Kerry: Ignore Republicans if they'll vote no anyway

Sen. John Kerry says Democrats should ignore Republicans’ demands about the stimulus plan if they’re going to vote against it anyway.

Reacting to Wednesday night’s vote in the House -- where not a single GOP member supported the stimulus package -- Kerry told Politico that “if Republicans aren’t prepared to vote for it, I don’t think we should be giving up things, where I think the money can be spent more effectively.”

“If they’re not going to vote for it, let’s go with a plan that we think is going to work.”

The Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 president candidate suggested tossing some of the tax provisions in the stimulus that the GOP requested. “Those aren’t job creators immediately, and even in the longer term they’re not necessarily. We’ve seen that policy for the last eight years,” he said.

Although Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) has announced that she’ll support the stimulus plan in the Senate, it’s not clear how whether other Republican senators will.

“We’ll see what evolves in the next hours,” Kerry said.

Meanwhile, Kerry – who once served on the Senate Banking Committee – believes lawmakers need to move quickly to establish a “comprehensive” plan to deal with the ongoing instability in the financial system, restoring banks to solvency, getting toxic assets off their books and halting the wave of foreclosures that threatens to create even more toxic assets.

“We’ve got to think of this holistically and not piecemeal -- and that the sooner, the faster we get at the root causes, the more impact we’re going to have at turning it around,” he said.

Kerry’s preference is to have the Federal Reserve set up a program requiring banks to write down these toxic assets to their true value. Where the value is unknown, the banks should write them down to zero, he said.

In exchange for this, the Fed would recapitalize the banks, Kerry said.

Other lawmakers are pushing the idea of creating a so-called “bad bank,” a separate entity that would purchase the toxic assets from financial institutions, freeing the system of their burden. Kerry would not oppose such a plan but believes it would lead to the government overpaying for some assets.

While Kerry believes the Fed could pay for recapitalizing the banks by selling debt rather than asking Congress for more money, he also predicts the Obama administration will be coming for more taxpayer money sooner or later as it fights to save the economy.

“I believe it’s inevitable,” he said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18171.html

Let's just craft the plan WE want and fuck them.

“If they’re not going to vote for it, let’s go with a plan that we think is going to work.”

damn straight just move along Senator Kerry.

... from this morning: http://www.cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-14872


Senate Roadblock Republicans on C-Span making fools of themselves (IMHO).

They are refusing to compromise and work with Democrats...including Obama who has tried to work with them...on the Economic Stimulus package. A few reporters actually did their job and asked questions about what THEY would do to negotiate a better package.


Good job, unknown journalist!!! Thank you!:thumbsup:


And to Senator Kyl...you are COMPLETELY in denial. YES the American people DID vote in November based on knowledge of our current economic situation...we've been feeling it for quite some time, now...and we voted for OBAMA! The ground has already shifted under your collective feet.

Wake up and start WORKING with the Obama Administration and Senate Democrats for a change.

:patriot:

Otherwise it's just feel-good words, something we are all sick unto death of.

They are hopeful, along with their spiritual leader Limpballs, that Obama and the nation fail so they can play "toldja so".

I wish I lived in Marsha Blackburn's district, I could vote her out, but she just got re-elected in a mostly repuke county. :puke: :grr:

:kick: for Senator Kerry!.

:patriot:

Geeze, how long do they have to suck up to these thugs? They are back stabbing assholes.

Sick to death of them. I agree with Kerry, Screw Them! They were never going to support the recovery plan. Forget the repugs, their policies of tax cuts for the rich and powerful is what got us into this mess with our economy now on the verge of collapse. Why aren't democrats out on TV 24/7 pushing back against this repug propoganda that I see on all the cable shows.

by ripping out the tax breaks and putting in infrastructure projects.

I agree with what Obama is doing, but watching the pre-vote interviews on MSNBC it became clear that some of these guys are going to vote No on the bill no matter what. In another week or two it might be time to just say F 'em. At least we can say we tried.

in stuff the Repugs wanted just to have them turn their backs on the Prez. Insulting, rude and totally partisan. If they're going to pull the same crap in the senate, then the hell with them. Obama tried to reach out to them and they totally dissed him. Let them run like babies to papa Rush. He'll sink their party faster than the Titanic hitting an iceberg.

Why do we care what the people who put us in this mess think. We voted to get rid of the GOP and their policies. We tried to make concessions and we were rejected. Now it is time for us to do what we want to do. Left to the GOP we would be in a depression. Let them be on the wrong side of this bill and see how it works out for them in 2010.

The repukes aren't willing to even give bipartisanship a try. It is so obvious they don't plan to get along no matter what we do.

There comes a time to grab the bull by the horns. The time is now, imo.

Kerry gets mad props.

and still look like the good guys.

It is also possible that Obama truly thought he could achieve compromise with a group of people who had no intention of compromise, and took advantage of his naivete. The telling move will be in how he responds to the Republican obstructionism.

I see an awful lot of people whose opinions of Obama border on faith rather than any honest assessment of his achievements. After a rather rough period pre-inauguration period I have been moderately impressed with his first week, but it is only a week. Perhaps he will continue to impress, perhaps not, but let's be objective in our analysis. He shouldn't get a free pass just because he is the Wise and Terrible Obama.

understand politics in the slightest, and whose successes so far were a matter of sheer luck that occurred in spite of his idiotic flailing. Obviously if there are two possible justifications for his actions, it is more reasonable to believe the one that requires him to have all the political savvy of a high-school sophomore running for Student Council.

Don't get so excited friend, I'm not your enemy. He doesn't have to be an idiot, he simply has to believe what he has always stated he DOES believe, that bipartisanship and compromise are viable approaches to this Congress.

I'm really not understanding the over the top nature of your response.

to believe that your opponent believes in the same. As he said in his inaugural speech, "If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us." In that phrase he did not offer compromise unconditionally; he offered compromise on condition of reciprocal compromise. The same phrase might be directed at Republicans as well.

For Obama to believe that the Republicans would put away their eight years of childish politicking simply because he asked them to would require Obama to be an absolute moron. At the same time, playing their hardline game without so much offering an attempt at compromise would be rank hypocrisy. The best possible result would be to offer several insignificant yet splashy attempts at compromise, move forward together if they accept them, and then pound the hell out of them if they don't. Rinse and repeat until they get the message. Given the targeted district-by-district advertising campaign Obama's unveiled, I'd say he had indeed planned for the Republicans to try moving in a partisan direction.

And, again, I don't understand why one would adopt the belief that Obama has an utterly naive understanding of politics. "He doesn't get it; they'll steamroll over him" was exactly what Clinton supporters said about Obama in regards to the general election. It's what his critics are saying now, too. And just as he was the crusher and not the crushed in the GE, he seems like he's starting up the steamroller right now.

Prez by being naive.

Which is not the same as governing. Bush, even if we hate him, was a pretty good campaigner and had a good campaign strategy. He couldn't govern worth shit though.

These are separate skills. Being good at campaigning doesn't mean one will necessarily be good at governing.

We elect Presidents, not mysterious god-emperors.

a divisive, 50%+1, play-to-the-base hardballer with tight message control and loose ethical standards. He governed like shit because that is a shitty way to govern.

people into thinking he was going to be a "compassionate conservative" who had "brought Democrats and Republicans together" as TX Governor. The 50%+1 goal worked for his 2004 campaign because he was still riding the tail end of his post-9/11 Commander-in-Chief bump, but he wouldn't even have come close if he hadn't played like he was going to govern in a bipartisan fashion in his 2000 campaign.

who were paying attention to Obama during the Primaries and General know what he's about.

Those of us who worked for him and backed in 2007 and 2008 all the way through to election day and who showed up at events can't possibly understand it. I see. Perhaps if I hadn't kept track of him on all the major news sources and via his campaign literature and internet outreach and youtube videos and instead learned the secret decoder passwords I would understand now.

Gee, can anyone get the secret decoder hand signals and ring or do you have to know someone special?

your ignorance.

Apparently things are either bestowed by divine revelation or people are just too stupid to get it.

Why bother to come to a discussion board if you can't, well, discuss things?

dubya didn't campaign all that well. His first win was questionable and slim at best - he had fewer popular votes.

his second was towards the beginning of the Iraq war and still close enough to 911 for terra, terra, to work.

More of that Kerry...less of the one the political consultants tried to create.

It was a different time, but Kerry was always there with clear, thoughtful and honest comments on the economy and foreign policy. He had a near universal healthcare plan, when others were unwilling to run on that (Edwards); he spoke of dealing with the WoT by using international intelligence and law enforcement and only occaisally targeted military actions, he spoke of no permanent bases in Iraq (well before others), all of the Democrats have echoed his words on diplomacy. He was there - but you might have had to watch CSPAN to hear him. The media often chose to have their talking head say what Kerry "said", rather than letting people hear him.

This is who he has been since 1971.

Here - read the comments on banks in this article. On the Finance committee he quoted Krugman's zombie bank op-ed. He is one of the few Senators, who is willing to look at the reality of the financial mess. If they don't face reality, how can they fix it? (Those comments are far braver than the comment that if the Republicans won't vote for it, the Democrats should design the bill they think most likely to work.)

show up publicly to support and defend Kerry's positions AGAINST Bush's decisions. Remember Bill Clinton's summer2004 booktour? Made high profile headlines for THREE WEEKS that were supportive of Bush's decisions even as Kerry was campaigning AGAINST them.

thought the thing the American people needed to speak of in July 2004 - a month before the convention - was "Why monica Lewinski?" Putting that book out then and eating up all the oxygen at that critical point after June was lost to coverage of Reagan's funeral was one of the most selfish acts I have ever seen.

The problem was not just Bill Clinton, other Clinton Democrats, like James Rubin, gave Iraq positions near Bush's - not bothering to explain Kerry's - which were different, something the media actually knew - because they identified the Iraq Study group's recommendation (very different from what Bush was doing) as like what Kerry recommended. Rubin was NOT a surrogate, he was identified as a Democrat who was from the Clinton state department, but this muddied the Democratic position - which should have been Kerry's at that point.

Monica Lewinsky and his vigorous support of Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war.

Of course he knew - Hillary2008 had been in progress since 2000 when she ran for Senate.

You should have checked their editing room trashcans.

Why? Kerry was enemy #1 to the fascists who controlled most broadcast media.



Press Room: Press Releases

June 2, 2003
Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules. Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said: "Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

to show that to us very often...

:sarcasm:

Or it is all planned ahead and obama needs allies to push his plan in the Senate. People who understand how the game is played. Which would probably not be you.

Picking on the folks who always claims that Obama's playing chess while every single other politician is playing checkers.

Read the more substantive comments he made. You might also consider the number of Kerry positions that Obama adopted in his platform and the fact that he put Kerry out more often as a surrogate than anyone else. (Not to mention that Kerry did such a good job, that the campaign sent Kerry's FOX NEWS comments on McCain and Obama and the bailout out to people.) I seriously doubt Obama or the people around him think Kerry is dumb.

PS Kerry spoke often of bipartisanship himself - long before Obama was a figure on the national stage. But, bipartisanship means really working together - Obama gave the Republicans the chance to do so, but they did not really engage - they just demanded their own way.

What is the plan? Cuz I don't see it.

:rofl:

Obama played good cop, give the GOP the chance to play ball nicely with us, and got spat on. It was not unanticipated. Now the GOP comes out of the House vote looking like total assholes, and Obama and the Senate Democrats get the green light to shove a more liberal stimulus package up their asses sideways without lubricant.

Kerry's role in this was choreographed well in advance.

.

Remove ALL the tax cuts for business and the rich. They don't work.

all through the campaign.Why would this be any different?

He's obviously applying pressure from a different direction than the administration and introducing the next step in the financial bailout. This guy is a team player.

Good on you Senator Kerry!

Interesting that one doesn't get in this thread. Go figure.

Many of our Congressional Dems need to realize they're now the majority party and act accordingly.

Lesson: You can seek cooperation without ceding your power or position.

Thank you Senator Kerry.

n/t

with Bush and vigorously defending Bush on national TV, like the last Dem president did throughout his summer2004 booktour?

He could have taken a few lessons from Obama and shown some balls like he did in his old Vietnam days. During the whole election, I kept wondering what happened to THAT guy!

The difference was that corpmedia allowed Obama's defense of himself to be SEEN and heard. Would he have been the nominee if every news network refused to broadcast his speech after the month of Wright videoclips? What if media ignored his response to Corsi's book and gave Corsi all the airtime he wanted?

Read the data from DU's Research Forum on the responses in 2004 and how the media ignored the truth:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

You seem to be under the impression that 2007-2008 media climate for Dems was no different than 2003-2004.

Gee - why would corpmedia be set so clearly against Kerry?

Press Room: Press Releases

June 2, 2003
Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules. Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said: "Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

I don't think the "new and improved" Kerry would allow that to happen again now, thanks to Obama, he's seen how to deal with the bullshit accusations that were thrown his way. Maybe he'll get another shot in 2016 - I'd certainly give him a look.

on the swifts and there isn't a Dem nominee you could name who PERSONALLY attacked the GOP opponent harder than Kerry did Bush, especially when he challenged Bush to stop hiding behind the swifts' lie and come out publicly to debate their services during that time.

You apparently didn't read the Research Forum link in the previous post, or you'd know this.

In addition, Obama was protected by Kerry, Durbin, Daschle, McGaskill, etc

though Clark, Cleland and Dean were good. Obama was very lucky to have Kerry out there both defending him in the primaries and general election and perfectly framing McCain. You might remember Kerry was the first to use the word "erratic", he also beautifully delineated the "Senator" McCain (the man that media and even liberals admired) and "candidate" McCain - which elegantly said that McCain was saying whatever worked - rather than what he believed.

Think of 2008, how often did Obama make a sharp attack either on HRC or McCain. Not often, leaving his image Presidential and cool. In 2004, who made the toughest attacks? Certainly not his VP or any surrogate. Kerry himself did - and he did it while preserving the dignity needed to be seen as Presidential - not an easy task. (remember Kerry speaking of Bush failing to secure the KNOWN ammo dumps for months and that ammo was being used in ieds killing and maiming "our kids"? That is calling the President negligent - and a negligence that killed soldiers.)

mandate to ignore them.

Chill John, Obama has a strategy and he knows what he's doing. He can't say he did everything he could to work with the Republicans and then turn around and blame them for the nasty tone that continues to dominate Washington and let their constituents know that their Representative/Senator voted against their best interests, if he doesn't reach out to them (all the while knowing they're too big of assholes to grab on to the lifeline he's throwing them). Their loss.

John, you couldn't beat the Republicans. Obama did. Think about how he did that.

"Four more years of hell" the American people finally woke up and there were a lot of Dems as SOS's (Ohio, etc.)that actually let every vote be counted. Oh and lets not forget Obama's numbers went up when the economy started sinking. It was a lot of things that helped Obama win this election, IMO.

Obama won by himself? He had no spokespeople or surrogates? He was a one-man campaign? The DNC served no purpose?

How far do you think Obama will get in advancing his agenda if the Democrats abandon a core message?

In 2004, Kerry could have used all the back up Obama had in this election.

That is the past. Now is the time for action, and Obama can't do it by himself, and he has said as much.








edited typos.

Obama can't do this all by himself. He didn't win all by himself. It's too bad people don't get that.

Agree. The primaries, GE are over and there is no need to knock one Democrat to praise another.

Because somehow she seems to think Kerry wants Obama to diss the GOP? Really.

Just another strategist in armchair.

Where did I imply that Kerry wanted Obama to diss the GOP?

I simply stated quite clearly that Obama is far superior to John Kerry in political intellect, and I stand by it. The only reason I voted for John Kerry was because he was the only Democrat on the ticket, not becuase he was a good candidate and I'd bet most Democrats thought the same. But if you can successfully argue the merits of my post, just keep spewing bullshit that I never posted, if that makes you happy.

You're telling Kerry that Obama cannot turn around and blame the GOP. If you do not think this is what Kerry implied, what was your point?

Still amusing that you assume Obama and Kerry are in disagreement in this. How can you know that? No way to know one way or the other. So, thanks for your uninformed opinion.

That doesn't even make sense. Did he vote for himself 50 million times?

Obama won because he was smart, strategic and organized, which led to huge numbers of peop;e voting for him. John Kerry made no such inroads, and made so many errors I can't remember them all, but I do remember that he ignored the biggest threat to his candidacy -- the Swiftboaters. Thanks by no thanks for you advice John. You're a good man, but Obama is smarter in the political sense than you are.

Obama did because of all the reasons I stated and the fact that Bush and the Republicans were losing support by the minute.

You have no clue about Kerry's organization, except for the few lame ass people who couldn't keep up and the Dems who refused to stand up.

Kerry online effort was for its time the most superior the Dems had ever seen. When Obama broke the Democratic records for fundraising, they were records that belonged to Kerry. He attracted crowds unlike any other Democrat besides Obama.

Obama's organization started somewhere:



Swiftboating was a unique phenomenon in 2004, and Kerry did his best to respond despite the media ambush and the Democratic strategists who never countered the media hype.



Kerry's advice wasn't aimed at you, and despite what you want to say in ignorance, Obama positioned Kerry as one of his top surrogates for a reason.

whether people liked it or not. I don't think there is interest in the OP. I think some in this thread wanted to poop all over Kerry to praise P.Obama, and for personal amusement.


You will probably hear crickets after this good post. :)

Obama's election did not occur in a vacuum. He took that very narrow loss of 2004 and built on it. He was lucky, as all good pols are. He used the structure that came out of 2004, when Democrats increased the Democratic vote nationally by 8 million and increased it. He was also able to take advantage of the growth of the Democratic infrastructure, advanced the use of the Internet and did more small donor fundraising. This was a legacy from 2004.

Obama was also running in a Democratic year. I like Obama, but I also believe that the Dem nominee was going to win in 08 no matter who it was. IT was a Dem year. That hid some of the Obama mistakes, and he did make mistakes, as everyone does.

Obama is a good pol, but he is not some kind of magical being who sprung fully formed from a geyser near Mount Rushmore. He organically grew from the existing structure and conditions. A good pol knows how to use his advantages of luck and resources. This is what he did. There are many others who would have done the same.

They didn't WANT you to see Kerry's attacks on swifts and Bush - tougher attacks he did PERSONALLY than any other Dem nominee EVER did against their GOP opponent.

You would know that if you actually paid attention to the race instead of gobbling up the heavily edited version the corpmedia fed you.

Try the Research Forum here at DU. What you have claimed is demonstrably FALSE.

In fact the steps he took were nearly identical to what Obama did versus the Corsi book. The day that book and ad came out, Kerry had a 36 page memo out identifying lies that could be proven from the official record and he had surrogates out refuting the charges - Obama put out 41 pages.

In addition, Kerry had already addressed the SBVT in April - at that point he put his records on his website (You still hear and read media people denying that he released his records - yet they were ALL there - except the medical records that were open to legit news media for about a week in 2004). In addition, the Nixon tapes have conversations showing they investigated him in 1971 - 2 years after his service - and they found he was both clean and a war hero. Brinkley, a historian actually interviewed many later SBVT when he wrote his book - none of them made the accusations then that they made in 2004. 9 of the 10 living Kerry drew members were 100% behind him. A Chicago Tribune editor, a conservative, who skippered one of the other boats when Kerry got his silver star wrote an op-ed backing Kerry.

When you consider that Kerry's war service had an official record that was 100% what he said - and though he spoke of Vietnam, he rarely has spoken of any of his own actions. The SBVT were challenging the official NAVY records - and doing it without providing a shred of evidence. (The fact is what they claimed did not even logically make sense - the people who had been Kerry's superiors were never even asked why they praised him so highly and gave him medals.)

Obama is a very smart politician, but also a very lucky one. He was very lucky that in the primary, Iraq was the biggest issue and people trusted him more than HRC (and this is an area where Kerry's advocacy countered Bill Clinton's attacks) and the economy was the biggest issue in the fall. (McCain polled higher on national security - although Kerry did a great job in raising questions here for Obama (this was something which it was better for a surrogate to do.)

As to Kerry, he ran in a year when the deck was stacked against any Democrat. He knew this, but he thought it was important and that he might have the best chance of any Democrat to win.

publicly on his terrorism and Iraq war strategy, including the best known Dem Bill Clinton, who used his 3 week summer 2004 booktour to do high profile interviews to VIGOROUSLY DEFEND Bush's leadership on terrorism and Iraq war.

You tell us how Obama would have gotten HIS SPEECHES covered by corporate media propping Bush up 24/7.


Tell us how Obama would have gotten all his Dem votes allowed, cast and counted with a collapsed Dem party infrastructure in so many crucial states as overseen by Terry McAuliffe's DNC from 2001-2005.


Tell us how 2008 was ANYTHING LIKE 2004.

Good comments.

You ignore that Obama borrowed a lot from Kerry - including both positions and strategists, many of whom were with Kerry until he opted not to run. Now, he is working with Obama, but not for him - and that is what he should be doing as a Senator - a member of a co-equal, independent branch of government.

As it is, he is not at odds with Obama - Kerry himself has made the same call for bipartisanship that Obama made. This comment was made AFTER 100% of the House Republicans rebuffed the bipartisan overtures. (If a truly bipartisan bill is not possible - and the Democrats alone will support and be held accountable for the bill, shouldn't the bill be what they think most likely to work? Is it possible that raising this possibility was designed to pull the Republicans in the Senate back into the process? It is also a well designed threat - as both possible reactions are better then where we are - we either get the Republicans signing on or ,if reality is that this will be a Democrats only bill, we get the one we think best. Who is the best to deliver this message? Someone on one of the 2 committees working on it seems a good choice. Of the people on those committees, who has been a trusted surrogate? This might well be coordinated.

But, even if it is not, Kerry himself was elected in MA and the things he is saying on both the need for infrastructure and making the banks honest are things he spoke of this fall. He has a responsibility to address issues to the best of his considerable abilities.

There is also a difference between politics and policy. The policy positions Obama took during the election were similar to Kerry's - but not identical. In addition Obama was often vaguer than Kerry on his positions. On foreign policy, Kerry is to Obama's left. On economic policies, the team Obama has chosen is likely more like the Clinton team than the team Kerry might have picked. (Krugman liked many of Kerry's ideas in 2004.) I expect that they will usually agree, but when they disagree - I am more likely to think Kerry right. The team Obama picked is likely pushing him to the right, Senator Kerry will be someone trying to move him to the left. (Also consider that in the 1990s, Family Leave and S_CHIP were Senate originated ideas; while DADT, NAFTA, Telecommunications bill and the Welfare bill were all administration ideas. I wish the Senate Democrats would have pushed for more changes on the Welfare bill and NAFTA than they did.)

Read the full article rather than the quote highlighted. Kerry obviously knew that that would be the comment focused on, but the serious detailed comments say more of what the fight is. Kerry is pushing for creating the best stimulus package with the most likelihood of succeeding - to him this means more spending on infrastructure and removing some ill conceived tax credits. Read what he says on the banks as well. Kerry is calling for returning to honest books. Banks counting toxic assets at face value does not make them healthier - it just hides the truth. Kerry's job - especially as a member of the Finance Committee - is to use his intelligence, creativity, persuasion, and energy to work for the best bill the committee can produce. MA did NOT re-elect him to be an Obama surrogate.

As to astuteness on foreign policy, here is something to think of. Kerry (with Feingold) in 2006 authored and pushed Kerry/Feingold; Obama voted and spoke against it. He did not state a position similar to it until about 7 months later - after the vast majority of the Democrats polled favored such a position, contrary to a MTP comment that he took this position when it was not popular. It was Kerry and others who made the case for the position that both HRC and Obama took in the primaries. (As Obama and HRC moved to Kerry's position - it is hard to argue that they were move astute - and this was not the only such example.)

Different topic - Your comment that Obama knows more than Kerry about defeating Republicans ignores the differences between 2008 and 2004. The fact is that Kerry nearly beat the Republicans at a point where 59% of the country thought the country was going very well or fairly well - Obama had a big win when around 20% of the country thought that. (link to Gallup poll from 2004, look at question 7 - http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm ) Elections are not like duplicate bridge where everyone is dealt the same cards. 2008 was VERY likely to have a Democratic winner, not so 2004.

"We got 58 in the Senate and around 250 in the House. Fuck 'em."

without one bit of political fallout.

The Republican strategy is a Machiavellian one.They are betting that no matter what plan is passed the country is going to be in a hell of a mess for the next two years at least.Unfortunately, IMHO, that is probably a good bet.So either Obama will give them more of what they want or they will vote no and have a chance of picking up some seats in 2010 by pointing out that the Dems have been in almost total control for two years and no progress has been made.This may not be patriotic but it is how the game is played.Obama actually needs them to sign on more than they need to sign on.As Luke said in "Cool Hand Luke" sometimes having nothing can be a strong hand.Let the games commence.

So because "the country is going to be in a hell of a mess for the next two years at least" Obama should "give them more of what they want" (ensuring that the country remains in "a hell of a mess for the next two years") or they will vote no and have a chance of picking up some seats in 2010 (which they wouldn't be able to do if Obama gave them what they wanted?

"This may not be patriotic but it is how the game is played." Yeah, but what about democracy?

"Obama actually needs them to sign on more than they need to sign on" because no matter what happens, Republicans win?

Nonsense. Republicans are desperate. Obama doesn't need them.

Go, Senator! :thumbsup:

:kick:

Clarification: An earlier version of this story mischaracterized Sen. Olympia Snowe’s position on the stimulus package. While she has voted in favor of the tax provisions in the bill, a spokesman says she has not yet decided whether she’ll support the entire package when it comes to the Senate floor.

I doubt he is going to be listened to though. I just had ABC news playing in the background awhile ago, after listening to my local news. Had to turn it off, it almost made me want to loose my dinner.

Heard them saying DEMS might cave on a few of the things they want funded in order to give more freaking business tax cuts, just to kiss more PUKEY Butt.

Like Kerry said, the last eight years proves that freaking tax cuts don't work. They just go in the CEO's and top share holders pockets and never trickle down, hasn't this country learned anything? And he's right the PUKES aren't going to vote for it anyway. They just want to make the DEMS look like fools, in regards to how far they are willing to grovel at their feet. We are the majority party for cripes sake, its time we started acting like it.

Lets get back to being Democrats not Pukey want to bes.

I'd rather see projects funded like the one Rachel Maddow suggested, i.e. "weather proofing" our electrical grid.

Roosevelt didn't just give money over to people and hope they would spend it. Let the Federal Government actually over see actual back to work programs like reinforcing bridges, dams, cleaning up toxic waste sites, etc.

Like tax breaks are going to matter any way, no ones going to have any income left to pay taxes, the way things are going, so just screw the damn tax breaks, and tell the PUKES to go eat their own dung. To hell with Bipartisianship.

The way this whole stimulus plan is being handled is just wrong. The way the Pukes are being cow towed too just makes me sick. Its like they won and we lost, not the other way around.