An article about Kerry's Brown speech in a local Providence paper

[beachmom]

I just found this. The article starts out well, but there are parts that I'm not sure about, especially about whether he said Bush was an idiot or not. It struck me as a gotcha moment. Check it out and see what you think. Here's the link:

http://www.projo.com/news/mcharlesbakst/projo_20050925_bakstcol.2755001.html


This is how it starts:

When Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, ripped George Bush apart in a blistering speech at Brown University on Monday, students loved it and I found it a welcome thunderclap.

Kerry seized on Mr. Bush's Hurricane Katrina performance as fresh, illuminating evidence of an incompetent administration that has celebrated politics and spin while ignoring expert advice, miring the country in war, turning its back on problems of poverty and class, and favoring the rich.

Kerry was harsher and more focused than at any time I can remember from the last campaign, and you had to wonder what it might mean for a possible repeat bid in 2008. But, in any case, it was a speech in tune with the moment.

Kerry said in a Tuesday telephone interview that the moment demanded a tough speech, even though his concession remarks last fall called for national healing.

"It's a time to get this country on the right track," Kerry told me.

He said he held out his hand after the election but "never -- not once" heard back from the White House on following through on unity.

Now, he said, "It would be irresponsible of me to be silent."

[kerrygoddess]

1. I think he was trying to catch Kerry off guard...

I posted about it... all in all a good review, I felt - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=682

[TayTay]

2. I thought it was a good article too!

The writer is the political writer for his newspaper, so some gotchas and odd questions are just part of the job.

I thought that the analysis of the 2004 race was dead-on. It did become a race about security and about people just not being pushed enough to make the switch from * to Kerry. (Almost, but not quite there in late 2004.) I also think Kerry is right when he says that times have changed in a year and that Katrina ripped the cover off the * Admin and showed them for the incompetents they have always been.

I also think it's very good that Kerry is focusing on 2006. I understand that he helped convince Claire McCaskill to run against Talent in Missouri. That could be a great race. Kerry has come out in favor of Casey in PA and sent out fundraising letters for him. We do need to focus exclusively on these races and then see what happens after that. I think Kerry is viable, particularly if he continues to advocate strongly in favor of the domestic programs he has championed in the past. (Just like Sen. Kerry to be prescient again, LOL.)

I thought there was some silly snark in the article. (Who cares about the idiot remark. This guy really sourced out a rather meaningless remark. I wonder why?) It was nice to read about the succesful fundraiser for the PAC. ANd I just loved the end of the article wherein Sen. Kerry asks to just go out for a beer. Gawd, he gives a barnburner of a speech and then has to attend a fundriaser later on that evening and in-between, just wants to go out and gab and get a brew. Nice!

[karynnj]

3. I like that he questioned the newsweek story

It was one of the things that didn't run true in the slam Newsweek magazine summary. The same line was also attributed to Gore. The author makes the point that it was not clear that Kerry was losing at that point - so a comment like that seems extremely unlikely. (The fact that Kerry didn't contest it is silly. I doubt he contested every thing he thought untrue.) Their version of the McCain story also seemed unlikely.

Newsweek sure has a very weird history with Kerry. Weren't they the magazine that printed the fake POW in captivity picture that led to the POW/MIA investigation (as well as much additional pain to MIA families.) Kerry's commission proved it a fake. They also called him a randy conspiracy nut because of his work investigating the contras. They were also one of the few to not be very impressed in the 70s. For, one of the more leftish magazines, they really didn't go out of their way to help Kerry.

I loved the ending with the beer and saying he had a good time.

[TayTay]

4. Some of this is just fascinating stuff.

Politics is the weirdest thing sometimes. It all depends on perception. Kerry is viable if enough people think he is viable. What people? Is it the pundit class who seem to be having a good time speculating on whether or not he can run again? Is it the donors who provide the money that attracks the pundits who then decide if a person is viable if they are still raising money? Is it the rank-and-file Dems who are not really paying attention at the moment. (Presidential contests three years out are full of meaningless specualtion. A ton of things will happen between now and Nov 2006 that will affect this race and the people who eventually run in it. Any current pollss are just beauty contests.)

I think the most important thing is when a candidate has an event and people turn out. Karynnj's post from two weeks ago is really interesting because over 1,000 people, if you add up all the rallies in NJ, turned up to see Kerry stump for Corzine. Does that make for viablility? Who knows at this point?

[karynnj]

8. It is interesting

It is interesting watching the political pundits attempt to make it conventional wisdom that their favorites are the inevitable candidates. This Sunday, Chris Matthews postulated that election winners were often those who don't have a fatal flaw the last President had (Giving the example of Bush bringing "decency" back to the White House :( (even playing 2000 tape to show Bush talking about this), honest, moral Carter after Nixon's dishonesty etc). With this lead up, he talked about needing an honest, non-corrupt leader next time. The commenters all ended up with Guilliani and McCain (no mention of the first name that would come to mind here - who in reality easily beats both of them on both dimensions.), except for Klein who pushed Hillary as being different than Bush (she is a woman, he is a man) In fact, the only Kerry mention was that Norah O'donnell demurred that she still thought it had to do with personalities and last year, Kerry couldn't connect. (Guilliani really is incredibly arrogant)

Clearly, Clinton is perceived to be a prohibitive favorite - but unlike any other candidate, no one says why, just that she has star power. Or is married to someone who does. She is an impressive speaker, competent and smart - but using Matthews' premise, she is not a good candidate if corruption is the issue, because all the Clinton stuff will be rehashed. She is a saint compared to Bush and nothing was proven on Whitewater, but it's to be seen if she'll be forgiven for some things that were real as McCain always is.

The Stephanopolis interview of McCain was an example of the press fawning all over him. He let McCain talk about the sacrifices (cutting budgets) that need to be made to pay for the hurricane damage. But he never asked him whether the Bush tax cuts should be rolled back or at least not made permanent. He also talked with McCain about his (and Warner's) amendment to say we will obey international law on prisoner treatment and will put it into the codes for the military services. Again, no question of his silence pre- Nov,2004, his vote for Gonzales, or why we need an amendment to require what should have always been the case. Just Praise. (No Fair!!! Why can't Kerry get any press groupies like McCain.)

I think Kerry is in a very interesting position. I like that he is overtly saying that he is reminded of how he felt when he came back from Vietnam and that to not speak out now would be irresponsible. If he didn't speak out, I think he would lose any chance of being considered and more importantly judging from those comments - he would not be doing what he thinks is right.

But, he might in one sense, be in the position he described in 1971 of having many important things he has to do now that might make him unable to make enough people happy. The difference is that he now has a Senate seat and years of experience, so he might be able to walk that tight rope. In reality, he had the skill to do this in his youth - he did go on become Senator and, if the times were slightly different or the election process more honest, he would be President now.

Another think to consider with Kerry's viability is that he may be positioning himself to be a favorite of a significant part of the active Democrats. If NJ (and possibly VA)is being used to test on how to help the local parties, he will have been instrumental in pushing people into volunteering to help other candidates. Those motivated by him are clearly impressed with his vision and him. These people, by 2008, will have had the experience of actually working for candidates and will be known by the other Democrats. This in addition obviously to at least some portion of his primary organization in 2004. The descriptions of Iowa actually kind of show this same idea back then and some of the MA stories suggest that worked for him in his early MA races.

If in 2007, Kerry signals he wants to run, I would imagine that a good percent of these people will rally to his side. He will have at the local level, many people who are already experienced and who likely have read his emails and press releases for 4 years - an unheard of level of knowledge. One of my difficulties in calling for Corzine the first day was there were issues where I knew little beyond the script - not good when you paraphrase the script and someone wants to know more. With Kerry, that wouldn't be the problem. (with Corzine and the Assembly candidates, I studied the web sites)

If he doesn't run or win, the expansion of the number of active volunteers may be his real legacy to the Democratic party. To my knowledge, neither Clinton or Gore did anything of this sort to re-establish the party from 2000 till today. Even in terms of form letters, I think I got more letters to fund Bill's library than to support the DNC and I get lots of Hillary disingenuous surveys, where the info is probably not even tabulated. It may be that I simply like Kerry better, but his letters which explain an issue he is working on, why it's important, how readers can help (petitions, calling reps etc)and then discreetly ask for a contribution at the bottom are more likely to get me to contribute. The letters respect the intelligence of the readers. If Kerry carries through and does this with his efforts and PAC, his support among state and local level politicians may be the surprise of 2008. (Not to mention local reporters are not as jaded.)

[TayTay]

10. Nice post

I agree with you. The emphasis on the grassroots and getting more people involved in the democratic process is a beautiful and fitting legacy, no matter what happens going forward. (Course, I am looking for more LOL!)

Nice post. I enjoyed reading this.

[beachmom]

5. Hey, KG, I normally check your blog first, but I guess I didn't do that

yesterday. I'll check out what you guys have to say after I'm done here. Glad to hear that you think it was overall positive. The whole Bush is an idiot stuff struck me as a mini-Cambodia. And once again, Jon Stewart pops in my head interviewing Kerry:

"Do you or do you not think the president is an idiot!!!! Answer me and don't dodge the question!!"

It struck me as silly, but trying to infer that Kerry is dishonest. That is what annoyed me. But you're right, it's not that big a deal.

[karynnj]

6. It's actually got an even weirder dynamic

The press pushes "Is he an idiot"?, Kerry has always answered in roughly the same way, "No, but ...." , to explain that he is not doing a good job. The press clearly ASSUMES that Kerry thinks Bush is an idiot. So, given that assumption, they think they are forcing Kerry to evade the question or say Bush is an idiot - in either case they think they have him.

Kerry did say they were crooks and liars and didn't take it back. Kerry here said he doesn't THINK he said it, the reporter stands by her (undisclosed) source. It is as likely that the insider was projecting her/his view onto Kerry and that Kerry may well have, in private, said he can't believe the race was close given all Bush's screw ups - which is not the same as Bush is an idiot. From all the things written on Kerry, it would seem he would be more likely to question Bush's honesty, integrity, or actions rather than his intelligence. (He never backed away from having said that Bush was still like the Bush he saw at Yale. Bush claimed he never met or knew of Kerry then. Bush was either lying or his drinking affected his memory.)

The timing of it also makes it less likely to be true, Kerry would have only recently clinched the primaries, four months after being declared politically dead by every pundit and polling lower than Al Sharpton - he was ecstatic in his victory speeches and likely in private too. This story would have been more believable if they said ii was September.

The story seemed to be there just to solidify the "story" of the election as Kerry being arrogant, cold, and unable to connect which they repeat as gospel to this day. (If a magic genie would have let people see him up close for even 2-3 minutes interacting with people, this image would have died.) What's strange is that if it were true they would have a string of examples use as proof - because Kerry was under a microscope for over half a year. The closest was Kerry cursing out the SS guy who collided with him while skiing. The green tea story they used to try to show this, doesn't- even Crowley didn't say he was rude to the waitress. The current Georgetown story doesn't either - he didn't demand the TV be turned off, make nasty comments, or throw a shoe at the TV. He just ate his dinner.

Someone posted that a weird survey had asked if Bush or Kerry would be likely to stop to help a motorist in distress and people actually thought Bush was the more likely. This AFTER they knew that Kerry had risked his life to save Rasmann. Compare Karen Hughes' obvious derision of Kerry's act of saving his daughters' hamster to Kerry's action itself. He acted out of compassion to spare his daughters pain. (We had a hamster, buried in the backyard after a very long service led by 3 very sad girls) Hughes, who knows Bush as well as anyone was probably right, whether the Bush girls had a hamster or not, they wouldn't have looked to their dad to save him. Too bad people didn't see that the same lack of caring extended to people.

[beachmom]

7. I can't believe that survey about who would stop at the side of the road

to help a motorist!!!! Obviously, we (I am blaming myself just as much as anyone else) didn't do a good enough job getting the truth out there. Like how Kerry saved that Republican senator from Oklahoma who was choking on an apple. I mean, he got off the elevator and jumped into action. Everyone else was just sitting there, not knowing what to do. And he SAVED the guy's life!!!!

There is no doubt in my mind, that if I had to choose between one of them to be with me, say in a hostage situation or if my health were in jeopardy, Kerry is probably the #1 politician for me (okay, I'll take Frist if I'm having a heart attack, but you get my drift) I would want there. His history shows that in a crisis, Kerry thinks fast, remains calm, and takes risks for the best possible outcome. Period. The fact that people don't know this is our fault. We Dems didn't defend our man enough last year. And WHOEVER gets the nomination in '08 -- well, I'm going to study up on that person, and boil it down to 5 great things about them, plus a story that illustrates what they are made of. And, yes, if it's Hillary, I will do that for her, too.

[karynnj]

9. I think you are right that we need to defend the candidate

Both in terms of fighting lies, but as you suggest in getting out the positives. Kerry has talked about people needing to find the truth and defend (Corzine, in our case) from the lies likely to come by talking to friends and neighbors. He then cited a lot of positives - but didn't say we should repeat those too.

The degree to which the media was not on our side last year was probably unprecedented - possibly because of the media consolidation that occurred in the 90s or maybe it was specific to Kerry - he has fought corruption that the press as well as the government wanted swept under the rug. No matter which, we need to act as if they will be equally unfair next year.

The hard thing is how to get that out against the media. In a sense through his email list (and presumably that of whoever the candidate is), Kerry is building a real world Democratic Underground (very unlike the virtual one.) where information can be passed and then sent out.

The thing that's regrettable is we had a candidate whose life story lends itself to an epic tale. Real people can't live up to imaginary heroes, but Kerry comes closer than most. He almost has too many heroic things in his past, he's eloquent, articulate, personable and funny. He should have been incrediblely easy to defend. I really don't get how McCain's hostage story is more compelling than Kerry's genuine heroism in the war, against the war, against the criminals, against the contras, and against the terrorists (in BCCI). McCain's heroism rests on one decision - not to confess when offered initially the option to go home (dishonored). Kerry's has been a cause for a lifetime.