Teresa Heinz Kerry runs a foundation that gives millions. I think many on the left completely ignored anything that made Kerry look good, because they were angered by the IWR vote and they were disappointed that Kerry defeated Dean. Interestingly, in Iowa where people did listen to both Kerry won more voters than Dean even those who described themselves as anti-war. Kerry spoke against invading before the war started and was labeled anti-war through about May 2003.
Tell me any politician who has made harder stands than Kerry did in 1971 against Nixon, in the late 1980s against the popular Reagan in fighting the Contras, and in the early 1990s standing up to the entire power elite to fight BCCI. In addition, Kerry's platform on alternative energy/environment was stronger than any previous one (and yes, I include Gore), he had a near universal healthcare plan, which was better than those of the other 2004 candidates per consumer groups (edwards argued it was too expensive - edwards insured only kids in 2004.) This is likely why Nader complimented Kerry in 2004, even as he ran against him -
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/us/kerry-woos-nader-who-declares-him-very-presidential.html?scp=1&sq=nader+and+kerry&st=nyt )
In addition, there was his brave stand on the "war on terror" - where he argued that international law enforcement, intelligence and occasional military special forces actions was the answer. In 2006, this became well accepted, but in 2004, it was honest and it offered the only real hope for a better future. On Iraq, the media helped Bush. Kerry spoke of regional diplomacy, pulling in allies to quickly get the Iraqis running a stable government, and he, before anyone else mentioned it, in the first debate called for no permanent bases in Iraq. Bush said this was the "Bush plan" and the media reported that without judgment.
The fact is whether you like it or not, Kerry was pushing change on how to deal with non-state terrorism (his words vs Bush's "war on terror"), Iraq, energy, environment, and healthcare. Most of the 2008 candidates took his platforms - even in some cases using his positioning of the issue - especially on national security and energy/environment. Where 2008 was a year of change, 2004 wasn't. A Gallup poll, taken near the election, showed 59% of the people thought the country was doing very well or fairly well. This compares to over 80% saying the country was going in the wrong direction in 2008. (The country is very polarized and you can't project from the people you know.)
Given the tenor of the time, it is amazing that Kerry got as close as he did - where had there been adequate numbers of voting machines in Ohio he may well have won. Had the OBL tape not appeared, Kerry would have won a very major upset.
The fact is that if you look at Kerry's actions over a long a career have shown considerable integrity.
As to the VVAW, the fact is that Kerry was definitely in the moderate wing and when he left, he pulled as many people as he could with him into the Vietnam Veterans for America, Bobby Muller's group. His leaving, from books written of that time, was because the group became substantially more radical and because one leader was found to have completely lied about his service, giving himself a rank and experiences he didn't have. Right before Kerry left, he verbally blasted this guy, because he felt his dishonesty reflected on the entire organization. (It was strong enough that the guy was restrained by other vets to keep him from physically attacking Kerry.)
Kerry argued for change through the government's processes. Other parts of the group were very radical. From books written at the time, many resented that Kerry became the best known person. The fact is that Kerry was by far the most effective person in that organization and it was because he did things like get the necessary permits, and politely call and meet with sympathetic legislators. This and his intelligence and eloquence impressed them and he was asked to testify. It is very likely that others were jealous of the doors that opened easily for Kerry, because his manners, connections and background gave him the tools to be heard by Congressmen and elite media. (Kerry in 1970 was Father Drinan's campaign manager. Drinan, a Jesuit priest was then a MA Congressman and the man who filed impeachment charges because of things done in the Vietnam War. From several accounts, Before becoming a Congressmen, Drinan had referred many vets troubled by the war to meet with Kerry. Drinan, who taught at Georgetown Law after the church made him leave Congress in 1980, remained a close friend to Kerry and in 2004 referred to him as a "very good man". )
Kerry has used those campaign funds for things like his Truthfightsback, an anti smear site to benefit all Democrats, Roadblock Republican and his Setadeadline.com websites, as well as for unprecedented, large scale soliciting money for other candidates - where he paid the cost and the contributions went directly to the intended candidate. This is advocacy for the veterans. To me, it is a step further than the other uses because it is not and should not be partisan - where everything else was partisan. Helping veterans is a cause he has pursued conscientiously for over 4 decades.
Using campaign funds for something non-partisan could make what is and should be non-partisan seem partisan, though it's true that Kerry being involved likely will do that anyway. This is not the act of a political hack. It is using campaign money for a cause he cares deeply about. Documentary films are rarely money makers, but if that actually were, Kerry should say that any money gained beyond the interest that money would have earned will go to a veteran's program.
In addition, he is going both to the Senate ethics committee and to the FEC. If they have no problems, then my concern is likely wrong. It is certainly better than giving money from that via his leadership PAC to other Senators in exchange for promises on votes or future support, which is done by others. Consider that even with being the most high profile Senator fighting the right wing in the 1980s and 1990s, he has never been brought up on ethics charges and he is among the cleanest politicians we have.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
