Fact or fiction?

[politicasista]

author's tweet

"How Deval Patrick unfairly throws John Kerry under the bus in his new book"

http://twitter.com/kelleratlarge

Don't know which political spectrum the author is a part of (cause of recent Globe, BoHerd snark), but he takes exception to some excerpts in the Governor's new memoir in a video link (just a small blurb with excerpt).

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/04/08/keller-on-patricks-memoir-reason-not-to-believe/


Wonder how their relationship really is, given that Patrick is very close to Obama (pol friend?, Chicago-South Side humble beginnings, separate historical elections, etc) and Kerry is one of Obama's allies.

Even if it is/was rewriting history (?), no Democrat (liberal or not) should have never went along with the sham that Bush and GOP were selling. IMO, they should have followed Kennedy, Boxer, Graham, etc, and they wouldn't have to keep apologizing and/or being defensive all the time over this issue/vote.

The infamous line (gaffe?) still haunts the Senator till this day and there does not seem to be anything he can do about that.

Whoever was advising him was asleep at the wheel and should have been let go the next day (it sounds like the campaign was all over the place in Patrick's view). Heard the GC stop wasn't the best trip for him and Momma T.


















edit for clarity

[Luftmensch067]

1. Don't know anything about this

But your source, Jon Keller, is a venomous weasel. He may have something here, I have no idea, but his goal is always to stir up trouble for Democrats, in my opinion.

[Mass]

2. Keller - Enough said. He is mad because Patrick pointed out in the book that the local media was

somehow ... racist!!!

For the record, Keller'son advised the Kerry Healey campaign in 2006 against Patrick, and the guy is a known republican, but you can continue to listen to every single rumor that shows Kerry under a bad angle.


My guess, not having read the book, is that Patrick has a vague comment about the campaign, that some people will use to try to divide Patrick and Kerry.

[Luftmensch067]

3. Interesting that Keller is a known Republican

I hadn't known that for sure, but it helps explain his constant bile against all Mass. Dems. For sure, he always does everything he can to try to malign John Kerry. I really can't stand the little, self-glorifying creep.

[Mass]

4. He may not be a registered Republican, but I dont think there is too much doubt where he stands.

[politicasista]

8. Ok. That makes sense

Sorry about the person and agenda. Interesting that he postponed his Today show appearance.

Was just being curious. No agenda or anything, but it will be best for me to stay out of MA issues/politics, since TN is a mess.

[karynnj]

5. The Grand Canyon was a media hit on Kerry - more than a gaffe

What is very suspicious is that the exact question was not recorded - or even transcribed. Kerry's answer was the same answer he gave on the vote for months and months - and it does work with the LATER IMPOSED question - as Kerry is saying that he would have allowed diplomacy and the inspections to work.

Here is a Daily Howler link that was written at the time on the media - you will see that Candy Crowley conflated a Bush rhetorical question to Kerry or how he would now with an answer that was clearly NOT to that question. You then see that much of the usually liberal media made that the story. Note that FOX NEWS actually disputes it. The fact is this blew over quickly in 2004 and Kerry changed strategy to simply saying the war was wrong - and not trying to defend the vote. (Even when asked if he thought that given that otherwise Saddam would still be in power - he still said that going to war was wrong.)

Here is the link - http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081204.shtml It is interesting that it was AFTER he lost that the GC became more of an issue - from the left.

As for Teresa and Kerry, my sister, and her husband, a Vietnam Vet teacher, were at the next event I think in Kingman, AZ. She expected Kerry to be great, and he was - but the one who completely blew her away was Teresa. My sister is far better than I am at reading people and she would have picked up on anything if it were real. There was a RW rumor that they were fighting, but the Kerrys denied it. Teresa had a migraine headache and she was dizzy at the Grand Canyon. (From all that is know of the Kerrys, they have a relationship where they welcome discussions where they do not have the same position.)

There is also no logic to claim that it cost Kerry the election. Kerry's numbers fell mostly due to the SBVT and the hate filled Republican convention - and the media coverage of it as acceptable. Did you hear even one commentator say the purple heart bandaids were out of line? But, Kerry's numbers rose through the debates and as he showed his anger that the ammo dumps were left unguarded. Without the Bin Laden tape - even the voter suppression that was rampant - and not just in Ohio would have not prevented a Kerry win.

As to the Patrick book, I don't see any quotes from him. I do remember that Kerry was involved in two things that helped him. Cam Kerry and Mike Dukakis and I think one other person had a committee that was designed to keep the Democratic primaries civil. In addition, Kerry gave a huge amount of money - at least 1 million - to be used by the winner for the General election.

There could be some competition between Kerry and Patrick, reflecting that each has a claim to being the top Democrat in the state. However, it is in their interest to work together - and it sure seems like they have. It have never read anything that suggests that there is not respect between the two of them. Both have legitimate claims on Obama - but the fact is that it is Kerry, not Patrick, who can be said to have helped Obama become President when he did. It flat out would not have happened if Kerry did not give him the slot to make that speech. I also think it would not have happened without the Kerry endorsement. (I doubt there would have been a Ted Kennedy endorsement, without Kerry's - because I doubt Bill Clinton would have acted as he did without Kerry calling him on the earlier parts. It was disgust with the Clintons that seemed to move Teddy.)

PS I agree with Mass's comment - why do you bring every bit of possible negative Kerry talk to this group?

[politicasista]

7. Not bringing anything negative.

Haven't posted here since early last month. It was just something that was on twitter under the #mapoli section.

Will just stay out of anything MA/Kerry related from now on. At least if one doesn't have to prove that there are some Democrats that support Obama and do have some backbones that did not break before and after Kennedy passed on. (Can't get started on Dukakis. Long story there).

That said, I lurk and comment if can on positive things Senator Kerry related.

[politicasista]

10. And to answer the question

Not one commentator raised a red flag about the vile Purple Heart band-aids, which was disgusting, and think that was from the post election Newsweek thing about he and Momma T fighting (the campaign was also going through internal strife, unless that is also a rumor).

While the Senator may have run a decent, high-road imperfect campaign (and it pave the road for the 08 nominee), many feel that Obama (given that 08 was a Democratic year and Dean was running the DNC) raised the bar even higher on how a campaign should be ran (high-road), and that future Dem candidates should take notes.


Again, will stay out of MA news/politics, don't know that much, but was just curious.

[karynnj]

11. Obam ran a good campaign - and an exception primary campaign

BUT, he had a lot of help from others - not just Kerry. (Kennedy helped Kerry a lot in Iowa - so I am not diminishing Obama.)

That said, Obama ran in a year the Democrats were very likely to win. He also had gaffes - that the media infuriated the Republicans and the Clintons by ignoring.

The biggest one was not a mistake - which actually makes it worse. That was his comment about people voting against their own good, blaming religion and guns. As a Jew, I have long heard Jews repeat with pride a comment that Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans. Ignoring the implicit racism, what they are priding themselves on is voting against their economic interests because of their values. This is precising what the poor evangelicals are doing - and given that they are in tougher economic circumstances this is praiseworthy. The goal should NOT be to say that economic interests are more important, which Obama implicitly does, but to try to show that our economic values stem from moral values that are very close to theirs - and to try to get them to see past the few social issues that bind them to the Republicans. (Tay Tay had a wonderful post about not ceding the "morality" issue to the Republicans. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=169345&mesg_id=169360

But, the fact is that both Clinton and Obama made many gaffes in the primary.

Frankly, the note I think that could be taken between the two campaigns is: run in a year where your party is favored. Also note that you can now follow precedent and not accept public financing. (In 2004, Bush effectively had more money than Kerry - he and the Congress had ads helping each other and he had used the Presidency, illegally in some cases. Obama had FAR more money than McCain.) Before you state that Obama was smarter in this than Kerry, again there is a difference. Obama's excuse for doing it was what the Republicans did to Kerry - and Kerry was the first out explaining it so Obama did not have to. Had Kerry, decades long critic of PACs and author of the best public financing bill opted out before Bush, the media would have had a field day with a REAL flip flop.

You act as if winning were the measure of how good a campaign was - ignoring that in some years winning is near impossible and in others it would have been tough for anyone competent to lose.

[politicasista]

12. He did have a lot of help

And people took notice. I don't think you are diminishing him, just being honest. :) He did win in a year that Dems had to win.

While Obama did have gaffes, it was easy for some (not all) to overlook them because he was a inspirational orator with personality, political instincts, humble beginnings, and a down-to-earth family.

Though it is too early to picture how 2012 will go or how they will vote, he also brought out a lot of first-timers and people that had not voted in years back to the polls. I always think that makes Gore and Kerry look bad for some reason, like it was their fault people were not excited or involved.

About the gaffes, the HRC/McCain camps seized on the "bitter" comment as a gaffe, but most saw Obama telling it like it was. I was not aware of the rest in your second paragraph and have to re-read TayTay's post, but that is really interesting. (Thanks).

Understand that the infrastructure and finances (PACs) were different, but most average voters (non political junkies) do not understand those details (we wish/hope they do). It is bad enough that Kerry still gets linked to Romney as a flip-flopper :puke:

People will say that I am taking swipes at Kerry (and that is not the intent). (Unfortunately) We live in an America where winning is everything (as so-so as some campaigns were), and almost doesn't count (no matter how close you come), regardless of the impossible years to win the presidency as a Democrat.


Thanks for the post.

[karynnj]

13. Kerry brought out something like 9 million people who did not vote in 2000

They exceeded the goals they had everywhere.

I think you missed what I was saying about the bitter comment. No one questions that Obama is correct in saying they vote against their ECONOMIC interests. They do. My point is that it is arrogant - more arrogant than anything Kerry ever said - to say that it is wrong or implicitly ignorant to do so. It is not at all clear that people voting their religious values - even if what they mean by it is abortion and homosexuality - is something they are doing because they are "bitter". You know I was an Obama supporter, but the statement made me cringe. While I thoroughly disagree with their position on both of these things, I think it is completely reasonable and the right thing to do to consider that there are somethings that are more important to you than what you gain economically.

I suspect that Democrats will do better winning some of these people if they speak in moral terms about things like caring for the sick and the elderly, insuring that children have healthcare, food, and a chance to pursue all the education their intelligence qualifies them for. Jesus never spoke of either homosexuality or abortion. Both have existed through history, but obviously he thought other things were more important.

[politicasista]

14. That is interesting

considering Kerry got 88% percent compared to Gore's 90% and Obama's 95%, that sounds like a good goal.

I will concede that the "bitter" remark was cringe-worthy and sounded arrogant (though Obama seems to come across as humble president/person in the public eye), I thought he was mostly describing the mood of small town PA residents (and some as a whole). Their jobs were shipped overseas, w/o health insurance, etc, so they turn to "guns and religion". Will also say that this was a misstep that his advisors should have been prepared for.

And do agree with your last post that is the way to go. The religious approach seems so tricky because the GOP and the media will try to spin anything as Dems being Anti-religious.

[karynnj]

15. 88%, 90% and 95% of what?

I suspect that that is the African American vote - yet that is NOT who those comments referred to.

[politicasista]

16. Yep. Forgot to add that

in the thread. Didn't think you were talking about them, just pointing out the different AA vote totals in each election. I do agree with you though. :shrug:


Will exit this thread now because I am not making any sense now. Thanks for being patient. Peace. :hi:

[wisteria]

6. Patrick is and was not a perfect candidate or governor by any stretch of the imagination.

And, as Mass said, there was probably a passing comment made by Patrick about Senator Kerry, that was singled out because it was negative, and will be used by the RW media to play both against each other.
No one is perfect and I am certain Sen. Kerry has learned to ignore inflammatory snark against him and see it for what is. Actually, we all know how much of a statesman, and advocate for the people Sen. Kerry is, I wouldn't worry about BS like this that is put out there to feed little minds.

[politicasista]

9. Thanks.

Wasn't trying to stir anything up and had no idea the writer was RW. (Thought he was a DLC/Clinton person and thought people were curious and what was this author's background), but it's all good. Will just stay out of MA news. Just an observation.