OMG-Democratic Senate colleagues say they may vote against Fox!

[wisteria]

Kerry Getting Some Payback for Swift Boat Campaign of ’04

“Do I think that it’s going to affect his nomination?” Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, said about the donations. “I suspect that other than Senator Kerry, there will be some senators that will not look too kindly for his support of that vicious kind of personal attack.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/politics/02kerry.html?_r=1&oref=slogin




Mr. Kerry declined on Thursday to say how he would vote. On Tuesday, however, he bore in on Mr. Fox with the zeal of the former prosecutor that he is. He began with a long series of benign questions but then moved in for the kill.

[beachmom]

1. Okay, I so enjoyed that little article. Pity it didn't list who wrote it.

This part almost sounded like us:

Mr. Kerry asked Mr. Fox to explain why he had donated $50,000 to the Swift boat group and pressed him to identify who had asked him to give to the group. Mr. Fox said he could not remember, explaining that he gave large sums to many groups.

Mr. Kerry continued to hammer him, as Mr. Fox squirmed.

Finally the senator asked, “Do you think this should matter to me?”

“Yes, I do. I do,” Mr. Fox said.



(hammer and squirm -- nice words, NYT!)



On how Kerry would vote -- what do you think that means? Is he playing it coy?

[beachmom]

2. Hmmm -- there is precedent for blocking the nomination, but . . .

it's from Jesse Helms, and Kerry fought Helms on it at the time:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/3/1/21322/69850/23#c23

The Helms Rule (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:beachmom, cwaltz
The Senate is big on precedent and there is one on point from 10 years ago. President Clinton nominated the GOP Governor of Mass., William Weld, to be Ambassador to Mexico. He was seen as a solid bipartisan pick and everyone expected easy confirmation:

"But Weld had made a serious mistake in his Massachusetts Senate campaign: He had hinted that he would not vote for Helms as Foreign Relations chairman. Combine this blunder with Weld's general liberalism, and it's easy to see why his nomination ran into trouble. Helms sat on the appointment."
http://www.findarticles.com/...

Weld made a blunder by insulting a Foreign Relations Committee member and he lost out on an ambassadorship as a result. Seems like Fox is in exactly the same position, no one would have faulted Fox if he had given money to the Bush-Cheney campaign (indeed, I'm sure he gave a mint), but the man bankrolled a scurrilious personal attack on a senator who happens to sit on the Committee which must approve his nomination. Granted Helms was Committe Chair while Kerry is "only" a member, but Weld's nomination was killed for much less reason than what Fox admits to doing.

by Beowulf on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 08:35:42 PM PST

< Reply to This |Recommend Troll >

[karynnj]

3. Even in the hearing, Kerry said that he will try to be fair

I think Kerry may have wanted him to take personal reponsibility for what he did - which boiled down to paying $50,000 for political smearing hit men. Doing this in Oct, when he knew it was a lie was morally wrong. There were other pro-Bush efforts that were fair that he could have given that money to. Even though he didn't write the SBVT's ads, he is quilty for what they did because he did know what they would do.

His first comment, ignored by the RW, slammed the SBVT, but did not take any responsibility. I think his obvious discomfort under Kerry's questions was because he does now when questioned on it feel guilt, which is better than the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world. Kerry did hammer him - but it was hammering only because the repeated question was simple, pure truth and it hurt. It also had to hurt more to have his kids and grandkids witness it. I doubt the values he raised them with were consistent with the SBVT.

The man appears to have done a lot of good in his community - as Kerry said at the beginning. My guess is that he never stopped to think of what he was really doing in October 2004. He likely thought the SBVT were a winning tool for his side in a political game - and never stopped to think of immorality of what they were doing. His comment that Kerry is a hero in a nearly empty Senate room seemed mainly a way to get past an awkward situation and is not good enough. He paid people to destroy the Senator's good name and there are still people who believe that garbage.

The 2 wrongs don't make a right is worth thinking about. I doubt any of us give $50,000 or are likely to be nominated as ambassadors, but on a personal responsibility level, it does mean being careful not to give to far left groups that may do things we personally would not do. In his case, he needed less than a second of thought in 2004 to know that contribution was wrong - less time than it took to write the check.

I don't think Kerry was being coy, because that does not seem his style. This is the man who forgave Nixon. I do think he meant what he said and that he will weigh this against the rest of the man's life. I suspect that Kerry would have been more comfortable making this stand if it were someone else who was smeared.

[beachmom]

4. I was thinking about that, too. I feel funny about 527 orgs, I admit

even the good ones, because they're less tied with the Dem Party or a candidate and there's a notion that could creep up of "anything goes". Most of them behave okay, but what if leadership changes in one of them, and they switch to going dirty? I only donate to Democratic institutions and candidates because of my reticense on it all. But it's like charity orgs, too. You are essentially adding your name to that group when you give them money, and it's important to know exactly what you're getting yourself into.

I've decided what is most important is getting Fox to think about what he did and the consequences of it (not the election but the personal consequences to Sen. Kerry and his family). That's more important than whether or not he gets the ambassadorship. But I am very doubtful that he will own up to the horrible mistake in judgment he made by giving that money.

[karynnj]

5. I'm with you on this:

"I've decided what is most important is getting Fox to think about what he did and the consequences of it (not the election but the personal consequences to Sen. Kerry and his family). That's more important than whether or not he gets the ambassadorship. But I am very doubtful that he will own up to the horrible mistake in judgment he made by giving that money."

In addition to Sen. Kerry's family, there were the far more fragile vets that were with him. Those accusations hit them as well. Their own stories were called into question, as well as implicitly their actions. If Kerry votes against them, it may be for what they did to these people. They would not have even been involved, if O'Neil simply went after Kerry's protesting.

I don't think he will admit it was wrong or that he personally owes Kerry an apology. In fact, when he said "they tried to take that away from you", he specifically didn't include himself. Given when he gave, the "they" should have been a "we". (If he paid someone to shot someone, wouldn't he be quilty of murder?

I have moved to giving money only to specific candidates, the local party ( near non-existant as it is), the NJ party, the DNC and candidates. I don't buy that the Democratic 527s were as bad, but some are such I don't want to feed them. (The fact that no one has been able to describe an anti-Bush campaign that comes close suggests there wasn't one.)

[wisteria]

7. I am not sure how he would vote. He might just end up approving him.

However, Fox, I hope has learned something even at his age about integrity and personal responsibility.

[ray of light]

6. list of committee members to call?