core constitutional issues. It went beyond liberal/conservative. In reality, Kerry likely knew that no one was really listening in the sense that they would consider what was said and change their vote - because the Senate is broken. The speech is there though for all history - saying that this is the wrong direction.

It may be that the author can't conceive of anything not being political. So, he mocks Kerry - not considering it's sometimes better to lose and be right.

[_dynamicdems]

18. People like this are obsessed with their own self-importance.

The thing reads like a catty gossip column. I'm surprised the guy didn't launch into a fashion critique while he was at it. How can America be expected to take the political process seriously when this kind of drivel gets more play than the actual issues?

[ProSense]

21. Completely agree.

Want relevancy: Kerry dominated the blogosphere (which came alive with energy and hope) and the media (which was beside itself trying to spin jokes) for more than a week...still going.

Those people are pathetic.

[beachmom]

12. If you want to defend the Establishment, Crowley did so.

Kerry is fighting that Establishment, and by God, they're fighting back. He DID THE RIGHT THING, damnit. And all this reporter can do is quote whining Democrats who have already retreated so much anyway. There are riffs in both parties. You can argue that John McCain highlights the riffs in the Republican party every other week, and yet he gets praise in the MSM.

TNR sucks. Didn't they endorse Lieberman in '04?

[karynnj]

13. Great observations

Also, the same people then print articles that the Democrats don't stand for anything and have no core values. Kerry and Kennedy framed this as about values.

[TayTay]

17. There will always be push-back

A lot of pols hate the difficult votes and they resent the people who make them take the difficult votes. That is what happened here. I don't think the 'cool kids' clique has changed any due to this move. I just think that some people released the internal disuptes in order to discredit K&K. Not like that hasn't been done before.

[karynnj]

23. This is why I hate the calls for party unity by the "cool kids"

because they aren't the ones firmly grounded in Democratic values. I think it would be great if a second power center developed around the K&K group, because they DO stand for something. (I'm glad Dean sided with K&K on this.) Although using the Republicans as role models is usually not advisable or even sane, but their party is not led by the moderates Republicans who don't reflect core values but by people who do. Who is more Democratic than Kennedy? (Look at 2004 -Dean and Kerry (and to a lesser degree - Edwards) are the only ones who generated any interest. Neither Dean or Kerry were cool kids then.)

The red state argument really doesn't work. The Democratic incumbents really run on their record and connection to the state. How can voting against a Supreme court justice AND stopping him be worse than voting against him and losing? If we would have won the filibuster, we would have had to really struggle to make people understand the rights of people and congress at stake. It could have led to a serious look at the type of government this country wants and have woken up many people.

It will take a major issue where we take a stand that is very far from the Republican position to cause people to reconsider what side they are on. Even though Abramoff is a Republican scandal, to many people it is assimilated as all politicians are bad. So it may hurt incumbents. Both Republicans and Democrats are writing legislation for reform. Theirs will pass with probably small changes. Only if this grows will it make a difference.

[Dr Ron]

16. Worse than endorsing Lieberman

TNR had a series of articles in which people there gave their reasons for supporting a particular candidate. They left out Kerry.

This shows both how anti-Kerry they are, and how irrelevant they are.

[whometense]

14. My response:

Not being on the judiciary committee, Kerry had no choice but to hold back and wait to see if someone in a more forward position on this issue (say, someone on the judiciary committee, for example) would step forward to take the lead, lest he be accused of stepping on his colleagues' toes and grandstanding.

Why is is that TNR always ascribes the worst possible motives to Kerry, no matter what action he takes? Kerry was not only acting on his own principles in this case; he was also responding to the fears of an extremely worried portion of his constituency which, no matter what TNR wishes, is now a national one. I completely support Kerry's actions, and only wish more senators had stepped out in front of this issue on their own.

Where do you draw the line between responsiveness and pandering? I choose to call it responsiveness on Kerry's part, and to be deeply grateful for it.

[karynnj]

19. I think it was neither pandering or responsiveness

I think this was one of those moments where he did what he thought was the right think to do. The strong statements against the unitary president are absolutely consistant with comments he made all last year. Probably as long as he and Kennedy felt there was even a possibility to winning it, he likely felt it was something he had to do. (I think this because of his statements that we can't say after the comfirmation that we didn't know what it would mean. It's interesting that all the 2008 hopefuls voted for it.)

Out of everything, what I understand the least is what the NYT did. They had a very strong editorial saying that the Democrats needed to filibuster, but when Kerry (and Kennedy) did (on that very day), they opted to almost ignore Kennedy and to ridicule Kerry and the quixotic choice to filibuster in an article that McClellan could have written. Then they wrote an article afterwards saying that this was a battle the Democrats could have won if they would have held together.

[Dr Ron]

20. I'm no mindreader

Not being mindreaders, there is no way you, me, or the author of this aritcle can say with absoulte certainty what Kerry's motivations were.

What we do know is that Kerry is on record for saying he will filibuster in a situation such as this. We also know that Alito should not have been on the court.

In such a situation we can choose to give Kerry the benfit of the doubt or we can assume the worse. It is clear who will take each position.

We can also choose how we respond to the recent events. Writers at TNR can write about why Alito shouldn't be on the court, or they can attack Kerry. It is a curious choice of priorities to concentrate on attacking Kerry rather than Alito and Bush.

[ProSense]

24. I don't believe Kerry did this

on a whim:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=68529&mesg_id=68582

And from his own op-ed he certainly made it clear that the filibuster was worth defending:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=68529&mesg_id=68902


From the article, I also get the sense that he was willing to call the Republicans on their nuclear option bluff (but maybe I'm reading too much into it).

[karynnj]

26. All great points

Their choice of subject is telling.

I taks exception though with "benefit of the doubt", because I don't think there would be this "doubt" if any other Senator did something absolutely in line with his previous positions. For example, no one is saying the Feingold, in being the lone vote against the extention of the Patriot Act was grandstanding.

[Dr Ron]

30. Likely true if another Senator

I think it is a a valid question for someone to have in their mind as to whether Kerry was basing his action based upon principle or political gain. However, the same can be said about every action taken by every Senator. It is also no surprise that a successful Senator will use their actions for some political advantage--if they didn't they wouldn't be elected..

It is one thing to wonder if political motivations could have played a part. It is a different thing to actually write articles accusing someone of this without a far stronger reason to believe this is the case.

For other Senators it would take a much higher bar to reach before writing such a critical article. With Kerry it is standard operating procedure to assume, and write, the worst.

[whometense]

32. Yes.

I hope that was clear from my comment.

For other Senators it would take a much higher bar to reach before writing such a critical article. With Kerry it is standard operating procedure to assume, and write, the worst.

TNR is among the worst offenders on this score. (and, by the way, Wow - a politician is being political?? Alert the news services.)

I agree with you, and that was a large part of the motivation for my comment. I honestly don't understand why they (and others as well) feel it's just fine to make these assumptions about Kerry.

And by the way, I haven't forgot that pre-election issue, either, when they wrote articles about every major candidate except JK. Their record, when it comes to him, shows a clear negative bias. I could cite a hundred more examples.

Edited to add, Plus, could his title have been any more egregious?????

[wisteria]

22. I am just going to tune these jerks out. Kerry did the correct thing.

He went against the conventional wisdom and he took a tough stand on principle. This whole tug-of-war on the filibuster says a lot about where we are going as a party, IMO. Are we for the people or are we for the corporations and the lobbists who give large sums for consideration later on. He took on two heavy weights, Reid and Shumer on this issue- both of whom were willing to sell us out. It seems Shumer has a lot of clout because of his win in 2004 and he has raised a lot of money for the Senate as chairman of that fund. I would be interested in knowing just who is contributing to the Senate fund. Justice Alito is a corporate sider from all I have read. His appointment wouldn't seem to objectionable to them.
Does anyone know where I can find out this type of info?

[TayTay]

25. I hope they are not too fickle.

This was one of my fav articles about Kerry from 2002. There was a fundraiser in Bosotn for Kerry in his senatorial re-election bid that year. Hillary spoke and was great and the other female Sens in attendance at the Boston event also spoke:

(Talking about Sen. Kerry: ) But he said nothing that might take away from the glow generated by his colleagues, family and friends. Why not bask?

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) called Kerry "one of our top Galahads" - the women senators' nickname for their Democratic male colleagues.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) hailed him as "a visionary." Sen. Deborah Stabenow (D-Mich.) said Kerry and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy are a "powerhouse" team. And Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) quoted from Kerry's strong pro-abortion rights speech during his first year in the Senate in 1985.

There was only one woman senator then, and a Republican at that, she said. "So he (Kerry) carried that issue for all of us until we got there to help him," said Boxer.

from -- Op-Ed; Women senators help Kerry collect
Boston Herald, All, Sec. Editorial, p 23 03-12-2002
By WAYNE WOODLIEF

Ladies, don't be fickle.

[Mass]

27. My feeling is that he may have PO Reid and Schumer more than anybody else

except probably Biden and Clinton who were forced to follow. It seems that Boxer and Stabenow were fully on board from what I have read.

Anyway, this would not be the first time that Kerry is at odds with the Democratic Senate leadership and I doubt it will be the last.

If anything, conservative Democrats probably liked it because they could say they were opposing the liberal Democrats by opposing the filibuster and then have a cover to vote against Alito, same thing for Cantwell.

[ProSense]

28. OMG!

They're Kerrycrats! Maybe explains the JK and Pelosi :*

[TayTay]

29. I adore that quote.

Ahm, I owe GV a 'story' afterall. (She asked me for one about knights and round tables and and stuff and my imagination didn't respond. But if Barbara cays Galahad, well, okay.) I had forgotten this story because it was a while ago. Once it popped up again, I remembered, oh yeah, the female senators had been very nice about him back in '02.

[whometense]

33. Galahad!?!

Wow. Of course, he is! Nice to know they recognize that.

Lets see...Kerry is tall, handsome, smart, and women love him.

Why does Michael Crowley hate him?? Two can play this assumptions game. How tall is Michael Crowley? Anyone know??

[TayTay]

34. What was funny about that is that the female Sens

use that as a nickname for male Sens who champion women's rights. I just adore that. :loveya:

[ginnyinWI]

31. how does he know what was inside JK's mind?

Did JK tell him? If not, then what he's talking about are opinions, not facts. It's so unfair. It's like the straw men the right sets up. Limbaugh is a champion at this. His main case will be all about why somebody did this or that, and how that ascribed motivation makes them reprehensible. sigh.

[whometense]

39. good question.

It seems to me that most pundits feel they have full access to his thought processes. Since he's a pretty complicated guy, and most of them are as perceptive as doorknobs, it's a blueprint for stupid commentary.

[Dr Ron]

15. Responded:

Kerry has been saying for the last few years that he would filibuster any Supreme Court nominees who threatened the right to choice on abortion.

It's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If Kerry had done nothing, he would be criticized for failing to keep his word. If Kerry had tried to lead the fight while it was still in the Judiciary Committee, he'd be criticized for stepping on their toes.

Kerry appropriately waited until the nomination reached the Senate floor, and then, when nobody from the committee or Senate leadership had taken a leadership role on the filibuster, Kerry stepped in to keep his long standing promise.

[whometense]

35. Anyone reading the comments

over there??

They are pretty united in favor of JK, and really good.

[beachmom]

37. What website? TNR? n/t

[whometense]

38. Yes -

here: http://www.tnr.com/doc_posts.mhtml?i=20060213&s=crowley021306

[Dr Ron]

40. Not all

The last one I read was pretty out of it, but there were a number of pro-Kerry posts.

[ProSense]

41. The last one is basically

a troll's spin. Kerry has opposed all of Bush's policies. They always leave out key words.

[karynnj]

42. The last one is bizarre

It's been over a year since Kerry conceded and extended his hand, while saying he would continue to stand up for his principles. After his January trip to the middle east, he offered to gice his observations to Bush or Rice and they opted to ignore him, which was really a slap in the face. The election was over, Kerry has 20 years of foreign policy experience - Kerry had nothing to gain in talking to them; they got another perspective that they could use or ignore. Rice might have done better on her trip if she took Kerry's information.

[beachmom]

36. Let's see if Webster can help us out in solving the pander riddle

Pander:

Someone who profits from exploiting the needs and weaknesses of others

Further refining the definition:

Exploit:

1. To use to best advantage
2. To make use of selfishly or unethically

Using exploit definition #1:

Someone who profits from using to his best advantage the needs and weaknesses of others.

Using exploit definition #2:

Someone who profits from making use of selfishly or unethically the needs and weaknesses of others.

Okay, guys, basically we're the ones who are being "pandered". First of all, are we needy and weak? I don't know -- I WANT more leadership in the Senate, but I guess technically I don't need it. I also don't feel weak either. I feel empowered by my actions last week, actually doing something. To me, pander is not a win-win situation. The person who panders wins and the "needy and weak" lose, or at least don't gain much. I feel like the opposite occurred -- Kerry lost the vote, and the media is bent on destroying him now, while I, on the other hand, feel stronger having a senator listen to me, respect me, and ask for my help. I just don't think his action passes the pander snuff test. Like Dr. Ron said, of course, all politicians do things that will profit them in some way politically, otherwise they wouldn't win elections. But I think Kerry did so by being a leader -- his political calculation was to follow his gut, stand with his moral principles, and do the right thing with the long term effect that people will view him as a leader of principle. He wasn't pandering to the liberal base -- he IS the liberal base.

Let me give you the ultimate, no doubt about it, pander example. Bill Frist and Terri Schiavo. That was NOT a stand on principle, because he's a doctor and "diagnosed" her from a videotape. He had to know that what he was doing was wrong, but wanted to shore up support from the religious right (many of whom, I think, weren't on board for this case). His actions caused pain to Michael Schiavo (and Terri Schiavo IMO), set a harmful precedent for the Congress (crafting legislation for ONE PERSON), and completely backfired. NOBODY thought it was an act of principle.

The objection to what Kerry did was procedural -- many Democrats did concur that Alito on the Supreme Court will be bad for America. They just didn't want to filibuster because they felt it would hurt them in the election. But on principle -- based on the final vote, most Democrats (and even 1 Republican) completely agreed with him. Contrast that with Frist (and Delay); on PRINCIPLE it was universally condemned. It was both procedurally wrong AND MORALLY wrong to interfere like that. Many pro-lifers were more in doubt about right to die issues, since it will affect EVERYONE, not just a 15 year pregnant teenage girl.

I remember reading an article during the primaries where a college kid asked Kerry how he could possibly identify with him and look out for him, since Kerry lived in a different world and was rich. Kerry's answer was to look at his past actions and voting record. No bulls*** from the senator, no "I feel your pain". And that's how I view this case. Alito has repeatedly been on the opposite side of Kerry in regards to labor issues, presidential powers, and a woman's right to privacy. I read in his biography that he was pro-choice BEFORE Roe v. Wade. NO ONE can doubt his principles on this. Past actions back it up EVERY TIME.

[LittleClarkie]

44. Isn't he a Leiberman Democrat?

That would tend to explain things.

I remember a time, long ago, when that publication was progressive. Sadly, they would seem to be mostly pro-Israel at the mo'.