Kerry: “The truth is, the President got a lot of things here we've been fighting for"

[Still a Democrat]

Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, defended President Obama tonight from some of the intra-party fighting over the tentative agreement the president made with Republicans over extending the Bush-era tax cuts.

Kerry, who has been a top White House ally in that past, said that he did not agree with certain portions of the plan, but that it was a pragmatic realization of what is currently politically doable.

“It's a lot easier to deal in hypotheticals than it is to deal with the Senate as it is,” Kerry said. “We don't have 60 Senators who oppose the Bush tax policies the way I do, and the way Barack Obama and Joe Biden do, so how do you wrestle with that? Are you willing to say no to unemployment insurance if this is the only way to get it?”

“The truth is, the President got a lot of things here we've been fighting for that we haven't yet been able to win any other way,” Kerry added...

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/12/kerry_backs_oba_1.html

[mike_c]

1. this is the same Kerry who believed the nonsense about Iraqi WMDs...?

OK.

[karynnj]

10. If you read the IWR speeches of the various Senators,

you would know that the vast majority of those that voted NO acknowledged that there was a possibility of WMD - they objected to, at that point, giving Bush authority to go to war -and they were right, as Kerry back in 2005. In Kerry's speech, he spoke - not of the FACT that Saddam had WMD, but of the need to assure that he didn't. (This was at a time where it was likely that the 12 years sanctions were going to end - as far as Europe went. (Which was good, given the damage they did,)

In October, 2002, the inspectors had no been in Iraq for 4 years since they left before Clinton bombed Iraq. The goal of Kerry and many others in the summer of 2002, was to force Bush to go to the UN and to Congress. What Kerry, unsuccessfully was trying to do was to push Bush to use the leverage the vote gave him, in conjunction with the other countries, to pressure Saddam to allow invasive inspections. The inspections started in November 2002 - and by early 2003, it was clear that there was littel threat.

Kerry spoke out then - saying not to rush to war in a speech at the Jesuit Georgetown University - saying it would not be a war of last resort. Why did I point out it was a Jesuit University - because the majority of students likely knew that meant he was saying it would not be a just war.

The fact is that Kerry, like Dean, was labeled anti-war in spring 2003 when the war began - and he was still saying that more diplomacy could have been done - and it was not the last resort. It was not until mid 2003, that Dean was considered the only (viable) anti-war candidate - in spite of the fact that Dean was, if anything MORE aggressive than Kerry in 2002. It is now impossible to get links directly to primary sources, but using a DU excerpt of a Dean interview on Face the Nation on September 28. 2002, I found a link from David Swanson, of AfterDowningstreet.org.

HOWARD DEAN: It’s very simple. Here’s what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, ‘If you don’t do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/1879

Dean also supported Biden/Lugar which was Kerry's preferred bill as well. My point is not that Dean, had he been President would have taken us to war - he would not have, but neither would John Kerry, which we know because of things he said before the invasion.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[karynnj]

16. The fact is that that is not true

I realize that there were some who said that in 2002, but in many cases there were credibility issues. The fact is that Kerry was NEVER a cheerleader of that war - or any other war. The fact is no inspectors were in Iraq for 4 years, thus anything known in the 1990s was outdated. You do realize that Pakistan was not known to have a nuclear weapon until they they provably had one. (The BCCI report, written by Kerry in 1992 when that committee was ended, in fact listed as the number one thing that it recommended doing was studing how they evaded all non proliferation protocols.)

It was prudent to get inspectors in and that was the goal.

Would Kerry have repeated spoken against going to war in the 5 months between the vote and Bush's invasion, labeling himself antiwar if he thought it would be so popular. That doesn't make sense.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[karynnj]

28. Bush himself said it was not a vote for war when he was seeking votes

The inspections had not yet started and there was no agreement on what they would allow - they started in November. Ritter, incidentally had told Senate panels in the late 1990s that there was reason for concern. Kerry is most certainly not a war criminal.

Bush did not need the IWR or Kerry's vote in specific to go to war - as the Downing Street memos proved, It is completely provable from Kerry's own statements, that if he would have been President, he would not have taken the country to war.

[mike_c]

29. BS from start to finish-- read the IWR....

The ONLY thing it authorizes is complete presidential authority to use military force. Period. One can "say" anything they like about it. It was a war authorization and nothing else. If Kerry didn't read it he's a fool-- it takes five minutes. If he did, he knew what he was really authorizing.

[karynnj]

35. True - and false

It gave the President to the right to determine if certain conditions were met. In fact, they were objectively not met and Bush went to war. He misused the authority. Kerry himself agrees that they were wrong to give to him. Kerry has given the same reasons behind his vote that he gave when he voted. I see no reason to doubt that these were his reasons. It was clearly a decision he agonized about - and the speech he gave - up until the end - could have been a speech against it or for it. He should not have trusted the President of the United States to be honest - and especially on such as important matter - that is pretty sad.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[karynnj]

46. As I said - go back and look at Dean's 2002 position

It is very clear from his backing Biden/Lugar and his own proposed approach, that he too thought that Saddam potentially had WMD. The key word there is "potentially". If Biden/Lugar was the resolution that passed, there is nothing that would have stopped Bush from using it to attack - saying he HAD gone to the UN.

The fact is the person who made the decision in March 2003 to invade was Bush - and he was not forced or even encouraged to do so by the resolution. The resolution did not "help make it happen". What it did was allow the Republicans to spread the blame - and that is one of the reasons Kerry should have voted "no".

But, Kerry's vote was not his only tool - Kerry's main tool was his voice - and he did speak out in opeds, speeches and speaking to people in DC, MA and elsewhere. (His vote would only have been a stronger tool if the count was close and it wasn't) The fact is no tool that Kerry, Dean, or any other Democrat could have beat Bush's greatest tool - being able to send the troops to war if he said America's security was in jeopardy. (yes, the Congress would need to declare war within 60 days - but with troops on the ground, that was a given.)

[PSPS]

2. The problem is that the "we" Kerry is referring to is himself and his wealthy friends.

I'd like to see the word "we" used to refer to, you know, the "other" 98% of the country.

[readmoreoften]

3. +1

[bobbolink]

7. EXACTLY!

This is the man, while I was bannering for him every week, who caused me to vow it would be my last vote "for the least of the weavils"!

A vow I have kept.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[karynnj]

13. The fact still stands, that unlike your darling John Edwards,

who completely deceived you - Kerry actually has written or worked on legislation that has helped the poor and struggling. It was legislation he championed for 10 years on the affordable housing fund that was included in the 2008 banking bill. He worked with Kennedy on the precursor bill to SCHIP, which provides health care to children of the working poor. He and Snowe passed legislation on the Women's business centers which helped many women and minorities in starting very small businesses to rise out of poverty. The list could go on - but I doubt you will read it anyway.

In addition to Kerry's work, his wife, Teresa has worked with Cory Booker to help provide inexpensive prescription medicine in the Newark, NJ area and elsewhere - and funded clinics in a few extremely poor underserved areas.

[karynnj]

11. Kerry has a 25 year Senate record of voting for helping the poor and the middle class

Here, if you read his entire comments, his concern is with the unemployed, who need help, with not rich people, who are struggling, and with an economy that needs stimulating.

Do you seriously think that Ted Kennedy would support someone who only cared about rich friends in both 2004 and in 2008, until Kerry opted not to run?

Kerry was ranked last year as the 6th most liberal Senator.

[Liberalynn]

38. So why is he supporting the Payroll Holiday?

which even some Republicans are acknowledging will weaken SS? I can't believe how many Dems are turning their back on us.

[laughingliberal]

21. +1000 nt

[Scruffy1]

39. Spot on-this hypocrite knows better

I love how Kerry paints himself as a liberal by once in a while dropping a few crumbs from the orgy of the rich. Even parks his god dam yacht in another state to get out of paying taxes.Had the white flag up in his whole campaign.

[karynnj]

43. He paid the sales tax to MA that it would have received if puchased there

Nice repeating Republican points.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. that sounds British!

[underpants]

6. Kerry is right

we didn't get everything but we got something and the something we got is more sizeable than the enormous effort to ignore it and diminish it in the media

[somone]

9. Yeah, plutocrats know best

[undeterred]

14. The truth is, Kerry forgot to fight for the Presidency

when he won it, and Obama is forgetting why he ran for the Presidency.

[karynnj]

17. Kerry was told by the same tea that told Gore to challenge after

he conceded told Kerry there was no case. There pure and simple were not enough legally cast votes to change the results. Even the RFK jr analysis depends on estimating votes not cast because the Republicans suppressed the vote in some big cities by putting to few voting machines.

Kerry has fought his entire adult life for things he believes in - and they are liberal values.

Obama is fighting for all things he ran on - and has gotten many of them. In fact, here there are two conflicting campaign promises - to roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy AND to not raise taxes on those below $250,000. The Senate CAN NOT pass a bill that extends just the middle class tax cuts. Not a single Republican will vote for it and we don't have 60 Democrats. The reality then is that he can keep one, but not both of those promises.

[undeterred]

20. And Obama isn't smart enough how to figure out how to

separate the two, apparently.

Kerry should have challenged- he got bad advice, and Gore got bad counsel.

[karynnj]

27. Challenged what?

A recount would not have helped - the partial recount barely changed the totals - there were not 59,000 votes to find. There were irregularities and Kerry was one of the few to speak of them in 2005 - in the Senate and out.

There were two tests votes - one for rolling them back for incomes above $1 million - it got 53 votes. To pass the bill needs 60. Even if there were a budget bill - which there isn't, and there was enabling language which there wasn't, the reconciliation could not be used because the bill for any extension of tax cuts raises the deficit - a rule put in after Bush's tax cuts. It can't be done by executive order. How could you pass it?

Sanders is speaking of trying to get enough public support to win a few Republicans - but Obama DID push this in speeches across the country before the elections - and the Republicans did very well. That suggests it will not be possible to scare Republicans into thinking that their constituents will make them pay - as they obviously voted for the Republicans.

[undeterred]

32. There were a few hundred thousand votes switched

in the middle of the night. It would have made a difference if there had been an investigation.

Unemployment extension for long term employed does not have to be tied to tax cuts for the rich.

[karynnj]

34. Did you have legal proof of that - Kerry didn't

Even if there was sufficient proof to have an investigation, there was nothing to see - there was no paper trail.

I was not speaking of unemployment extension - but the promise to not increase the taxes of those under $250 -

I agree that the UI extension could be separate - but, it is not clear that it can get 60 votes.

[undeterred]

37. Obama gave away the tax cuts for the rich in a backroom deal.

He forgot which side he was elected by. He starts from a position of weakness. He attacks people who uphold true Democratic values and want to fight for them. He is throwing away his support with both hands, as fast as he can.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FarLeftRage]

18. +100

N/T....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Kerry sold out long ago and is still covering the admin's asses.

[Occam Bandage]

23. The same Kerry who teamed up with China to torpedo the Copenhagen summit.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733630,00.html

[karynnj]

30. This article is very far from the truth

Note that they credit GWB - that should give you some pause. The fact is that Kerry was working hard to get China to cut their pollution - and they actually have made gains, though not as much as would be needed.

This is an issue that Kerry has worked on since the first hearings that Al Gore led - and Gore has supported Kerry's actions.

[bigwillq]

25. Good post.

:thumbsup:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Kerry? Isn't he the really smart guy who says he was duped by the genius Bush?

[BzaDem]

26. As we see, it's now apparently time to throw Kerry under the bus. This is hilarious. n/t

[karynnj]

31. The question is who they still like - other than Michael Moore and Grayson

who are all good and incapable of doing anything wrong.

[Supersedeas]

50. when a policy disagreement is translated into a bus

maybe disagreements with Kerry is 'about race' too

or maybe it is just a disagreement about policy.

[Major Hogwash]

33. "The truth has a force of its own."

The best line from the 2004 Kerry campaign.
Gawd bless Kerry and his whole family.

[karynnj]

41. and God bless you for remembering a line I completely forgot! nt

[ibegurpard]

36. Sorry Kerry I think you're wrong and I hope this fails.

[ProSense]

40. Kerry is correct and

no one seems to be able to come up with a better deal. Here are two differing views from Krugman and Ezra Klein. Hating the tax cuts for the rich is not a good enough reason to reject the deal.

The overwhelming majority of Democrats want the best deal possible. They are not going to stand by and let the tax cuts expire.

Democrats could have held the tax cut vote prior to the election. The House rejected that strategy. Now, it's time to deal, and the best they can do is be upset by the deal.

Not holding the vote before the election was likely a fine strategy for the House because, after the election, they did pass the middle-class tax cuts only.

The problem is that before the bill goes to the President, it has to pass the Senate, which last Saturday was unable to pass the middle-class tax cut only (four Democrats voted against. Even when they raised the threshold to $1 million it failed with five Democrats voting against it.

A better strategy, if they wanted a deal at this late stage, would have been to try to identify what a better deal would look like to gain the votes needed in the Senate.

So Congress has to either negotiate a better deal now or later.

Later, means the deal will be negotiated by Republicans. They will not need a single Democratic vote in the House, and there will be five more Republicans in the Senate.

They will ensure that all the things that are currently being held hostage by them are still held hostage in the next Congress.

They will negotiate a deal that includes more tax cuts for the rich, middle class tax cuts, a lesser deal for the unemployed and none of the stimulus provisions.

The President will have to sign or veto a bill with relief for the middle class and unemployed. It's unlikely that the GOP will change their package to accommodate the President and Democrats when they are the majority in the House.

Republicans are assholes, and they are not going to act otherwise. This is not shut the government down, this is about tax cuts for the middle class and stimulus provisions. Any package that Republicans negotiate will be accepted by Americans as "the best we can do," especially when they are calling the shots in Congress.

The Democratic Congress needs to make the deal better now because it's unlikely to get better in the next Congress.

[karynnj]

44. Yay Prosense - this is completely wonderful and clear

[politicasista]

45. Senator Kerry is seeing a downside of defending a Democratic President

Senator Kerry is at a Catch 22.

Defend Obama and the AA blogs and ardent supporters will appreciate you for putting country ahead of ego, and not undercutting the President.

However, it comes at a price:

Anger the Liberal, Progressive, MA base, get called all types of RW talking points, and other past/present negative stories brought up about you, labeled as a "sellout corporatist" or "bought off by corporations."



It's too bad, but that's the way it is , me guess. :shrug:

[karynnj]

47. Exactly - This is a time where Obama needs Democrats to have his back

and the opposite is happening. Kerry's statement is not saying that Obama's compromise is what he would have wanted. He is comparing it to the likely available alternatives and saying he thinks it is better than they are.

I think people speaking as if passing nothing leads to the return of the Clinton rates for the foreseeable future are not thinking of what happens after January. You have a Republican House that would pass a bill rolling back everyone's increases. There is no way that there would be 40 Senators to filibuster it and the President - as Prosense noted would be forced to sign it. This gets you to a far worse place.

[Better Believe It]

48. Kerry is defending an attack on Social Security and tax cuts for the rich.

[karynnj]

51. Your reading comprehension is sadly lacking there

[bushisanidiot]

49. The clock is running out on the middle and lower classes.

people are living paycheck to paycheck. we all know, and President Obama knows, that the rich do not need the tax cuts. but to deny them to the lower and middle classes, and deny health insurance from those who are suffering most, is akin to telling King Solomon to go ahead, cut the baby in half, because we know we're right and that's all that matters. Everyone loses that way. EVERYONE.. most of whom are the weak and vulnerable.

You want to believe that President Obama is on the side of the rich, go ahead.. your bias is showing. He is TRYING to help those stuck in the lower and middle classes who are living paycheck to paycheck and are about to lose money that they need to survive. He is standing up FOR THEM!!