I've only ONE thing to say...Kerry's office better start battling distortions from Schumer's thugs

in a PROACTIVE way. Hopefully they'll even start doing it PRE-EMPTIVELY as they should know by now to expect the deceitful tactics Schumer's office will take.

If they don't then they are fools.

That is all from me.

A bizarre marriage that only works for people as cynical as the two parties mentioned. And for those who seek power for power's sake.

You would think after the heyjohn distortions they'd have learned by now.

They seem to be now using emails, which are the hardest thing to respond to because they are hit and run. The HP story itself was killed in a day - and the number of people willing to continue to argue it here on DU were few. From search, the main one was a Nader supporter, with a few Edwards' hold outs (until August 2008). They have no concern for the truth. (I wouldn't be surprised if just as the Nader people thought Bush beating Gore could make things bad enough to get a "real Progressive", whatever that means, think if healthcare fails, it will come back again and they get single payer. That may be unfair, but their actions do not match a goal of getting the best bill we can.)

Kerry's position is well known. The Boston Globe spoke of him defending Kennedy's vision on health care. Kerry even was as clear and explicit as possible on being for a public option as he could be on Daily KOS. This is more public issue than "hey john", which few not reading the blogosphere ever heard of. In addition, he will only be running 7 years from now in MA - a long time from now in a state that knows him very very well.

The original story does seem from all circumstantial evidence to have been from Schumer. I assume he is trying to prevent Kerry from being the strongest liberal voice in the Senate once Kennedy resigns. If that is the motive, he is really not motivated by the right things.

.

a charismatic, eloquent leader to replace the charismatic, eloquent Kennedy. It may be they are really ABK leading - of the senior leaders of that wing, Kerry is by far the most capable of leadership.

It might explain the far left Naderites too. The thing that marginalizes them the most is a strong liberal voice in the mainstream of the party. I think the main reason Nader got fewer votes in 2004 than 2000 was people learning their lesson in 2000. However, I think part of it was that Nader couldn't and didn't try to portray Kerry as similar to Bush even as some lefties on blogs did. (Dean in February 2004 did, but Nader never did. The lefties might have never questioned Dean's (or likely Trippi's) comments.)

I wish someone would smack him down.

over an energy bill. They have lost their collective minds. The constituent is skeptical of Moveon:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/20/755683/-MoveOn-and-Senator-Kerry

If there is a bill on energy where they need to push Kerry, it is going nowhere as Kerry is nowhere near average on this. It would mean moving him and the whole Senate.

lost their colective minds?

heyjohn, we should no longer be surprised at the low depth some of Kerry's corporatist Dem enemies will sink.

GOD, I HATE Moveon.org.

that hadn't yet surfaced on DU or Daily Kos, so we knew what the OP was saying, but didn't want to post it because it was not already posted. Here is a post made later in GD-P - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8538589&mesg_id=8539092 We at least kept the recommendations down and inserted enough truth. This really does tell me that Beachmom's post on the far left is completely accurate. I frankly do not get their motivation - even after fighting them for 4 years!

I am less sure than some that Schumer was involved, but those staffers had to work for someone. They are identified as Democrats and it would make no sense for a person not for the public option to have passed this on as they did. That leaves few choices and his office was very likely involved in "Heyjohn"

I must shamefully confess that I often delete them without reading if I am in a hurry, which is often the case. Going to the link now & thanks.

doubt in my mind that Schumer's office is responsible, especially since Grim has a close relationship with that office.

We shouldn't have to be relied upon to be the Volunteer Fire Dept so often for such utter bullshit smears. Kerry and his office need to corner these thugs and take them to the woodshed....publicly, if that is the only way they'll stop.

I looked through the thread linked by karyn, the whole thing is absolute nonsense (I had the pleasure to be the unrecommend that brought to <0 :-)). Did not read all the posts, but fortunately it seems that most people posting agree that it's ridiculous. As a side note, it's again that TRAITOR thing discussed in anothre thread here. I hate that, nothing to do with JK.

The traitor thing is obnoxious.

- he is close to the journalist
- he's done it before
- there are potential upsides for him
- there are very few people to pick from - this is more like the board game "Clue", where there are very few possible suspects. Removing all people themselves not for the public option, because the fact that they are shown as not willing to accept a public option even if the private system is not good after 10 years, makes them look pathetic and removing Snowe, because she is for a public option, that leaves just Menendez, Stabanow, Rockefeller, Bingaman, and Schumer. None of the others seem likely. Menendez is a junior Senator on the SFRC, his putting a hold on two environmental appointees because of the Cuba policy likely did not win him points with Kerry, who campaigned for him in what was thought to be a close election. I doubt he would have any reason to do this and it would hurt him if he did. Rockefeller seems to have a good relationship with Kerry from the times I've seen them on the finance committee and he gave Kerry a great subcommittee on his Commerce committee. I know very little about Stabanow or Bingaman, but neither seem to be the type for this. So, that leaves Schumer.

However, I keep getting a nagging feeling - of what if I am wrong. I would then be attacking a Democrat, running next year with lies. That is why I have often written a caveat that we don't know for sure. I did not mean the comment as an attack on you or anyone else. I still am amazed that you saw somethings here long before at least I did. The problem is totally my own.

It is true that we shouldn't have to be volunteer firemen so often, but there is something about Kerry that causes the far left and the right to be fertile ground for lies. On the left, it might be that they do not want to accept that they were wrong in 2004 with all their "holding their nose" idiocy. Yet, if they looked at things clearly, Kerry has led on most of issues important to them and is to the left of every President in their lifetimes - and he had a far more liberal record than Deam. That the far left fell in love with Edwards shows how shallow many are. I really can't understand how they ignore decades of good actions, but accept wide open eyes and good words.

I read one thing in a book on the anti-war movement, that some of the more radical people resented both Kerry's access to people in power and resented his moderation. They felt he pulled many vets back from more radical movements and moved people to working within a government, that he, unlike they, completely believes in. For these radicals, the end of the 60s/early 70s is as close as the US ever got to revolution (other than 1776) - and even then it was not close. So, the very far left never liked him.

FWIW, he's just put out an email via Leahy's email list:



Draw your own conclusions...

This part is pretty misleading:

"My colleagues and I working on health care reform in the Senate Committee on Finance aren't going to sit back on our heels -- we're going on the offensive. But the pressure on the insurance industry needs to come from the people, too.

If you haven't signed the petition Senators Leahy, Durbin, and I are circulating yet, sign it today and help put pressure on the insurance industry to come to the table.

Health insurance premiums have doubled since 2001. In case you're wondering where the extra money is going, industry profits have soared 428% in that same time.

My colleagues and I on the Finance committee are pushing for the major health insurers to pay their fair share by submitting to new fees that will help pay for a major chunk of the overhaul -- and eliminate the potential need to tax benefits."

It makes it seem like the Finance committee is going on the offensive on this - which is nearly completely the opposite of the truth. It also would have led me, if I didn't know who was on the Finance Committee, to think Leahy and Durbin were on the committee.

AS public option is being pushed by him. Plus, we know Snowe SAID she was working with Schumer on trigger - a trigger that was blamed on Kerry.

you forget how intensely blue these eyes are. Never my type by the way, not now, not when I was younger, but that's way beside the point :-).

especially to those last two paragraphs. . .especially THIS



thanks for your insights

They said their facts were correct. I haven't answered them yet.

both to the general and Jim Dean link. I likely will get the same form letter.

I included:

- the Daily Kos comment
- The fact that he was on Dean's list as a Yes
-This response on Blue Mass - http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showComment.do?commentId=195648
-and the DU Adam Green response - which is not true. His wording did not "fully acknowledge" that Kerry's position was a public option - it pretty much called him a liar and implied he was working behind the scenes against it -and I mentioned the comments on Green's site show that people interpreted it that he "caved", that he is against them. I also wrote that it would be irresponsible to rule out voting for anything less than a strong public option, if the plan was a major improvement over what we have.

(I somehow lost it from "copy" but I did tell them I will use that information anywhere I see it - and that it makes DFA look bad that they have it on their front page.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/28/758733/-Schumer,-Leahy-and-Durbin-Launch-WebsiteA-Call-To-ACTION-!!

Very similar name to "We Want a Public Option", isn't it?

Not sure what Kerry's strategy is. He has already been smeared by the Huff Po and then re-smeared by PDA and DFA. Meanwhile, Schumer gets himself a headline on Kos.

it collects information for the re-election of Chuck Schumer, who is up in 2010. So is Sen. Leahy, whom I like. (And Sen Durbin, who is Class II, Like Sen Kerry and not up until 2014.)

Anyone who signs up for that is signing up for Chuck Schumer's re-election campaign and will get notices from them until they unsubscribe from the list. Caveat Emptor. (Let the Buyer Beware)

And my comment is as high up as I could muster.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/7/28/101059/462/173#c173

Okay, I need to stop!!!!

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/7/28/101059/462/174#c174

I'm having too much fun.

The scary part of that thread is the part where people are pushing him for Majority leader. Because he will lead ....with iron fists...who cares if it is the way we want to go.

I do think that it eventually will catch up with him. He can't play the I am the deal broker standing in teh middle in the MSM and play I am the liberal hero on the blogs. They are getting their mileage out of this petition. Schumer clearly is trying to become a lefty hero. I would say with his history it is impossible, but Edwards (by changing) and others like Webb and Dean, were liked for appearing to meet their definition of strong.


I have been monitoring Daily Kos healthcare posts for a few days - finding "Kerry" or "Schumer", rather than just reading. There are posts pushing Schumer - wanting him for majority leader, but they are always met by people posting of "Mukasey", wall street, and saying in different ways they don't trust him. The biggest reason he is pushed is because they think he would have an iron fist ... I understand there desire for movement, but Schumer on foreign policy is often not going in a direction they might like. As to Kerry, in spite of the DFA and the Bold progressives, there have been few takers on Daily Koss.

(I am beginning to think that Schumer is giving Gillibrand lessons. She is everywhere today credited as having been the one who got hearings in the Arms Services Committee on DADT. Recently, she made a big splash with a DK diary on sponsoring an amendment on that. The article yesterday in the Daily Beast mentioned that she decided against an amendment because she didn't have 60 votes. (To me, it means that the earlier stuff was show boating to up her profile with liberals because of Maloney challenge in the primaries.) There are hundreds of bills in Thomas that could never get 60 votes. How many pieces of legislation have 60votes before they are written)

He did his share of petitions and then it suddenly stopped. Because it was kind of BS (well, had he run for POTUS, he needed as many e-mail addresses as he could get). I refuse to sign petitions now, even if I 100% support the cause and group. I just don't think it affects things, and I don't want my name all over the place.

Chuckie is still in full pander mode. And as I said, he's a politician's politician. But as you said, people fell for Edwards when he didn't have a shred of a record to back up his left wing talk. Frankly, a lot of partisans are pretty gullible, when they're not being cynical (yeah, that is indeed irony).

Frankly, a lot of partisans are pretty gullible, when they're not being cynical. (oddly, there gullibility in choosing who to believe can be part of the cause of their cynicism.

I agree with you on the petitions. I do think there was a need in 2005. The loss in 2004 was shattering to many and the petitions were a way to make contact and keep people involved.

What I don't get in Schumer's case is that I doubt he has any pretensions beyond the Senate. He is very knowledgeable and intelligent. I wouldn't think that popularity on the left would be a big plus for him - even if he could get it. I also don't see how a reputation of being someone not to turn your back to helps.

Gillibrand is one who may have huge expectations.