Jesse Helms (hard to believe he is still alive) spews about Kerry in book

[JI7]

seems he has some book out. he doesn't seem to like Jimmy Carter either. although he does like Bono from U2.

here is a part from the article on his book which mentions Carter and Kerry.

<Helms also puts to rest the rumor that he and President Carter were distantly related. “ careful tracing of the family tree,” he writes, revealed only a possibility that each of their ancestors were neighbors in rural North Carolina.

“It hasn’t always been clear which of us would have been less enthusiastic to see the other guy show up at a family reunion,” writes Helms, who retired after 30 years in the Senate and now lives with his wife, Dot, in Raleigh.

He’s no more kind toward Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), whom Helms found “to be a bit arrogant and overbearing, always looking for a television camera to preen in front of.”>

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/UndertheDome/081705.html

[TayTay]

1. Geez, being dissed by Jesse Helms is sort of a badge of honor

You have to be a really good Dem to get dissed by Jesse. Wow!

And he drags out the old 'Kerry is a publicity hound' meme. Not this year. I would love to see Kerry oln camera more.

[karynnj]

4. There are many Senators I've seen more of than Kerry

and I TRY to see Kerry. Right now, I think McCain and Biden have a tie for most likely to be on TV. I remember seeing more than I wanted of a certain NC Senator - maybe Helms was just jealous that the camera seemed to like Kerry better.

But if after more than a decade and a half in the Senate together on different sides more often than not, that's a pretty mild criticism. It will be interesting to use the index to see what else he has to say about Kerry. (It has to be nicer than his Clinton comments when they were both still in office.)

[Island Blue]

2. Jesse Helms - One of the truly embarrassing aspects

of being from North Carolina. :blush: (Although of those two quotes, I actually found the one about Jimmy Carter and the family reunion kind of funny.) And personally, I wish JK would find more television cameras to preen in front of!

[LittleClarkie]

3. He only did that because they wouldn't cover him

for the Iran Contra affair. If he could have gotten coverage, he wouldn't have had to dive at every live camera. Hence "Liveshot" was born.

[TayTay]

5. That phrase came from the sick pen of Howie Carr

Who is a columnist for the Boston Herald. Howie is a faker of the highest order. He pretends to be writing for the average man on the street in Boston and pretends his purpose is to expose the liberal Democrats as rich know-nothings who don't care about their constituencies. Carr is a mean-spirited bastard who exhibits all the signs of 'Rethug Disease,' in that he doesn't care if what he writes is true, as long as it is juicy and nasty and mean.

He has been after Kerry for years. Once you understand that he has a cruel vendetta in mind, his writing can actually be seen as kind of amusing, in a sick puppy sort of way. And you have to remember that Carr is a rich guy now and that I think he even moved out of the area, but continues to write as if he is a plumber from Eastie, just telling it like it is for the working man. (Ech! Phewey! Get me the barg bag. If he's a 'regular guy' then I'm the Queen of Sheba.)

And don't ever forget the jealousy factor. Kerry took out Carr's buddy Weld in that Senate race ten years or so ago. Carr is a vindictive little bastard and has never forgiven Kerry for his success, his smahts, his good looks or his knack for working hard and winning elections over Carr's favorites. Spite goes a long way in Rethug journalism. (And it's not like Kerry is the only pol who ever looked for a camera. I think all pols do that. It goes with the job description. You have to get the message out. These days, that means TV.)

[beachmom]

6. "Live Shot" is so old, so '80s

Even if you go along with the criticism, Kerry has completely mellowed since his first term as a Senator. I still remember the first time I noticed Kerry (maybe I'd seen him before on TV but this is my first memory). I was watching C-SPAN in 1992, and the press was waiting for John McCain and John Kerry to arrive back from Vietnam. I was more into McCain at the time (I was an Independent, guys, give me some slack), and I remember he came out to speak to the press and started by saying he didn't like going back there. And there was a tall, quiet gentleman standing beside McCain whose remarks I did not hear. I simply remember his presence. Not exactly Live Shot in my view. That's why he won the debates, by the way. It wasn't what he said, it was his presence when he WASN'T speaking that commanded your attention and frazzled Bush.

Completely unrelated to this post, but I have some "TV Personality" strategy for Kerry. This year, Jon Stewart has made fun of Kerry no less than 3 times that he's a complete bore, talks in sentences that no one can understand, lacks any emotion and is just all around "not cool". I say Kerry goes on The Daily Show and "plays" his role, and completely makes fun of himself, like maybe he brings out a health care bill and starts reading it to Jon, saying, "well, here's a good part, it's so exciting", etc. Because if you think about it, these criticisms Jon has of John are not fatal and lack substance. JK needs to be himself AND make fun of it. If he can get people to laugh with him instead of at him this would be a great step towards people starting to like him. And yes, this is stealing material from Bush's playbook, but it works (how he makes fun of his abuse of the English language, so people are laughing with him instead of at him). In a way, what has been happening to him on TV is a reflection of what happened to him throughout his school years. Back then, his response was to work harder, to achieve more, but people need to know that he doesn't take himself TOO seriously. But . . . the big but, is he should only do this if he is comfortable with it and believes it. If he is just going to go through the motions, then it will come across as "phoney", and it would be a disaster. What do you all think, or do you think I'm completely crazy? Oh and in case you're thinking that his character and the issues should speak for themselves, well we don't live in Germany, and Americans vote on the basis of personality more so than not. We may as well accept this and put as much energy into packaging and selling the product as we do in finding him or her.

[TayTay]

7. I completely agree with you

I wanted Kerry to go on Leno and do a comedy bit based on the 'botox' (for lack of a better phrase) question. (How come Kerry looks so different according to how the lights and camera are placed. That is a little odd.)

I think your Daily Show idea is great!

[Noisy Democrat]

9. The light and camera

You mean like the way some days he appears to have black hair, and other days silver? And his face completely changes? It's very surprising -- he looks almost like a different person on different days.

The Daily Show idea *is* great. :)

[TayTay]

10. Yeah. That is odd

I think he just has a face that is full of angles and sharp features. So the lighting just plays with that aspect and shows almost a different guy from different angles. It is odd though.

Leno used this to suggest surgical or medical cosmetic enhancements. Nonsense. We can show the same 'before and after' effect in the same C-Span hearing within the3 space of the same hour depending on where the camera angle is. (But it is odd. The photos do look like beofre and after pics. Lighting makes a big diff.)

[karynnj]

18. I can't think of anyone for whom it makes this much difference

But you are right - he can look very different on the same day in the Senate. Sometimes appearing decades younger than his age. His staff needs to analyze which lighting works and as much as possible use it when they control the lighting if he runs again.

[ginnyinWI]

19. also the tv makeup

makes a huge difference on him, because of the natural shadows around his eyes, etc. I think he looks better without it, and with the natural shadows, by the way. It gives him a wise, Lincolnesque look.

[karynnj]

13. I think you're right

The criticisms are not only non-fatal, but they're the kind of things that depend on how they are viewed. His answers are complex because the problems are complex. But, Kerry often can cut through the layers of complexity in a sharper cleaner way.

Your idea would be hillareous - especially if there were a way for Kerry to interpret himself - in a snarky way.

Part of Kerry's probem may be that he is more multi-faceted than most people and that all these parts are real and genuine.

-He is the intensely serious, competent, hard working Senator who works very hard to understand the details of important issues. The latter reflects not just his obvious intelligence but his love for learning and willingness to listen to experts and to regular people. (Bacause I hadn't watched routine Senate hearings before, it surprised me to see how he often brings far more to the table at the committee hearings than his peers.)


- But he is also a witty, positive person interested in everything in the world who really seems to enjoy his life - even when dealing with disappointments. (Teresa seems very like this too.) In this way, like many others, he is the anti-Bush - Bush seems to have no curiousity about anything, Kerry seems to find ways to make anything interesting. I loved the Butler picture and story of how Kerry, disturbed by the trash on the beach (Cape Cod ?) organized the kids (and grown-ups) in the vacationing group of friends to pick up the trash, make boats from it, and race them. That and several pictures of him playing games - he made up - with all the kids, show a very likable person. He also has one of the most natural grins I've ever seen on an adult - it's almost childlike.

- Third, he is an exceptional athlete for a 61 year old Senator

- It also seems there is a very real moral, spiritual depth that surfaces when Kerry speaks of doing (unpopular) things because they were the "right" thing to do, or his outrage at the cavalier way the Republicans would abandon their responsibilities to the veterans, or his attempt to use his power to help people.

-He also seems to be an extremely good loyal friend who in his private life cares for the people around him. Although people who were not his friend have said he was aloof or distant, there seemed no former friends who said anything negative about him. His relationship with his daughters and stepsons (and his ex-wife) seem almost too good to believe. He went to great lengths years after VN to prevent one of his crew from killing himself. The comment from one of his crew members that Kerry always came by to put a hand on his shoulder and see if he was ok - and that no other officer ever did that was one of the most moving comments they made. (What's funny is the guy who's boat Kerry took over, who was one of the few future SBVT who told Brinkley he didn't like Kerry, spoke of the enlisted men "I was their boss. I didn't fraternize with these guys, memorizing their mothers' birthday and crap like that."(pg 152) described Kerry as standoffish and condescending and was quoted as saying of Kerry "I didn't like anything about him" (pg 153) - From his own quotes, who is standoffish again??)

Many candidates have had different sides, with Kerry though there is a very unusual intensity to each sides. All are equally Kerry - but last year there were times the Republicans almost tried to use one part to deny another existed.

[blm]

14. Many of you have completely LOST the whole tact behind "Live Shot" attack.

During the BCCI investigation, the administration would put out story after sorry story excusing or denying whatever new fact was uncovered.

There were hardly any Democrats even supporting Kerry on the investigation, and the only way Kerry could try to set the facts straight as quickly as possible, was by tracking down a news crew.

If other Dems were involved and interested in getting the truth out about BCCI they could have shared that load. But, few would even go NEAR that case, leaving Kerry pretty much on his own.

The WH operatives also tried to diminish the import of Kerry's investigation by claiming it was just political grandstanding from someone who wanted attention...hence - Live shot became their derogatory attack nickname.

We all know how SERIOUS an issue BCCI was and still is. The Bush family are traitors to this country.

[TayTay]

15. Yup, that's true. He went through hell for that.

We talked about it here in this group during the initial talks about Bolton (who tried to cover up Iran-Contra for his bosses at Justice under Reagan.)

This is from an article in the BGlobe in 1992:

The 48-year-old senator is a prime subject for examination because of a matter of political kinetics: Kerry is on a roll. Few of his colleagues in the Senate or the House of Representatives had a year such as Kerry did in 1991. Like Richard M. Nixon and John F. Kennedy before him, Kerry has spent his time in Washington wielding Senate investigatory powers to paint villainous caricatures of ignoble opponents, catching the public eye in the process. Kennedy's targets were Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters; Nixon's target was the specter of communist subversion as personified by Alger Hiss. In March 1987 Kerry inherited the chair of a new Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations, its staff, and an agenda -- priceless assets for a freshman legislator, particularly when mixed with Kerry's knack for sensing a gestating issue.

Months before the Iran-contra scandal made headlines, Kerry was investigating Lt. Col. Oliver North. Long before the Justice Department indicted Manuel Noriega, Kerry's little subcommittee had begun its own investigation into the Panamanian strongman and other alleged drug-runners. A witness' comment in the Noriega hearings put Kerry and Blum on the case of money-laundering at BCCI -- at a moment when the Justice Department seemed happy to let the issue rest. Months before the POW-MIA issue was invigorated by last summer's media excess, Kerry had embarked on a lone pilgrimage to Vietnam, prodding its leaders to track down missing servicemen and thus remove the last major obstacle to normalized relations. The media may have missed it, but Washington insiders took note when former assistant secretary of state Elliott Abrams and ex-CIA chieftain Alan Fiers were convicted of lying to Congress last year about their role in Iran-contra. Clair George, another former CIA operative, was indicted on the same charge. All three were prosecuted for the dissembling they did while squirming through a Senate hearing in 1987 under the questioning of that former Middlesex County prosecutor, John Kerry.

Where are they now: Elliot Abrams - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams

Or see The Nation article: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040315&c=2&s=corn

We can go over all of that again, but some of it is so depressing. That staff seems to have suffered a lot from these investigations and got very little credit for it. It was amazing and outstanding work and it got buried by the likes of the WaPo and the NYTimes. (But I'm not bitter.)

[karynnj]

16. Kerry went to VN even before the committee

to try to get the government to track down the missing servicemen? I never heard this,if he was such a good grandstander wouldn't this have been on every news show - or shouldn't he have taken someone along to videotape him challanging the Vietnamese? Even though going alone and quietly speaking might have been more effective.

On the Iran Contra stuff, the Senators who were on the hearings WERE quilty of grandstanding - which ended in the result of making North a hero and preventing trials because of the congressional immunity given. Kerry's careful work got indictments. It seems the grandstanding charge against Kerry was to discredit his good work.

[TayTay]

17. AGain, this goes back to bad relations with the press

which is ironic since he was supposed to have courted PR and arrrrrggghhhh. I give up.

Oh hell. Read this. It is off-[topic, sort of, but it does go into who was in bed with the press and who wasn't. http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/crack4.html Bastards.

[karynnj]

20. Some of those reporters sound kind of familiar

Evan Thomas - the same one who led the effort to write Newsweek's book on 2004? This is so very unfair, but who would believe that Harvard educated newsmen worked against a liberal Democrat.

The odd thing with Weld is that he seemed so nice in the St Patrick's Day thing you posted - I am impressed that so many of you MA people saw through the facade and kept Kerry. Although he might have been a "nice" guy to have a beer with, the idea that he was willing to increase cheap cocaine to protect a rogue White House operation would make it impossible for me to vote for him as dog catcher. (I have a younger sister who in the late 80s/ early 90s taught many crack babies in first/second grade in an urban area near the suburb we grew up in. Her stories were were heartbreaking.)
I also now see why many of you MA people were the first to consider a second Kerry run as possible.

His entire career should have been impossible. You once asked a hypothetical question of what secret information Kerry would want to see first if he would have gotten the Presidency - that very question might be what makes a mockery of the Deaniacs whine that Kerry was the DLC/DNC candidate.

[TayTay]

21. Ain't it funny how all the folks are still around and

still saying the same things about Kerry? I sometimes wish he was better with the press and coddled them more, but then I remember that it just ain't in 'em. (He expects that people in those jobs have integrity and a modicum of fairness. Hell, they should have this.)

The Globe picked it's favorites. I think it showed in their coverage of KErry and in their book last year. They have always respected Kerry and respected his work. But they never really understood or liked the guy. Sigh! That showed in their work too.

Weld was very well liked in the state. But he was a goofball sometimes. His debates with Kerry were odd in that he was either foaming at the mouth aggressive or mean or just not senatorial. (Even the Herald, at one point said that they were irritated when Weld, in a foaming at the mouth moment in the debate interrupted The Senator, who was, ahm, senatorial and obviously a classy guy who knew what he was talking about. Loved that one.) Given the choice, we kept the goofball at home. (Though he kind of imploded after the loss in '96. Now he wants to run for NY Gov. Ahm, well, he can try.)

And yes, Kerry is not a guy who gives up easily. If he did, he wouldn't be the Junior Senator from MA. He earned that job. I think he worked for it and got it by dint of persuading working class MA that he represents them. And so it goes.

[karynnj]

22. Interesting,

It does create an interesting problem - The press has known Kerry since he was in his twenties. For liberal reporters and columnists, he has consistently done things they wanted done. Yet they still are willing to repeat the most vacuous of the RW characterizations.

I wonder if part of the problem is Kerry's unwavering honesty. This honesty seems to extend to not lying to himself. Good reporters have to feel that finding and exposing the truth on issues is their purpose. But, in the real world they find that the access needed to get a story may be obtained only as a favor from someone. Whether it was part of a deal or not, the reporter may then show that person in a more favorable light. It helps your job, it makes you part of THE crowd - it would be hard not to be pulled in.

Could it be that part of their discomfort with Kerry, is that they do see the integrity and honesty that they once valued but let slip? Think of the picture Little Clarkie has as her signature - looking into those eyes, could be tough. Also last year, there was the additional element that reporters knew they would be "punished" if they were negative about Bush and he won. Do you think any reporter would have worried about Kerry being as vindictive?

[TayTay]

23. No, it's not a Democratic trait

The press is caught in a Catch-22 of their own making. The newsrooms used to be filled with the fabled 'ink-stained wretches' who were primarily working class people. This is no longer true. The press is now a part of the professional classes and many members of the Club are very well paid and have access to the highest levels of government. They are out of touch with issues that reflect the will of ordinary, making the average wage, Americans. They have been in this weird spiral where they acknowledge that they are personally liberal, but bend-over-backward not to show it. So we get an allegedly liberal press that is much harder on libs than on the Rethugs. Weird. The press can no longer look people like Kerry or Cindy Sheehan in the eye because they have no idea who is looking back at them. Passion is looked down on and issues are for those weirdo protesters. They have lost the ability to discuss real passionate politics because it doesn't come out of a briefing book. The press worships at a strange altar that treats politics as something that can quantified in a spreadsheet, processed through a Powerpoint presentation and then, without emotion or passion, dissected in bloodless discussions. How sad.

And Dems have different governing styles. The Rethugs are fond of a corporate style of governing where there is a strict hierarchical order and discipline is enforced in a top-down way. Dems don't govern this way. Clinton had a much less hierarchical style and decision making was much more organic and diffused. Each style has it's adherents and detractors. The press usually beats Dems over the head for their style because it looks like chaos, but it isn't. I have worked for companies with each style and I much prefer the latter. But the press can make it seem like this style is undisciplined and lacks the 'big stick' approach to whack those who don't follow the script exactly. The liberal press actually loves the hard, corporate tactics of the Rethugs. They love the stories that talk about people being tossed or punished because they voice their own opinions. They actually love the message discipline of the Thugs. Go figure. (And they are liberals? Yup, but liberals with sadistic streaks, I think.)

[karynnj]

24. Interesting

But it does make you question if they really are liberal. I suspect that many may be liberals only on the hot button social issues. The reason for this thought is that although the last 2 decades enormously increased the disparity between the rich and the poor, but very few columnists or reporters have written much about it. (Krugman and Herbert at the NYT have) How could they not see that Bush wants to cut the safety net, while Kerry wanted to insure people and to develop programs to help them inprove their lives? Because things have moved so far to the right, these issues really are black and white.

Why to they like McCain so much? He seems less corporate than some Democrats - Clinton? Is it like the interest they had in Dean - then as he became a possiblity the positive stories would be followed two months later - with ones saying can we afford such a hot head? In 2000, he imploded on his own after Bush attacks, for which the Press never held Bush in account for.

Can any Democrat impress them? Could Kerry reach them while remaining who he is?

[TayTay]

25. I think they are only 'easy liberals' too!

They are in the professional class and have benefited fromn Bush's tax cuts. They live in the tony suburbs or in exclusive neighborhoods. The only contact they have with working people are at the supermarket or the car repair shop. The disconnect is nearly total. I don't see it getting better any time soon. The cynicism about Dems is built in and has been growing ever since Reagan. (And the RW has been very successful at convincing the media that they are biased in favor of Dems. Which they are not. The media is also dumb as a bag of rocks when it comes to fairness. They refuse to do their job and believe that if they put two opposing views on display that this is fairness. It is also not reporting and not truth-finding, it is a blank display of nothingness.)

We have a lot of 'easy liberals' in Massachusetts. They believe in Gay Marriage, cuz it doesn't cost anything and they went to school or work with gay people. The religious or cultural wars are a blur and have no ressonance with them. The issues that concern working america, including health care and medicare and medicaid are just beyond their actual experience. It is just recently with so many media jobs being outsourced that the media is starting to pay attention to this issue (cuz it up and bit them in the ass.)

I am cynical about anything changing yet. The economics of the news business are just against it. Dems are going to have to succeed without them.

[CBHagman]

8. The key phrase in your post...

"Spite goes a long way in Rethug journalism."

It also seems to be the driving force behind a great deal of policy. Look, for example, at the Bush White House (or, as I privately say, the Shite House, as in the Irish expression "shite"). When you think of the throngs of pundits and politicians who have dominated the airwaves and often the Capitol, there doesn't seem to be a single Happy Warrior among them. They hold grudges, never miss a chance to make a cheap shot, appear damnably ungrateful for any good fortune (riches, power, security) that comses their way, and -- and this is the key thing -- are miserable, sour people.

This too shall pass. This too shall pass. This too shall pass.

[beachmom]

11. Unlike the botox thing though, the stiff bore thing has plagued him

forever. It shouldn't be a one time thing on one show. He should be willing to make fun of himself and the "professorial tone" on command when it's appropriate. His daughters could help, which they already have. They told stories about asking him about sex, and his face turning 5 shades of bright red. They pretty much have said that he's kinda dorky. So GO WITH IT!!!! The message could be, yes I sometimes take myself too seriously and get caught up in the wonkiness of it all, but it's only because the ISSUES are so serious. Like health care for kids who have none. What I think will make this work is because there indeed is truth in this. He really does get wordy, and he shouldn't change who he is. He should be . . . John Kerry AND be okay with it. When I was watching that Political Tourist film, Polosi's daughter asked him to describe John Kerry in one word and he said "fun". Hell, even I rolled my eyes at that remark. Look, I'm not debating that he doesn't go out there and have his share of fun, but that's only AFTER working hard in the Senate or on the campaign trail. In general, we don't see him as fun, so his remark comes across as the dreaded "phoney", trying to be something you are not. Once he goes with the fact that he likes being a politician more than anything else, then we can start seeing that he's also someone who likes to have fun. With Pelosi, his answer should have been something like "look I wish I could describe things in just one word but I can't! I am a progressive who wants to make people's lives better. And I've wanted to do that since I was a kid. And that's what I have spent most of my life doing. Call me old fashioned or hopelessly idealistic, but that's who I am". So keep those damned focus group political consultants away from him, trying to make him into something that he is not.

[TayTay]

12. That one always puzzled me.

When my father passed away, I had clingy relatives who hovered around me waiting for me to fall apart and collapse in some sort of emotional heap. There is no friggin way I would give these emotional vultures the satisfactions of seeing that. So I 'sucked it up' and was 'distant' during the wake and funeral. Maybe this is a New England trait, but I found it rather easy to be ahm, reserved (gulp) on the outside and wait until I was in private or with relatives I liked to express strong emotion. I am a fairly warm person, but I'm not so warm that my guts spill out on the street every time something happens. You suck it up and play your cards close to your vest. Otherwise, you risk giving away the store for nothing.

I don't trust people who express everything in public. I strikes me as phony. Again, I suspect a regionalism, but I could be wrong. (Gee, I don't think I'll get invited to appear on the TV Jerry Springer Show. They wouldn't get anything out of me.)