One reason why Kerry is having trouble

[Freddie Stubbs]

EILEEN MCNAMARA
Kerry's style a real turnoff

By Eileen McNamara, Globe Columnist, 12/14/2003

If Charlie Murphy needs help in Washington, the state representative from Burlington calls congressman John Tierney. Lexington Representative Jay Kaufman calls congressman Edward J. Markey. Cambridge City Councilor Ken Reeves takes his troubles straight to the office of Massachusetts' senior senator, Edward M. Kennedy.

The man none of them call on Capitol Hill is Senator John F. Kerry, the state's Democratic presidential hopeful. ''Why bother? You'd be lucky to have anyone on his staff call you back,'' says Murphy, who traveled with a group of Massachusetts elected officials to New Hampshire yesterday to campaign for Howard Dean.

Murphy and his colleagues say their support for Dean has more to do with the former Vermont governor's strength as a candidate than Kerry's weakness, but it is clear that among many local officials in Massachusetts the state's junior senator is reaping what he sowed.

Imperious, arrogant, and indifferent are a few of the milder adjectives some use to describe their increasingly rare dealings with Kerry. Anecdotes abound about being shut out of his campaign announcement and then invited at the last minute when it looked like he might not fill Faneuil Hall. Especially irritating to many is that after his hard-fought reelection victory over William F. Weld, Kerry acknowledged that he had not been sufficiently responsive to local officials and vowed to change. ''Ha,'' scoffed Reeves, a former Cambridge mayor who has held elective office for 16 years. ''Nothing changed.''

more: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/348/metro/Kerry_s_style_a_real_turnoffP.shtml

[sandnsea]

1. The Boston Globe?

Yes, that's one reason. The rest of the media is another. People forgetting how the media pushes Bush and ignores Democrats is another. Questioning why that same media is pushing Dean is still another.

[cindyw]

2. This is a dupe. It should be locked. Didn't we already point out that

the Boston Globe on Kerry is like FOX on Dems.

[ProfessorPlum]

3. The Boston Globe really has it in for Kerry

They seem to hate him there - I think they are despicable.

This trashing of Kerry in the BG has been going on for a LONG time. Here is a note I wrote to one of their columnists this spring about their Kerry-bashing:


"I am writing to protest your latest column "Kerry has a bad case of the sulks". For the love of God, STOP, JUST STOP! I don't know what has possessed you and your colleagues at the Globe, but in case you haven't noticed, this country is in terrible shape. Our store of treasure has been squandered. Our store of international goodwill and credibility has been squandered. Our system of international law and treaties has been squandered. Our incredibly stabilizing ideal of separation of church and state has been squandered. Our peace has been squandered. Our prosperity has been squandered. Our environment is being sold to the highest bidder. The domestic and international damage that is being done to this country by our current administration is unprecedented in both its scope and its speed. Unless the citizens of this country do something quickly to effect a regime change, by somehow getting the illegal squatter out of office in 2004, there will be no recognizable USA left to fight over.

In light of the urgency of what is at stake for all of us, your continued carping and mewling at a leading contender for the Democratic nomination shatters all rationality. Frankly, I don't care what kind of personal grudges the Globe has with Kerry. If you have any decency left as a human being you will come together with other people of goodwill in this country to support all of the Democratic field of contenders. If you have no human decency, but have even a shred of journalistic integrity, you will limit your comments about politicians to relevant policy issues. If you have neither decency nor integrity, you will continue this incredibly counter-productive campaign of slur, innuendo, nastiness, and trivia against Kerry.

As to the content of your column, if you think Kerry can be sulky, you have obviously not paid any attention to the vindictive, vengeful, sulking, and spoiled career of the man-child who some now call the president. I would call "The Bush Dyslexicon" by Mark Crispin Miller and "Shrub" by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose to your attention. Notice what happened to the homeowners in Arlington who opposed his sweetheart deal for the Rangers' stadium. Notice how Bush treated Al Hunt when he was drunk. Notice how reporters and columnists who dare to challenge the naked emporer are "shunned" by those in power, and their colleagues. Notice how idiots in our government are sulkily re-naming french fries, for God's sake.

As for Kerry's heritage, as if it made any difference, it was clear in the conversation he had with John McLaughlin in 1993 that he wasn't sure what exactly his background was, and that he presumed, EVEN UP TO 1993 and later, that his name implied that his heritage was Irish or English. Let me explain this one more time for you, because you seem a little slow on this point: He never corrected the Globe (and you are fools to think that was his job) for implying that he was Irish because until recently he thought he probably was, too. Now, I will state again that his ancestry doesn't matter. I would vote for an alien dropped from a ship from Jupiter if I thought he stood for good policies and he could beat Bush in the general election. But your continued, and obviously deliberate, idiocy around this point can clearly be seen for what it is - a political hit job. The Globe did it to Gore in 1999-2000, and you are gearing up to do it to Democrats again this time around.

Knock it off. We are on to you this time, and we will not put up with this transparent trivializing of our national debate, nor with the trashing of good and decent people who have devoted themselves to public service. If you have a legitimate policy concern about Kerry, then by all means write about it. But leave the Kool Kidz, "Heathers"-like trashing of people to the Washington Post. They do it so much better than you, anyway. "

[cindyw]

4. I'm impressed Plum.

I also appreciate the argument this morning.

[ProfessorPlum]

5. I'm not an *sshole, and I'm not blinded by

partisanship for any one candidate. I think a can of Spam could reasonably beat Bush in the general. And I think Kerry is a hell of a good person and Democrat. I just think it is incredible for Kerry supporters to beat up Dean for criticizing the IWR if (IF! - I still haven't seen it validated) Kerry is going to take credit for the "good" results of the invasion, and somehow base it on the IWR.

[cindyw]

6. And I find it incredible that Dean could attack Kerry for his voting for

the IWR, claim that he would have not given that authority to Bush and it comes out that he said he supported BL and said that in general he trusts the president.

I may have a favorite candidate, but I think my concern of Dean is reasonable. I do not like people who gain supporters by misrepresenting themselves.

I'll link to quotes if you need them to prove my claim, but I have to leave right now.