Senator Kerry: Leading by EXAMPLE!

[ObamaKerryDem]

This is so awesome of him (though it should come as no surprise!) :) If only more in Congress were like him!:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/09/12/316608/kerry-avoid-lobbyists-supercommittee/

[karynnj]

1. I hope the rest of the Democrats follow

The last paragraph of the Boston Globe article gives a good explanation:

"Asked why, Kerry said: “Because I don’t want people to think that I’m being leveraged by contributions. I just don’t want want the appearance of money being associated with anything I do on this.”
http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/09/kerry-vows-avoid-lobbyists-fund-raising-while-supercommittee/wUtCh7v6qMwFFQu2r1zrsO/index.html

The fact is that there were already stories that were on the verge of questioning the integrity of the committee members just because they would be lobbied hard and potentially showered with money.

Kerry has a real record on campaign financing that is often hidden by the idiotic open secrets lists of who got how much money whenever any industry was in the spot light. Now, open secrets does a great job in making the information accessible, but they need someone with more skill to analyze the numbers - the raw numbers are misleading. Doing this would be simple, in fact, if they did just three things, it would help - 1) split out PACS vs donations by employees. 2) eliminate money raised for Presidential runs when comparing Senators. 3) When giving lifetime numbers define a way to normalize them. This could be as simple as dividing by the number of elections or a bit more complicated by inflating the earlier years to reflect the lower average "take", then dividing by the number of elections.

Sorry for the diversion, but it is frustrating when they have the data and could really create reports that are crystal clear, but they only rarely do the final step that does this. They did in one report, on the banking/financial industry include a column with the PAC numbers. Although they sorted it on overall amounts, you could see that ones with the highest PAC amounts were the Senators on the banking committee - particularly the Republicans in both Houses .. and Chris Dodd.

There is a huge problem with trying to argue that money did NOT make Senators/Congresspeople more willing to consider the interests of the people funding them. As every politicians I can think of has spoken of how much a pain raising money for a campaign is, money offered by PACs has to enticing.

For the Democrats, it will be hard for some to follow. Murray is the chair of the DSCC and as such, she is more involved in raising money than the average Senator. However, given the extremely short duration and the amount of time involved, it would make sense for her to say that she will not work on that part of the DSCC effort.

Kerry is praised by CREW - http://www.citizensforethics.org/blog/entry/john-kerry-does-the-right-thing-supercommittee-fundraising

[MBS]

2. BRAVO

Awesome is the word! Thanks so much for bringing this to our attention.

[ladym55]

3. And I KNOW Senator Portman from Ohio will follow JK's lead!

*crickets*

[wisteria]

4. Very commendable of the Senator. You are right-Leading by example. n/t

[Mass]

5. Well, this shows why Murray was a bad choice.

(and her counterpart of the RCCC). I like her, but how is she going to stop fundraising in her role as the DCCC chair. It is hard for me to understand how Reid could have named her.

[Inuca]

6. I think it makes a difference if

you raise for yourself or you raise for others, as I assume Murray does and will continue to do.

[Mass]

7. I totally disagree...

If anything, she has to raise more money than she would have to do for herself. And she cannot swear off lobbyists, PACs and special interests the way a safe senator in a blue or red state can.

As for Kerry, while it is commendable, it is also not exactly a great sacrifice he is making, given he is not for reelection before 2014. He has plenty of time to fundraise.

[karynnj]

9. I think that Kerry had nothing to lose doing this and he reduces the attacks

that had already started that questioned his - and the other members' integrity. I would guess that any fund raising he was doing at this point would be for the candidates running in 2012. I remember in 2008 that he was assigned to do a large number of Obama/SCCC fund raisers - even as he ran for reelection and was a top surrogate.

[Mass]

10. I agree...

[ObamaKerryDem]

11. Could be true, but then again, given that the next election fundraising cycle..

..in politics these days seems to arrive (in terms of perception anyway) the day after someone is elected or re-elected, I think it can fairly be argued that any time off from fundraising for JK or any politician is a sacrifice, however debatable the magnitude. Especially since JK is such a right wing target, one of the people on our side they most love to hate, even if he is from a "safe" state.

But even if it's not as great a sacrifice from JK as it would be coming from say, a Sherrod Brown, it's the thought I think that really counts here--and still a good example for all elected officials during these times.

[karynnj]

8. I don't

Even if it just the appearance of being "buyable" it is an issue. It is clear the press has already targeted this - aiming almost totally at the Democrats. In addition, that charge carries more weight in the Democratic party than the Republican. (Note that McCain got relatively little flack from his party on his extensive connections to lobbyists even after the NYT exposed them.)

I think that Murray should follow Kerry's example and a Democrat - maybe Schumer, who as a Finance Committee member would have been a more likely choice for this committee - except it is a lose/lose situation - will take over the fund raising until it is over.

This would protect Murray's reputation and should not hurt the party.

[Mass]

12. Talk about self-inflicted wounds.

This is particularly ridiculous. Fundraising is fundraising. I wonder how his staff cannot see that.

http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/09/watchdog-groups-hit-kerry-over-apparent-reversal-fund-raising-pledge/6F5zYJi1drxn8rIW1w6onM/index.html

Senator John Kerry won plaudits from campaign finance and good government groups earlier this week after he told the Globe he would not seek political contributions while serving on a special congressional “supercommittee” aiming to cut at least $1.5 trillion from the federal budget deficit.

Now he is drawing their condemnation, after making an exception to what appeared to be an ironclad guarantee. He is planning to speak at a fund-raiser in Boston next week benefitting the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

[Luftmensch067]

13. Hard to disagree, but what a tough, painful situation!

Fundraising is fundraising, but we know as well as JK does how crucial his skills as a fundraiser are and how crucial our battle for the Senate will be. Losing potential funds he can help bring in for the DSCC, especially this fall, is a huge misfortune for the party.

I read the original article Johnson links to in the one you link to here and I still can't be sure that JK didn't mean he would not fundraise for his own campaign rather than to eschew ALL fundraising. To me, it's possible he was referring to fundraising on his own behalf and that he considers fundraising for the party to be in a different category. That would take care of intention, but not how this appears to the public.

It will be interesting to see where this goes, but it's a shame that I doubt any GOP members of the committee are being questioned about their fundraising activities.

[ObamaKerryDem]

15. Wow, that IS a tough one. :(

The timing of this is very unfortunate, though I am not sure if JK meant the he would not be involved at all, in any way, in fundraising or just for himself, during this process. I do think there is a big difference between raising and receiving funds to advance and to the benefit of your own campaign vs. for other Democrats, especially at, just as you said, such a crucial time for our party. I don't think JK should have to apologize for helping other Dems, when our holding onto the Senate next year is both more challenging and more critical than it has been in years. I think the Globe is again picking on him here. I wonder if this were Brown, what their commentary would be...

As for the 'watch dog' groups, I can understand their point. This is awkward and definitely not the best PR. JK will definitely be asked about this in the next interview and probably should clarify, on the record. It is irritating though, as a supporter, that it's always, without fail, him who gets called out for things like this, when it goes by the wayside lots of times for people like Brown. Maybe that's me talking as a loyalist, lol, but I can't help but feel defensive here in that sense. :)

Awkward.. I'm giving JK the benefit of the doubt here, though. I think his heart is in the right place (with helping other Dems), though it does suck that this conflict has arisen, taking the shine off the recognition he got from 'the pledge'. However I do not think this negates JK's intentions with it for all the reasons I stated above as he does not HAVE to fundraise for himself or anyone at this point, being that his next bid is 3 years off.

I am not looking forward to the onslaught he will no doubt get for this (as always). :( Hope it passes soon..

[Mass]

16. I dont know what Kerry meant, but I doubt he was excluding

fundraising for somebody else, because at this point, he is not running for anything, so his personal fundraising must be fairly light.

I guess he just forgot this particular fundraising.

[ObamaKerryDem]

17. Maybe he or his team thought that if he added that caveat, it would..

..weigh down the message he was trying to send with that? :shrug: I do think he'll need to clarify.

If I had to venture a guess, it would be that he may have felt bad about 'bailing' on the fundraiser, for the sake of the other Dems. Still though, he will no doubt be asked about this. I think it's probably a timing issue more than anything else.

I do know that the event at Symphony Hall in Boston last December was meant to raise funds for the '14 campaign (said so in the thank you letter we got in the mail afterwards, for attending), though of course the fund raising wouldn't be nearly as heavy as someone running in '12. It's probably still very much underway though or was before JK made his statement.

I still think fundraising for others and raising for yourself are two different things, though I think a clarification from JK on that couldn't hurt.

I still think JK had good intentions with this, though.

[Mass]

22. I am sure of his intentions too. It is just that too often, they do not seem to consider

what will happen when they do these things. It was the same problem with the yacht. I am certain he intended to pay his taxes, but you could have hope he has somebody who would have seen what the GOP would do of this.

I also disagree about fundraising for others or yourself. In both cases. I do not see the difference and I doubt most people do.

[karynnj]

18. Here, the reason he alone is getting called on iis that he made the promise

to hold to a higher standard.

I wonder if that is implicitly the case for other issues where there is no similar pledge. The essence of Kerry is that he aspires to be a statesman/leader of real integrity - and he really does speak of morality and integrity as guiding forces. For the most part, he does live up to what seem to be higher standards than most hold themselves to, but he is human and politics and legislating mean that he will fail from time to time.

It is no news when a politician, who is basically a political hack, does something that is questionable - unless it so out of bounds that they are taken to task for it. The reporters, who have more familiarity with these people, know they are hacks - and will never argue they aren't. With someone like Kerry, when he falls - even mildly - they know he can do better - and they know that he will care if called on things. They expect better of him.

However, when it comes time for endorsements, the comments reflect that they do see that Kerry is an unusually honest, committed legislator.

This time - it is Kerry's fault - the only possibility is that the BG overstated his commitment to get a better story, but the direct quotes are pretty unambiguous.

[ObamaKerryDem]

19. Good points, but I would argue that..

..while there is the obvious question of consistency (between JK's statement and this) here, I do think the fact that JK is doing this for the benefit of other Dems and the party draws a sharp contrast between this and what the reality would be if this were for JK himself. Then I could completely see and would have to join in on the criticism. That would be a much more direct question of honesty and consistency on JK's part. I think that here, it's a question of perception and that perception, as the saying goes, becoming reality (as is pretty much par for the course in politics). Which is unfortunate as I really believe JK had good intentions here, though I do agree that he should clarify here.

As for the press, I would respectfully submit that you are being too generous to them here. :) Not everyone of course, but it really seems like a certain element of the media has it out for JK, either by completely ignoring him or constantly criticizing him. Of course as with anyone else, some criticism is warranted, but it seems like a constant thing when it comes to JK. Maybe you are right that they just assume that the 'political hack' types will do what they do and so they just accept it...but still, that is not how these media types present it. If they presented people like, say Palin or Bachmann, as complete hacks who were not to be taken seriously, then I could better understand that approach. But they often present them as serious figures. That's the difference, I think. But then again, I've been sore about much of the media's treatment of JK for some time now--I think most of us here have--and I'm especially mad at the media lately, even the so called "liberal" elements of it, so that could be factoring into my reaction here. :) But I still choose to give JK the benefit of the doubt on this one. I look forward to hearing what further response he may have on it, though. I think he needs to to quash this.

[karynnj]

20. I agree whole heartedly that the media is unfair to Kerry

while they bend over backwards for flakes like Scott Brown.

The BG has an article that suggests Warren/Brown would be like Kerry/weld - even to all 4 having outstanding debate skills - when 2 of them do, one (Warren) very possibly may, and one was adequate in the 2010 debates.

Further they speak of how Warren would be able to showcase her work on the Consumer Bureau and spoke of Brown's snapshots from Afghanistan - now, I wish I could say that that was tongue in cheek about the Brown almost photo opt.

The fact is that Brown is not Weld; nor is Warren a 2 term Senator with considerable political skill.

[Mass]

21. I saw this article and found it both very unfair for Kerry and troublesome for Warren

The Globe does not even bother hiding his preferences here and attributes to Warren all the (imagineray) defaults they see in Kerry (and Coakley). The few images I saw this morning of Warren doing a meet and greet in Boston did not look good either (she did not look comfortable doing that, whether she was or not is another issue, as we only saw a few seconds), and WBZ presented Brown's and Warren's popularity numbers as if it was a poll where voters had been asked to vote for one or the other. So, it seems clear the Boston media has chosen his side. As for debating skills, I do not know if Warren is as good as Kerry and Weld, but I would bet she is a lot better than Brown, because he is not much of a debater and totally inarticulate (Coakley was a lot better than he is at that).

[Luftmensch067]

23. I spent some time finding out a bit about EW this am

And she went to college on a debate team scholarship! So though she is not JK, she is probably a darn sight better as a debater than Brown! Also, I like the video on her website. Still kind of rooting for Setti, but EW is a much more viable popular candidate than Coakley, in my opinion.

[Mass]

24. No doubt she is a lot better than Brown.

She is obviously an very bright woman. It is just that the fight for the middle class is not my only preoccupation and that I'd like to hear more about other issues. I guess she will grow on me.

But it seems clear that most of the Boston media are following Brown's lead.

[ObamaKerryDem]

27. That is so cool!

I will be excited to support and vote for either EW or Setti..or whoever gets the nod. We have got to get Brown out of Teddy's seat!

[karynnj]

25. The article was by Glen Johnson, who has never been fair to Kerry

He was the jerk, who when the Senator spoke of having cancer and having planned surgery, used the opportunity of asking the first question to call all Kerry for not giving him an exclusive a few weeks earlier. Yet, this reporter with no human emotions, things the fake image Brown presents is real.

I did not see the 2010 debates, but I can believe that he is not good - he is inarticulate every time he speaks in the Senate.

I also noted one other strange "clean up" he did for Brown:

"Supporters of the Republican incumbent, Senator Scott Brown, have already branded the Harvard Law School professor a “militant liberal.” They have ridiculed her website image of Boston for being taken from the Cambridge side of the Charles River. And they have even secured the domain name “QueenElizabethWarren” to fuel their caricature, should it become necessary."

It was not "supporters" of Brown who registered the domain, it was a MEMBER OF HIS STAFF - right after Brown said that suff like the Krazy Karzei garbage his staff did would not happen again.

(For those who did not see it - here is the link - http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/09/brown-warren-senate-matchup-would-rival-weld-kerry-battle-royale/av02cMp0vRabBStXpLSeaL/index.html

[ObamaKerryDem]

26. LOL! They will do ANYTHING to shill for Brown..

.. :thumbsdown: I watched the 2010 debates and to say that Brown was adequate in them is to be generous, lol. I mean he was better than Palin or Bush...but that's about it. Hardly in the same school as JK or even Weld, though JK clearly dominated the 1996 debates---have you ever seen the one where he said to Weld that he "talks out of both sides of your mouth more than the Budweiser frogs"? LOL! JK of course mostly kept it more cool and collected than that---he and the President are a lot alike when it comes to their thoughtful, cerebral nature, I think--but that was funny. :)

I would LOVE to see Brown go up against Warren or Setti or any viable Dem...Brown supporters, from what I've seen, seem to think he'll just sail into re-election. I don't see that. I think that if we get an even adequate challenger, it will at very least be a competitive race. And with the Obama coattails--I'm sorry, I know after Brown/Coakley you can never just assume--but I think unless something goes very, very wrong this cycle, Obama is sure to win MA--it will be a close one at very least.

I feel we can get Teddy's seat back, I really do. :)

[karynnj]

14. I agree - Kerry could have listed this as an exception when he made the

earlier commitment - saying that as it was a week away, it was too late to back out without disappointing those already paid up to go. It would be tacky to do this.

I seriously don't know why he didn't see this as a problem - making it worse to have made the commitment than to have stayed quiet. I do not blame the staff - both the commitment and the decision to do the fund raiser are definitely his decisions.

I agree with you Mass - a stupid, unnecessary, self inflicted wound. The only possible explanation is that maybe the BG overstated his commitment - but if this were the case, he should have corrected it. He will get flack for this and there are already flip flopping articles. I have no intention of defending him here. I really don't see a reasonable way to do this.

There is nothing wrong with fundraising, BUT it is a problem if you JUST said that you wouldn't - he needs to put out some explanation.