Do any of my fellow long term JK supporters buy into the -Kerry =Brown theory?

[wisteria]

Last edited Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:59 PM - Edit history (1)

It seems so implausable to me that these Senators, who oppose Ms. Rice, would be so partisian, and so devious as to oppose Rice so that Kerry becomes SOS and they gain a Republican seat by running Brown again in Mass? This entire consiracy theory is developing into hysteria.
First, most of these Senators are regarded as moderates and never have been known to be so strongly partisan, and the idea that they would do this to gain one seat- that does not even gain them a majority- seems way over the top.
Even if you want to believe that they like and respect Senator Kerry and believe he is the best person for this post. the very idea that they would go out of their way to help him gain this post seems unbelievable. Yet, smart people like Maddow are actually pushing the Brown theory.

[wisteria]

2. Are you a long term Kerry supporter?

I was directing this question to those who regularly post in the John Kerry forum.

[wisteria]

6. Hey bub, I have been around this forum since 2004, and I don't recall you ever posting here.

And, I answered your Clinton question in another post. All you are suggesting is speculation. I can speculate that Mass. is readly for Brown-if he choses to run again, and will have an very viable candidate ready and willing to take on this phony.

[Mass]

15. Incoherent at best.

I still cannot figure what Hillary has to do with that? (and please, do not explain).

Sorry, what is happening to Rice is unfair, but that has nothing to do with Kerry. Why would he announce his support for Rice BEFORE Obama names her? Who are you to know Obama is not the one who asked him to stay mum? Personally, I will not speculate. President Obama deserves his pick, and he could make it right now. That would solve this idiotic attacks both on Rice and among Dems about something that is not worth it.

[blm]

17. You're absurd - Rice is a neocon and SHOULDN'T be in charge of State, just like HRC should NOT have

been tapped for SoS.

You need to reach for whatever you can, dontcha?

[blm]

21. BS - those stories are planted against Kerry. Kerry bullying for a position is exactly UNLIKE Kerry.

But, I'm not surprised you would attempt to further that impression here or on any other Dem forum.

Go back to neoconland where deceit and rumormongering gets you what you want.

[blm]

24. Go away - you're showing your comfort with RW spin.

.

[blm]

27. You're being absurd, yet again. You are IN the John Kerry group. You know you don't belong here.

None of us are buying into your posts or your use of RW spin.

[MH1]

39. Users can't "move" threads. This thread was always in the John Kerry group.

Maybe you didn't notice, but you've been informed now.

You should not continue to post in this group (including this thread), as you have already posted at least one debunked conspiracy theory that trashes John Kerry. You may be welcome in other areas of DU, but posters who trash John Kerry are not welcome in this group.

Just a heads up.

[wisteria]

52. +1 n/t

[wisteria]

51. I have no problem with women in positions for which they are the most qualified.

I believe in the best, well rounded person getting a position-sex and race doesn't play into this for me.

[karynnj]

56. Look NO ONE here said anything about Albright or Reno

Most of us have praised Rice - and most, but not all, of us prefer Kerry get SOS. Saying that does NOT mean that we are saying anything the least bit negative about Dr Rice. (In fact, YOU go beyond preferring Rice to calling Senator Kerry a "bully", when in fact, the article in the OP describes almost the opposite - someone who absolutely hates the way this process is done.

[wisteria]

32. You are absurd.

Go spread your tin foil hat theories on a Rice blog.

[karynnj]

55. Why is it bullying NOT to take your name out of consideration?

I think Clinton has done a good job running the state department, but I really do not see the case to be made for her being the greatest SOS ever.

[karynnj]

54. Kerry is "bullying"???? Kerry has said NOTHING

other than to have condemned the original attack on Rice and praised her for the good work she has done.

PS Impeachment is done in the House with a majority vote. The Senate then tries the case and to remove the President they need 2/3 rds of the Senate to do so. How are Kerry and McCain creating any situation leading to that?

I know you are an avid Clinton fan, but this has nothing to do about her.

[robinlynne]

77. whoah. Obama REMOVED Elizabeth Warren! SHe is in the Senate becuase of the voters.

in spite of Obama, not because of Obama.

[karynnj]

53. So many silly ideas

1) This is NOT swiftboating. The only thing they are accusing her of is based on what she said on TV - in public. The administration has made it clear that she repeated what she was told - using what the CIA gave her. The difference between this and the lies of the SBVT are MAJOR - in that those accusations were lies about things that happened 35 years before - generated to destroy Kerry's attempt to be President.

2) There is nothing definite about a Hillary run and, more importantly, if you wanted a quick confirmation - choose Kerry to replace her as no one is suggesting that could be difficult. I doubt Hillary Clinton thinks Saul Alinsky was her mentor.

3) No one has suggested that Kerry replace Reid as Majority leader. The senior Democratic Senator is not the majority leader, but the one there the longest. (Do you think that Strom Thurmond was powerful when he was wheeled in ... and was the senior Republican?)

4) Given that you think there will be 8 years of President Hillary, where is that President Boehner, who no one I have ever seen has ever suggested he would either run or win a nomination, coming from.

5) I am sure that AS SOON AS OBAMA NOMINATES ANYONE (if it is not Kerry), he will endorse her or him.

[JDPriestly]

78. I didn't know there was an official John Kerry board, but

I worked extremely hard for Kerry in 2004.

Unless the Democratic governor has the authority to name a very strong replacement for Kerry very soon, I think Kerry should stay in the Senate.

He does such a good job there. We really need him there. He is very calm and very diplomatic, traits that would be great in the State Department, but sometimes he is too passive, and that could be a problem.

I felt he was too passive in 2004, too slow to respond to the crazy criticisms from the right. He wasn't as bad as Dukakis, but Kerry just did not fight hard enough.

Hillary Clinton is quite a fighter -- too much of a fighter on occasion -- but we need someone who is strong in the State Department. I really like Kerry, but I'm not sure he is fighter enough for the State Department.

When he was young, he found the courage to stand strongly for what was right even when he was surrounded by dark forces that hated him. But in recent years, I have not seen that strength. That is especially true in Ohio after the election in 2004.

[JDPriestly]

87. Thank you. Great explanation. Kerry should stay in the Senate

at all costs.

[karynnj]

9. As Rice's supporters say, the decision is Obama's

The fact is that HRC being President in 2016 may not happen - she has said she is not running. In addition, I doubt she would nominate Kerry. (In fact, your argument makes more sense for Rice as she is in her 50s.) You do know that Kerry turns 69 this year.

Please stop saying she is "being lynched" - the attack is nowhere near that extreme and she has a ton of support.

[karynnj]

8. I agree that the attacks are unfair and I believe they intend to attack HRC and PO too

I would prefer not to use the word lynch. This is an attack on something she did and she and the President have responded. Their charge is essentially that she lied on a talk show. The CIA and the President have been clear that what she said in the talking points.

I understand the frustration here and it should not happen, but this does not sink to the level of the charges Bush used against either McCain or Kerry - and it is not whispered but accusations made in the open with Rice getting enormous backing on her side from the administration.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

4. Actually, I think they are daring the president to nominate her

because they really, really want her. She owns quite a bit of stock in Canadian oil fields and the company building the Keystone pipeline.

[karynnj]

57. In fairness to her, questions should be asked about this

1) The stocks may be her husbands'
2) She may own mutual stocks which made the investment
3) She may have someone manage her stocks to keep them independent from her active management.

The question might be resolved with an agreement to devest these stocks if she becomes SOS or to have a blind trust that would handle all her stock. The other possibility is to recluse herself from pipeline decisions.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

63. Blind Trusts are nonsense....

everyone knows what is in their blind trust. Her husband's assets are hers as well, do you really think she would purposely devalue those assets? If she owns mutual funds which hold those stocks, do you honestly believe she will want to see the value of those funds diminish? What difference does it make as to who 'manages' her portfolio? The profits and losses are still hers to take. Hank Paulson divested all of his Goldman Sachs stock before becoming the Treasury Secretary, are you going to tell me you believe he had no favorable feelings for GS?

I think the only solution would be to remove the decision from the purview of the State Department and place it within that of the EPA....That, of course, will make a bunch of heads explode.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

5. Smart does not equal infallible.

[karynnj]

7. No

McCain listed Kerry as a fp Democrat he respected as early as 2000. McCain in his book on the Senate years praised Kerry's diplomatic work with Vietnam getting them to agree to conditions he thought would have been impossible. Not to mention he praised Kerry for the support Kerry gave him personally when he was attacked. I could find links where nearly every Republican - before SOS was an issue and Brown a possibility for the seat - praised Kerry effusively. Corker and Lugar did in committee after Kerry was with Kharzi and for his work on START. Graham was immensely impressed with Kerry on climate change - especially when he called Pickens because it could possibly help the bill. Both Collins and Snowe have praised Kerry on legislation they did jointly. Not to mention, it is almost a cliche that the Senate easily confirms their own - they know them as people as well as officials.

Therefore, I think their praise is honest. However, I do not doubt that they would love to win another seat and see it as possible. It doesn't matter that I think it unlikely as he couldn't run on his record and a second nasty election will be a loss. They could be right and me wrong.

I also suspect that they know Kerry is a strong voice in the Senate and on partisan issues, he is calmly, articulately and persuasively arguing against them.

Edited to add that Rachel Maddow is being ridiculous (and she is smarter than that) to suggest that the same 3 Senators who harassed Rice campaigned for Brown. There were other Senators who campaigned for Brown - two I am near certain of are Snowe and Rubio, who have been pretty quiet.

[wisteria]

10. Thanks, I always appreciate your intelligent replies. n/t

[blm]

18. I disagree - McCain and Clinton tag teamed against Kerry in the past. The old McCain died long ago.

This whole pushing Kerry from every one of these evil beings is to assure Obama is cornered into choosing Rice over Kerry. It reeks of the disinformation campaign used against Kerry a number of times by Clintonites.

[Blaukraut]

11. No. Their strategy is divide and conquer.

The Republicans know damn well that their attacks on Susan Rice are causing the Democrats to circle the wagons around her. Throw in overt praise of John Kerry, and the immediate reaction will be exactly what it is right now: The Democrats are suspicious of the Repubs' motives and will instinctively NOT sour on Kerry as SoS because they think that the Republicans' giddiness about him can only mean that they're up to no good.

[Mass]

12. No, I do not think this is what is at stake.

Last edited Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Now, you have to remember these senators who are getting crazy after Rice are neo-cons, and they disapprove Obama's foreign policy and have wanted a debate for a long time. They had hoped this debate to happen during the election debate and it was moderate Romney who showed up.

So, they want a debate and they want a debate with a member of the Obama administration, and Kerry is not that. Hence the pushing of Rice (they had to foresee that the attacks on Rice would circle the wagons around her, they are not that stupid), in order to transform the SoS nomination hearings in an attack on Obama's foreign policy. I honestly think this is what is at play here.

[ginnyinWI]

13. yeah they are being surprisingly shrill--even for them

Those two attack dogs, I mean--wow. I have not seen such a strenuous objection to a not-even-nominated-yet SOS candidate, so there has to be another motive.

As far as Kerry, it might be that Obama is indeed keeping him in mind, and letting this Rice thing play out as a kind of cover for Kerry. Obama can pull him out at the last minute after the whiners are exhausted.

I do not think he'd nominate Rice simply because he's closer to her. He'll nominate the one he feels is best for the job.

[wisteria]

33. This is a more plausable reason that the Brown thing. n/t

Yes this does make sense.

[MH1]

16. I don't buy that Brown would take the seat.

That said, I can see how some partisans on our side would be concerned about it. But I would expect Obama a) to have better insight to the political reality, and b) to care more about getting the person he feels is right for the SoS position.

[MH1]

36. How the hell am I saying that, and WTF!! is up with you??

what's the current count of D v R in the Senate? Do you think we'll lose that many seats in 2014? And why do you think Brown would win? MA saw what he was really about, and the circumstances that created the Coakley debacle aren't going to happen again.

And I gotta tell you, any R Senator in a place like MA - if such somehow came about - who voted for impeaching Obama would find himself right back out on his ass in a hurry.

BTW, you're fighting with someone who has been thinking that "Rice is qualified, and if Obama picks her, I'm fine with it and assuming he has good reasons for it." But the more bullshit I see from her partisans on the internet, the less inclined I am to feel that way. I'm starting to think there's something flaky and weird going on here.

[karynnj]

58. The HOUSE impeachs ... not the Senate

and the Senate needs a 2/3rds vote to remove the President.

So, if Boehner and all the House Republicans wanted to, they could impeach Obama - on a party line vote. This has NOTHING to do with how many Democrats there are in the Senate.

By the way, the REPUBLICANS controlled the Senate in 1998 when Clinton was not kicked out - but they did not have 67 Senators, nor are they likely to in 2014. In fact, they had 55 Senators - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1998

[wisteria]

41. Thanks for your imput. I agree with you mostly.

It is no secret here that for me, Senator Kerry is the best person. But, I also understand, that sometimes other factors are involved in a decision.

[blm]

23. Eff off, RW spin-pusher. Bushes, Clintons and McCain have a history of teaming against Kerry when it

has suited their interests above the country's.

You're a watercarrier. Go back to RW neoconland.

[Mass]

30. His best friend. Another incoherent answer. By the same person who is afraid that Brown would be a

difficult opponent for Clinton in 2016 (Seriously?) in another thread.

And you want people to take you seriously.

BTW, Obama can stop this mess by naming Rice NOW. It is not as if Kerry was around asking publicly to be nominated. He has been mum.

[karynnj]

59. That might be McCain's story

The ONLY time Kerry spoke of it was to say that after a Mccain person came to him with the idea, he met with McCain. The first thing Kerry would have needed was McCain to switch parties ... and it ended there. The point was that it could - in a Lincoln like way - have been a way to pull the country together.

It is true that Kerry was pressured by party and media to take Edwards, but his rumoured preference was Durbin, who would likely have doen a FAR better job as VP.

Kerry is being silent on this and Obama is the only one who has to make the choice.

One thing I find odd is that very few Rice advocates are arguing for her on the merits-which is easy to do as she is accomplished. They are arguing that because she is being attacked, she should be chosen and many are attacking ANY other name that is mentioned. What is weird is that she is someone who many might not have been able to name a year ago - or if they did, they would be pretty vague on her biography.

[julian09]

28. Repugs would get a two fer if KERRY WENT TO STATE

They would take out a very effective Dem senator from senate, and probably gain another seat with Scott Brown

[Mass]

31. Amazing all these people who all of a sudden find Kerry effective.

[wisteria]

34. Stunning isn't it. n/t

[MH1]

35. Yeah, we definitely want to keep a link to this thread. nt

[YvonneCa]

42. Isn't...

..it?

[Blaukraut]

43. Right, and oh so vital to keep Brown from getting back in the Senate

Give me a break. Most of those who are using that excuse have an agenda, and it's not keeping JK's seat in Dem hands. Some posters are slipping up about that agenda, too, when they inadvertently go into negative mode against Kerry.

[beachmom]

29. A stretch IMO. I think the reason some liberals are coming up with this,

is that the attacks on Rice are so strange. I mean, she appeared on a few talk shows giving information based on talking points provided to her from the CIA. The intelligence changed later, and so now what Rice said is out of date. So what?? Talk about a big nothing. Because that is the way most liberals see it, they figure there must be another reason. A more sinister reason. I think there isn't. It's just dumb, fighting for fighting's sake. Since most people have tuned out politics since the election, and mostly care about their job and maybe their health care, I can't see how this fight affects much of anything.

I'm past the point of stressing about who gets to be SoS. I feel more distressed that someone like Maureen Dowd is now buying into the RW crap in her column about Susan Rice. No idea why the media, after hearing crap week after week, suddenly without anything to write about, feel the need to give oxygen to this. I was even annoyed with Jon Stewart's take on it, basically comparing Susan Rice to Condi Rice. Sorry, NO WAY. C. Rice was the bloody national security adviser prior to being SoS, so her statements were much worse, plus 9/11 and her failures there.

[YvonneCa]

37. The media gives oxygen to anything they think...

...will grow their viewership. Period. How else can one explain Palin being around for so long?

[ladym55]

40. I agree with you

The media need some "big story" to cover so permit bags of wind (like McCain) blither at will. I'm so tired of crazy.

We have big things to do ... important to our country, but crazy is apparently more newsworthy.

[MBS]

44. Rachel Maddow said much the same thing tonight

She started tonight's (Thursday Nov 29) with a detailed account of the bizarre and scary Internet blackout and airport shutdown in Syria, then briefly summarized the other significant world events in the last 24 hours: Afghanistan vote in Senate, UN vote on Palestine, Egyptian president taking on dictatorial powers, government punishment of Buddhist protestors in Burma, and more. then she noted that the SOS has the second hardest civilian job in US besides the president. As she emphasized, that's just in one 24-hour period.

THEN she said some thing to the effect that she would have hoped that our democracy had a process to pick the SOS that was as substantive (and free from triviality) as the job of SOS itself. As substantive and serious, in fact, as the job deserves. Rachel was right: the disconnect between the importance of the job and the utter stupidity of this blather is jaw-dropping .
Rachel's emphasis was on the hypocrisy of Ayotte, McCain and Collinn, but for memit's broader than that.
I am fed up with all aspects of this nonsense, and with all the players -- Dems and Repubs--who have made this fester into a ridiculous political controversy where there needn't have been one ( or at least it needn't have been this loud, this chaotic, this juvenile or this stupid). I am SOOOOOO glad that Sen. Kerry is keeping his distance from this stupidity , and that he's refusing to comment.

[Mass]

45. Really

" she said some thing to the effect that she would have hoped that our democracy had a process to pick the SOS that was as substantive (and free from triviality) as the job of SOS itself."

And she makes it about Kerry being the choice of the GOP? What about saying that he is a substantial choice along Rice? She is one of the strongest proponents of conspiracy theory.

And, at the same time, she promotes the idea of Kerry at defense (Why is it less of a problem concerning Brown?).

I think people got caught defending Rice (as they should have), and have assumed (as usual on rumors, even if these rumors may well be true) that the choice was Rice. I just find sad that some people like Maddow are knowingly diminishing Kerry's qualities while doing this.

[wisteria]

48. Strong points.

On all accounts.

[MBS]

60. I know nothing about Maddow's views about Kerry for SoS or SoD

i rarely watch Maddow and I didn't even watch the rest of the show beyond this opening bit. I don't have a clue as to her opinion about who should be SoS or SoD,and, frankly, I don't care. I only wanted to say that I agreed with her general point: that choice of SoS is a serious one, and it should be made seriously, as free from political games as possible.
As I've said before, I think that this whole process has been handled badly on all fronts.
it's been insulting and unfair to good people, especially to Kerry. Luckily, Kerry is larger and wiser than this silliness, and, no matter what the outcome for what are, in the end, really secondary issues, like titles and jobs, I am sure that Sen. Kerry will come out the winner. in fact, he already is the winner , showing pitch-perfect judgment in the way he's handled this nonsense so far.
(But , yeah. OK, I fervently hope that he doesn't take SoD. The SoD job would be a nightmare, not to mention a bizarre misuse of his talents)

[Mass]

62. I agree 100% on all points.

[wisteria]

69. I agree with you, on the process, the lack of seriousness and Kerry's handling of this mess. n/t

[ladym55]

46. And Sen. Kerry continues to be classy

It's just sad to me that he is part of a controversy not of his own making. Honestly, I don't know how he does it.

[Mass]

47. It is sad for me that part of our camp is once again

attacking him, even if this is indirect.

And we have the unavoidable paper from the NYTimes on process:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/politics/gop-unites-around-john-kerry-for-secretary-of-state.html?_r=0

(BTW, I would not expect any Dems to declare support for Kerry, whatever they think. Why should they? And it should by now be clear that the GOP is trying to get Kerry out of the equation with all these compliments. Probably for somebody more neo cons (Lieberman, for example).


Oh, and I have a suggestion for Kerry that would solve all problems. Quit your senate seat now (I am obviously joking, but this is getting so frustrating that I would not blame him if he did that, even if I would deplore him.) and become a free man. May be you will qualify for UN Ambassador in this case?

[wisteria]

49. Agree, he has been written off,

and all his work, knowledge and experience in foreign policy has been overlooked simple because of a frenzied idea about Brown, and the need for our Senators to retain this one vote for their side.

[beachmom]

64. Yes I just read the article this morning. Disspiriting.

There is nothing even to quote in it. It starts by recycling all the insults hurled at JK in '04, then quotes Republicans saying nice things about him with the NYT putting it into a context that they would only say those nice things for ulterior motives -- getting the Senate seat. There is not a single independent voice in the piece, opining on who actually would make a great SoS.

I didn't think it could be worse than Dec. '08 for John Kerry, and yet here we are.

[karynnj]

65. The NYT has always been weird on JK - in 2004 and after

I suspect the reason there are no Democratic Senators quoted is that none were asked. The Politico article asked only one - Ben Cardin, the liberal Senator on the SFRC and he was incredibly positive on JK as JK. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83771.html

There HAVE been comments about Rice, but that is because she is being attacked and defended. The attacks on JK are sneakier - the hate on the right coming from the fringe not 3 Republican Senators and the implicit lack of respect in saying that the Republicans just want another go at the MA seat. (Ignoring that if Brown's goal was to position himself, he would be arguing that the election means passing the under $250,000 tax bill and not voting with the right leaning Republicans.)

[MBS]

61. me either. N/T

[wisteria]

50. With all this mess going on,

we need someone who is experienced, respected and well received.

What a f*king mess.

[Mass]

66. I' m going to post this here, not because it necessarily relates

but because creating a new post of this would probably bring more trolls here

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/lawmaker-news/270275-scott-brown-should-announce-he-wont-run-for-the-senate-if-john-kerry-is-named-secretary-of-state-or-defense

I dont think he is serious, but he has already written another piece saying that, while Rice was fine, Kerry was the obvious choice. I am not familiar with his policies, so who knows, but I find it was an original take. at least an independent thinker.

[beachmom]

67. Yeah, I saw that, too.

I overall like the article but will side with Brown, shockingly. Why should he have to say or do anything? Not his problem. I think there is a good argument for his own sake not to run for Senate again. He'll be forced to run again in '14, meaning 4 elections in 4 years. That's more than a House member would need to have to do!!

[wisteria]

68. Thank you.

I hesitate to create a new post right now to. Everything we post here goes out "there" for discussion.

[Mass]

70. More rumors - DC leaks so much that they need a plumber,

A lot of things in there, though unclear what is true or not. For example, while multiple rumors have made Rice the favorite for SoS (and I could easily believe that), this says that nobody really knows, but that her and Kerry are the two only choices (which seems to be the only thing constant in all these rumors).

http://theworldlink.com/news/national/obama-defense-pick-could-come-sooner-than-expected/article_854a3d9b-ad21-5d57-a7e3-77750933a0f1.html

President Barack Obama could name his next defense secretary in December, far sooner than expected and perhaps in a high-powered package announcement with his choice for secretary of state, several senior administration officials tell The Associated Press.
...
The top names under consideration for defense secretary are former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, former top Pentagon official Michele Flournoy, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. Among those, Kerry is seen as desiring the secretary of state's job more.
...
Obama is believed almost certain to pick Kerry or U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, with Obama's considerations of his choice so closely held that even members of his innermost circle are asking each other which way he may go. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has long announced her plans to leave and hopes to do so soon.
...
or the State job, Obama has strong ties to both candidates. Rice is a close friend, and aides say the two are in lockstep on foreign policy. Kerry was an early backer of Obama during his 2008 presidential bid, a valuable envoy abroad, a help in his re-election bid and a contender to be his first secretary of state
...

[wisteria]

71. This is the same junk that has been floating around for weeks

No offense to you, it is the media I am angry at. So Rice is a close friend and their ideas similar and Kerry did a lot for the President blah, blah,blah. IU would think you would need more than one point of view and expertise when making foreign policy decisions. But, that is only my opinion.

[Mass]

72. A plea for president Obama. Stop this mess and name Rice as you SoS

Last edited Sat Dec 1, 2012, 08:18 AM - Edit history (1)

At this point, this is absolutely crazy to let this situation continue. If Susan Rice is your choice as is said in the media, the best way to show support for her (assuming the rumors are true and she is a close friend and not just a political ally) is to make this damned nomination. Answering positively to some media questions concerning her is not that strong a support, IMHO. Acting would be.

And it may save tons of ink to DC pundits, who think their opinions are facts (last one is Kuttner, who repeat the same inanities than others, and then more, though a handful of right wing papers are also reviving the loser theme ).

If not, I hope Senator Kerry will take himself out of the equation, because, though he is a well qualified person for the job, he will be an even bigger loser if he does not do so, as it is clear that the netroots and grassroots will turn against him.

Just me in a bad mood after having read a few media this morning.

[Blaukraut]

73. Yes! Obama is now actually causing harm to both Rice and Kerry by being silent

I'm not assigning malicious intent here, but good grief, this is ineptitude. The same thing was happening to a lesser degree back in 2008, and again the media delighted in piling on and laying into Kerry. The man has done nothing but lay low and act classy and I'm getting seriously sick of the treatment he is getting in the media AND on progressive websites. The Republicans are playing the divide and conquer game and Obama and the Left are falling right into it yet again.

[wisteria]

75. Ineptitude is an excellent word. n/t

[wisteria]

74. My feeling is if he doesn't get the nod for SOS,

he should just do what he can in the next two years and retire for government service. He has served this country with honor and I question just how much more he can really get done in the Senate. I also think he may have grown tired of the Senate. You have to love his fellow Democrats, who only rarely seem to want to put in a good word for him. I also see some erosion between him and the President-although he will certain serve him to his best abilities. Senator Kerry has tried three times now-that I am aware of- to gain leadership roles and it appears he will once again be denied. It is obvious that this administration does not like being challanged, they seem to like the status quo. It is almost a given that Senator Kerry would want to be able to leave his foreign policy mark in this administration. Maybe they are threatened by that. I have to wonder how much they utilize even Biden in foreign policy decisions.

[Mass]

76. Nobody is due a cabinet position. It is up to the president

(and this goes both ways).

The president defines the foreign policy and the SoS implements it. So, he will choose the person that he sees the most apt at carrying this particular policy. I can see circumstances when it is Susan Rice who is that person. Frankly, as I said earlier, I am fine if she is the choice.

The problem is that this issue has been muddied by these idiots of three amigos and their stupid crusade against Rice.

As for a leadership position in foreign policy, he is chair of the Foreign Committee. How is it not a position of leadership in this particular domain? And Kerry has been recognized as a great chairman.


Also, dont forget that we only know what is leaked to the papers, which is basically what I was objecting to in the first place: the fact that we have very poor media.

[wisteria]

81. Not owed? Why do you think Rice is being considered?

So, beside insinuating that this is the only reason I am pushing for Senator Kerry, which is insulting to me, I knew my comments about him running out his term and retiring would not sit well with Mass people. And, I never said Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee was not a prestigious postion to be in, it is just that IF the administration is wanting to just maintain the status quo and get by, Senator Kerry would not be able to accomplish very much other than as a watchdog. And even in that position, what can he really do to change anything? Especially if the administration really does not want change.
And, as you have said many times you are fine with a Rice nomination, I get it. And, as I have said, I am not fine with a Rice nomination. I think we need to do more than just try to maintain the status quo in foreign policy. I also get that Mass people do not want to lose him in the Senate. For me, that is not even a consideration, no living there. I don't think I would even miss any one of my two senators where I live. I apparently take foreign policy a little more serious than you and others here. And, frankly, I would have been pushing for Richard Holbrooke for this post, if he were still alive-over Senator Kerry. I see Rice as no more than an compfortable appointment for a President that really does not understand diplomacy and the need for strong foreign policy representation around the world.

[Mass]

84. I never said that this was the only reason

I am just pointing that it is owed to nobody. It would be the wrong standard. If it is the standard for Rice, it is wrong as well.

[Mass]

82. Yes, we get it. You love Hillary.

The rest is just stupid rant. Go troll somewhere else. (

[wisteria]

83. You don't get it, most people here want Kerry to continue to be their Senator from Mass.

I am the outcast in thinking otherwise. They know they have a good Senator for Mass and a good man who pushed their point of view in the Senate. I don't disagree with their feelings. But, not being a Mass native, I think he can leave a larger mark on foreign policy in a cabinet post. So, many here will be rejoicing when Rice is named, but I will not be one of them.

[Mass]

86. as you' re still here

I am curious what you think of the reports Hillary would prefer Kerry (unsourced, of course, and therefore totally unreliable), but, given that all your effort has been to support her in her 2016 bid, I wonder what you think.

[Mass]

89. Spoken like somebody who does not understand MA

Thanks for all your insight. Anyway this was not the question. At this point, I just want Obama to announce Rice asap, so that we can end this total nonsense.

Other question from you who seems to think Kerry should declare the Sherman oath, there is one person who could stop this mess immediately, and it is Obama. Name Rice.

[Mass]

91. Still not answering my question.

You have repeated this again and again. We get it. We also get your undying love for Hillary Clinton.

As I said earlier, president Obama can solve this quickly: Name Rice. So long.

[Mass]

93. You;re the only one talking about that.

So, I guess with somebody like you, ignore is my friend.

[blm]

96. I don't think it's about undying love for Hillary, either - more a ploy to get in digs

that just happen to be consistent with RW talking points.

[Mass]

94. Ignore is my friend. This list looks empty now.

[Mass]

97. I sincerely hope that Kerry does not consider McCain a friend.

Sorry, this is not a slip of the tongue. This is an attempt to embarrass somebody.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/12/mccain-called-john-kerry-mr-secretary/59565/

Or is it a sign McCain is definitively senile?

[wisteria]

98. I can understand a slip up. Do you think he was being nasty?

The subject has been on McCain's mind for weeks now. I don't think it meant anything on McCain's part, and Kerry's response was good. However, the person reporting this bit of no real news, could use a history lesson regarding Senator Kerry. The personal commentary was uncalled for and very disrespectful.
I am so tired of these childish reporters and posters, who do nothing but repeat gossip and add snark.

[Mass]

99. I do not believe for one minute it was innocent.

And I got the feeling Kerry did not either, hence the answer (his tone was not exactly friendly when he called him Mr President, as far as I am concerned and clearly McCain did not like being referred as a loser)

I dont even think he wants Kerry to get the nomination. Their political views on foreign policy are too different.

Not sure what you refer to when you talk about personal comment? If it is about getting McCain on the ticket, remember this is what McCain said. Otherwise, I am not sure what you mean.

[wisteria]

104. Actually, I misread Kerry's "Loser" comment and attributed to the poster.

[MBS]

101. guys, they were both joking. IMHO.

Maybe I don't have a devious enough mind, but it looked to me like they were even having fun.

I caught the video clip. Sen. Kerry looked to me happy and relaxed. I thought to myself, "This is a man who is feeling fulfilled, and very comfortable with who he is".

[JI7]

102. i think Kerry said that so not much is made out of it by the media plus he felt bad for McCain

Kerry came back with a good reply but still felt bad about it which is why he said they were joking and kind of hugged mccain. especially if McCain is going senile Kerry would know and feel more bad about it. but i don't think McCain's intentions were just joking.

i think Kerry is comfortable and fullfilled as you say which is why i don't think he would be broken up if he didn't get SOS. but on McCain's words here i don't think he was so innocent and joking.

but it does make Kerry come off well to me that he can refer to himself as a loser . can you see Romney doing that ? especially hearing about all the after election things about him and how he seems to be feeling sorry for himself.

[beachmom]

103. Here is video for those who want to analyze:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/03/video-kerry-mccain-tease-each-other-about-promotions/

I found it to be a lighthearted moment. And McCain did have a deadpan look on his face when he said Mr. Secretary. Maybe it was some kind of a three dimensional strategy joke to undermine the President and the Senator, but to me it didn't seem to have malice attached to it.

[wisteria]

105. "Why settle for second best"

I couldn't resist posting this, but I did so here so that it would not raise the attention of those outside this forum.

The above quote is an etitorial in support of Senator Kerry for SOS.




" Kerry's national political career is just the tip of a vast iceberg-sized Washington career. Kerry began his 27 years in the Senate by convincing Washington graybeards to launch the Iran-Contra hearings. And, as a member and now-chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has been at the center of American foreign policy ever since."

Read more: http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/148480-case-for-john-kerry/#ixzz2E8zM6LRt

[wisteria]

106. Round two.

Brown will win again angst, thanks to a Brown vs generic Dem poll reported on today, by Politico. Timing is intersting.

I just had to vent here, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

[blm]

107. I'll see that "grrrrrrrrrrr"...and raise you one

"what a bunch of uninformed whistle-asses."

[MBS]

109. I'm so sick of this stupid meme

and the supposed "logic" behind it.
All this fear about such a shallow and dimwit guy. . incredibly unimpressive.
If they'd spend half the energy they've spent on whining and fear on finding and WORKING FOR a solid candidate to run against Brown, the Dems would have the Senate race in the bag.

[wisteria]

110. Absolutely true. n/t

[JI7]

108. based on that OBama should never have Ran for President since Hillary was going to win

Coakley was ahead of Brown early on also. Brown was ahead of Elizabeth WArren also.

[wisteria]

111. Great points, it is just a shame that some others don't understand logic. n/t