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

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

Scott Brown will win the seat which is what they want.
Again in 2014, they start out with the feeling that they can reclaim the senate, and with the senate and the house, they can cause real mischief

Why would you want to chance that? Kerry could always take the SOS in a few years when Hillary45 is President.

If you think Hillary45 won't keep him on, then why have Kerry only working a few years, when after he wins reelection he has 6 more years?

The senate is so much more powerful at the current moment, why leave it?

after Rice gets lynched, do you think they will stop? They will go after all other people.
Besides, bet they go after Kerry too.

You can't give them anything

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.

I only started here when cgcs closed, which was the official followup to the Kerry official presidential board 2003-2004.Only MEM had more posts than I did.
The followup started days after the loss, then just closed in Feb overnight.
80,000 posts over there.

And yeah, Martha Coaxley, yup, great candidate, she wants a rematch. Betcha she strikes out again like she did the last time. Remember she gave us Brown in the first place?

And if Deval takes the job, Scotty will become Governor, and rule the election boards.
Remember, Mass has had 2 republican governors in recent history.

Remember, Mass. changed the succession rule n 2004 when it was thought Kerry would win and he didn't so that mittens couldn't appoint a republican for his job.
But that is the law now and I don't think it can be changed back.

Besides, again, you don't want him to be SOS for Hillary in 2016? So are you saying you want him out of public life in 4 years? Why?

I would rather he be the #1 senior democratic senator, which means the single #1 power after the President in American politics.

Remember how great LBJ was as majority leader? Simply the all time best.
Wouldn't you want John Kerry for that? To be like LBJ would be something else. Being that he was simply simply simply the best.
The dems need another LBJ strongarming votes.

And we need Hillary to be able to leave as soon as possible, so that she can regroup for her entry into the 2016 around the end of 2014, and make sure the rest of the field don't even bother.
She will make history and she will see IMHO her 8 years in office as being a great continuation of President Obama's 8 years and she will be leading from the left.
Like her mentor Saul Alinsky did.
That old chicago community organizer, and that is what won in 2008 and 2012 and will do so in 2016 and 2020.

The President has run an almost flawless Presidency so far, the only thing I would have changed was his picking all those sitting senators, governors, etc. who's seats ended up in the opposing party hands.

As great as Sebelous and the legendary Janet Napolitano are, it would have been better they remained in office.

After all, moving up for those two great people (AHEM) gave us Brownback and Brewer didn't they?

Ah, no, never again should be the motto.

All current senators, governors, etc. should remain where they are. It is their patriotic duty as a democrat to do so.The needs now outweight the needs in prior times to do just that.

Or do you wish what almost happened to Bill Clinton, to be able to happen again, but this time with both the house and senate in the arms of the republicans who you know very well would make that happen. How long do you think then Kerry would remain with a republican president Boehner in office? Do you think he would leave Kerry in that position???

John Kerry should immediately announce his backing of Susan Rice for the position and telling America Susan Rice should not be lynched.
The republicans are attempting to do to her, what they claim Ted Kennedy did to Bork,
and have been looking for revenge ever since.
And remember (I am sure you do) how the repubicans swiftboated John Kerry himself?

Why do you wish Susan Rice to be swiftboated as she is being?

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.

been tapped for SoS.

You need to reach for whatever you can, dontcha?

angle=ulterior motives.

You don't actually want John Kerry then do you? That is not what is important.
This is a negative vote against Ms. Rice
You are negativeizing in that you hate Hillary and Rice and getting Rice out is a means to not liking Hillary.

clear.

BTW, if you don't like OUR President Obama, then why would you respect anyone he names?
Like Elizabeth Warren, being that because of OUR President Obama enabled anything she did to happen. Without President Obama there is NO Senate elect Warren. 100% true.
He nominated her to HIS cabinet. Just like he values John Kerry.

So let's be clear on this. You have to take the total, not parse out one thing here or there.

Package deal. It's all or nothing.

thinking about Lt. Columbo here fondly.

I value John Kerry too. It is possible OUR President Obama knows something of what will happen in the Mass. race as to who would run and the being assured that person would win a sudden empty seat. But if not, it sure appears that both McCain and Kerry are bullying their way to who is seated and creating a situation where in 2014, it will lead to the repubs trying an impeachment hearing over something idiotic like they did to Bill Clinton, where there but the grace of the Democrats having the senate, it would have been completed.

(though they probably never thought about what to do with Al Gore then).

So are you saying you would like Joe Biden to be President?
If so, I would have to look at what that angle would entail as Biden then would be incumbent in 2016 for two years.
What would that angle lead me to believe?


keep your eye on the prize. Greed enables the republicans.

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.

BTW, I was not a fan of the Clinton's until Hillary showed her credentials as SOS, the single greatest SOS of all time.

Though indeed I was always a fan of Janet Reno and Bill's Secretary of states both Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright.

BTW, I love that you think nothing of smearing Hillary, yet she is a community organizer fan just like Barack Obama

Remember Saul Alinsky? Hillary was an Alinsky groupie. Alinsky is one of the great unsung American Patriots in history.

.

Or is it that it's a female thing here???

Now it's not just Rice
but Hillary
but Janet
but Madeliene

could it be that maybe some here don't think a woman should have that role?
(that it's a man's job?)

I am not saying that is what is being said

but its now 4 women that are being smeared.

between this and the pro-Ron Paul thread, am I even on DU anymore?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

in spite of Obama, not because of Obama.

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.

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.

Guess who was gov. in 2004 when Kerry was thought that he would win the election?
None other than the loser I refuse to name (but will here to make it clear- Mitt Romney himself.

Because dems in Mass. thought Mitt would not name a democrat, they changed the rule and made the rule that a special election was needed.
and set a time period.

That law still stands.

Kerry of course did not win, wasn't President and kept his seat, so a replacement was not needed.

Fast forward to 2010 and Ted Kennedy died. Deval Patrick could not replace him, so a special election was called

the republican, Scott Brown won.

Fast forward to 2012, and Scott Brown lost after a nasty fight to Elizabeth Warren.

Now, looking to become SOS, Kerry would give up his seat, and guess what?
A new special election would be held.

And you can bet the repubs will have $100,000,000 to use to fight for this and most likely IMHO win the special, as democrats don't do all that well in special elections where big money is being used.

So the odds are, we lose a seat we just won.And with 2014 coming fast, the list of who is the 1/3 of the 100 senators running for reelection shows the Dems will have a harder time than the repubs, and midterms can be tough for the side the incumbent President is on.

That is what the dems are up against here.

Becaue there is no guarantee the seat will remain democrat

And if the repubs win the senate in 2014, in 2015 they will attempt to impeach the President like they tried with Clinton, if for no other reason than to do it to waste time and energy and hope they can make people not vote for democrats in 2016.

It is very transparent.

I don't know if John Kerry himself is aware of this todo about him, but one would have to think he would be, or say outloud the "Sherman" and this issue can end.

Because it's John McCain pushing for Kerry the loudest, to open his seat up for Brown to reclaim a senate one.

at all costs.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes this does make sense.

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.

You do realize the single thing that stopped Bill Clinton from being ousted was that the Senate was democratic after the house voted for it.

If we lose the house, they will most certainly in 2015 attempt this again, for lack of anything else and perhaps to attempt to stop Hillary from running against now incumbent Joe Biden.
(or at least a bruising primary to hurt them for the general election against Jeb.)

Why chance it?

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.

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

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.

John Kerry was forced to take Edwards

But prior to that, in a brilliant stroke of political gamemanship, he wanted HIS BEST FRIEND and long time Vietnam co-person to be his Vice President.

McCain did not bite, saying he did not even know if it was legally acceptable (it was)
but most likely W and friends pressured him not to do it

Had the two combined, it possibly could have led to republicans supporting the ticket, or at least others not inclined to vote Democratic in 2004 and McCain might have been the reason it wouldn't have been close.

John McCain played Kerry then. He is playing him again now.

Always seemed to me McCain was Lucy to Kerry's Charlie Brown.

A long time liberal like John Kerry should see and withdraw his name from consideration at this time(even if he is not officially been mentioned whatsoever). That way there is no
divide. Problem solved.

has suited their interests above the country's.

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

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.

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.

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

..it?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

" 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.

On all accounts.

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)

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.

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?

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.

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.