John Kerry, Junior Senator, Massachusetts (D) is making another rare appearance in Massachusetts to campaign for re-election to the US Senate (Tenure - 24 years). An article in the Boston Herald notes that Kerry will be accompanied by Local Elected Officials while he walks around Lowell’s Canal District - proceeding from there to Lawrence for a stroll through the business district. Earlier this year, Kerry made an appearance in Western Mass., visiting the cities of Northampton and Springfield, again, accompanied by local elected officials. Stopping by a coffee shop and visiting with constituents does not appear to be on the Senator’s agenda. A visit to the Senator’s Campaign Website John Kerry.com also does not list a “Kerry In Your Corner” itinerary giving his constituents a heads-up on where he may be showing up next. His website does include selective video from the Mass. Democrat Convention, where he was assured he would handily walk away with the nomination, thereby freeing up his summer for other pursuits, more national in scope. Things did not work out the way Kerry had planned.
Recently on CBS Face the Nation Kerry, stumping for Barak Oabma, referred to John McCain, the Republican Presidential Nominee, as a Flip Flopper, whose judgment is “Dangerous”. It may appear, to Massachusetts locals that Kerry is more interested in being in the national spotlight than hobnobbing with the locals – he has made 3 appearances in Massachusetts since April related to his campaign. He has made hundreds of national appearances however, in support of Barack Obama. There may be a reason that his visits are brief and that he is surrounded by “Elected Officials” when he does set foot in Massachusetts – an overwhelming majority of Massachusetts Democrats voted for Senator Hillary Clinton in the February primary - not Barack Obama, who Kerry chose to support over the wishes of his constituents. This also may be why Ed O’Reilly, a Gloucester Lawyer, against all odds, received more than the necessary 15% of the votes at the Democrat Convention to become the first Democrat to challenge Kerry since he took office.
Amazingly, Policker MA.com suggests that Kerry has a comfortable Lead against the Republican challenger, Jeff Beatty. This analysis is somewhat questionable. First, Kerry led Beatty by 62 percent in a previous poll, and is now down to 58%, which one would think comfortable for Kerry. However, factor that this poll was taken when Jim Ogonowski was still in the Republican race against Beatty and 44% of the respondents had no opinion (or knowledge of) Jeff Beatty. That is a problem with polling data over a month old being released as “news”. More over, Jim Ogonowski left the race in early June and Jeff Beatty has been crisscrossing the state, building a strong grassroots campaign and getting a good deal of press, especially on the NECN network. He has not yet begun to roll out campaign ads. A Suffolk University poll, differed from the Rasmussen Poll in both length of time to publish the poll and in results. The Suffolk Poll suggested that 51% of the state voters were ready for someone different in that Kerry held seat. Additionally, this poll did not mention names of those who might compete against Kerry for the seat.
Kerry’s visit with Local Elected Officials coupled with dismal polling data, suggests that his tenure as Senator may be over this November. Granted, he does have the money, but, that said, residents of Massachusetts just watched Mitt Romney spend millions in a failed presidential bid against candidates who ran on a shoestring. In some instances, Money can’t buy love nor votes. One must spend time with the “masses” in order to succeed.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
John Kerry – Defends Barak Obama’s Flip Flops
Massachusetts Senator, John Kerry, on the stump for Barack Obama, appeared CBS’s Face the Nation this past Sunday. The topic: Barack Obama’s apparent change of stance, or evolving view of the War in Iraq – otherwise known as flip-flopping. In defense of Obama, Kerry turned on John McCain, accusing McCain of flip-flopping on, of all things, the war in Iraq. The term, flip-flop, became part of political speak during the 2004 presidential election, when John Kerry changed his position on a variety of issues almost daily. Kerry’s use of euphemisms is therefore, somewhat ironic. John McCain has changed his position on several issues, chief among them, off-shore oil drilling. McCain, in his change of position has responded to the nation’s energy crisis – which is not a flip-flop in the pure sense of political pandering. McCain has also called for a gas-tax holiday to help reduce the burden on consumers, and has also called for long-term solutions to reduce the U.S. dependence on foreign oil. However, on the War in Iraq, McCain has remained steadfast. He has been highly critical of the handling of the war, called for an increase in troops on the ground long before the surge was implemented, and has defended the military, over the policy and politics, at all times. Kerry’s position in his 2004 campaign, voted for the war and then against the war as he tried to pacify the left and move to the middle – political pandering at its most transparent.
Barack Obama, in his naiveté, explained his position on his “policy shift”, in two separate press conferences on July 3. Mike Huckabee, former presidential candidate, McCain supporter and Fox News contributor, noted that Barack Obama’s second press conference indicated that the candidate, and or his campaign handlers, understood that he had made an error in his first effort to explain his position.
Jeff Beatty, Republican candidate for Senate, MA, issued the following statements following Kerry’s comments on Sunday: “When John Kerry authorized placing American troops in Iraq, he showed a profound lack of judgment by making it about ‘politics’ and his personal political ambitions, a trend that has marked his entire Senate career.”
“I looked at the same facts that Kerry did. As Senator, I would have voted against this war. But Kerry’s vote for the war wasn’t about ‘facts’ or about protecting families in Massachusetts or our country. It was all about his presidential run. Today, Kerry’s continued insistence on a cut and run timetable is once again all about pandering and politics and will not result in a success. This ‘withdrawal in the face of the enemy’ would lead to more trouble for the United States in the very near future.”
Beatty goes on to question: “Can you trust Kerry to do what is in the interest of Massachusetts citizens or what is in his own political interests?” asks Beatty. Beatty goes on to say, “John Kerry is campaigning - not for the US Senate in Massachusetts, but for Vice President or Secretary of State in a potential Obama Administration. It is actually John Kerry’s lack of interest in serving the people of Massachusetts that is once again exposed, along with his poor judgment and profound lack of trustworthy leadership.”
Beatty, who recently received the endorsement of the national organization VetsforFreedom, is challenging Incumbent John Kerry in the Massachusetts senate race. A recent Suffolk University Poll, which is at odds with a Rasmussen Poll touted by major news networks, indicates that over 50% of the states voters would like a change in the Senate in 2008.
Note: John Kerry has not been campaigning in the Baystate to retain his Senate seat. He faces a challenger within his own party, and must first gain the State Democrat nominee before facing Jeff Beatty in the general election.
Barack Obama, in his naiveté, explained his position on his “policy shift”, in two separate press conferences on July 3. Mike Huckabee, former presidential candidate, McCain supporter and Fox News contributor, noted that Barack Obama’s second press conference indicated that the candidate, and or his campaign handlers, understood that he had made an error in his first effort to explain his position.
Barack Obama's flip-flops, Mike Huckabee comments
Jeff Beatty, Republican candidate for Senate, MA, issued the following statements following Kerry’s comments on Sunday: “When John Kerry authorized placing American troops in Iraq, he showed a profound lack of judgment by making it about ‘politics’ and his personal political ambitions, a trend that has marked his entire Senate career.”
“I looked at the same facts that Kerry did. As Senator, I would have voted against this war. But Kerry’s vote for the war wasn’t about ‘facts’ or about protecting families in Massachusetts or our country. It was all about his presidential run. Today, Kerry’s continued insistence on a cut and run timetable is once again all about pandering and politics and will not result in a success. This ‘withdrawal in the face of the enemy’ would lead to more trouble for the United States in the very near future.”
Beatty goes on to question: “Can you trust Kerry to do what is in the interest of Massachusetts citizens or what is in his own political interests?” asks Beatty. Beatty goes on to say, “John Kerry is campaigning - not for the US Senate in Massachusetts, but for Vice President or Secretary of State in a potential Obama Administration. It is actually John Kerry’s lack of interest in serving the people of Massachusetts that is once again exposed, along with his poor judgment and profound lack of trustworthy leadership.”
Beatty, who recently received the endorsement of the national organization VetsforFreedom, is challenging Incumbent John Kerry in the Massachusetts senate race. A recent Suffolk University Poll, which is at odds with a Rasmussen Poll touted by major news networks, indicates that over 50% of the states voters would like a change in the Senate in 2008.
Note: John Kerry has not been campaigning in the Baystate to retain his Senate seat. He faces a challenger within his own party, and must first gain the State Democrat nominee before facing Jeff Beatty in the general election.
Watch John Kerry Speak on Flip Flops
Monday, July 07, 2008
Monday's Musings - The Left - Using Religion for Politial Purpose
Robert S. McElvaine, History Department Chair at 87th Ranked (Liberal Arts Colleges) Millsaps College in Jackson MI and noted member of “Historians Against Bush”, pimped his new book, “Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion in America”, in a Huffington Post article he posted July 6, 2008. In his post, he complains about the endorsement of John McCain by the 90 Church Leaders who met in Colorado last week. He dubs these leaders as “Jesus Thieves” as they interpret the Bible somewhat differently than Professor McElvaine. He cries foul that these Leaders had the nerve to hold a conference in Denver, of all places, because that is where the Democrats are holding their convention this year. He does, of course, mention Obama.
In his analysis of these church leaders petition to McCain suggesting he choose Mike Huckabee or someone who has a similar charactor as a running mate, McElvine states: “In short, they don't like Huckabee on precisely those issues where he actually heeds the teachings of Jesus -- and suggests policies that might help the least of these and cut into the profits of the money-changers.”, This is almost praise for Huckabee from one who can be categorized as “Committed Left” but it serves a purpose.
He continues: “ Phil Burress, one of those at the Denver meeting, said that the most important thing is that McCain's running mate be "pro-life and pro-family." Those are, of course, code words for being anti-abortion and anti-gay.
"The only evangelicals that will support Obama are the ones who haven't read their Bible," proclaimed Burress.
These Jesus Thieves must be reading a different Bible from the one I have. In mine, Jesus never mentions abortion or homosexuality. He does, however, talk about loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, helping the poor, and how difficult it is for a rich man to enter heaven.”
Herein lies the problem. The church leaders who met in Colorado are all reading from similar Bibles - Bibles that are in concert with the King James Version or the Catholic Bible, its predecessor, with only modest changes in the language, without any deviation from the original context. In looking at issues held dear by the Left, specifically Abortion, it behooves them to print a newer version. In Matthew 5-17 Jesus commenting on the Law states (paraphrasing): that he did not come to change it but to fulfill it. In all interpretations other than McElvaine’s, Jesus is referring to the Law of Moses - the 10 Commandments, which, if memory serves includes that one biggie: “Thou Shalt Not Murder.”
How far will the Progressives go to subvert Religion? In an attempt to counter the Republican ideology, which does bring God into the public square, the new brand of liberal Christians are doing the same. Isn't this a contradiction of their constant mantra of “Separation of Church and State”? (One can just imagine how McElvine interprets the Constitution!)
Finally, the problem with Mr. McElvines weak thesis is his lack of research. Had he taken the time to actually compare several Bibles, he would have found that, yes indeed, as a Jew, Jesus did conform to the law. Specfically those practices set down by the prophets and he also encouraged those that followed his teachings to keep God’s commandments, forever linking the old to the new testament. In other words, the Church Leaders who met at Denver, as well as the millions of Christians of like mind, including Catholics, do not use pro-life as a code word for Abortion. Code word? They have no need for code-words as they are all reading the non-McElvine’s approved Bible, which is pretty clear on that point. Note of interest, McElvine fails to mention which version of the Bible he prefers.
In his analysis of these church leaders petition to McCain suggesting he choose Mike Huckabee or someone who has a similar charactor as a running mate, McElvine states: “In short, they don't like Huckabee on precisely those issues where he actually heeds the teachings of Jesus -- and suggests policies that might help the least of these and cut into the profits of the money-changers.”, This is almost praise for Huckabee from one who can be categorized as “Committed Left” but it serves a purpose.
He continues: “ Phil Burress, one of those at the Denver meeting, said that the most important thing is that McCain's running mate be "pro-life and pro-family." Those are, of course, code words for being anti-abortion and anti-gay.
"The only evangelicals that will support Obama are the ones who haven't read their Bible," proclaimed Burress.
These Jesus Thieves must be reading a different Bible from the one I have. In mine, Jesus never mentions abortion or homosexuality. He does, however, talk about loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, helping the poor, and how difficult it is for a rich man to enter heaven.”
Herein lies the problem. The church leaders who met in Colorado are all reading from similar Bibles - Bibles that are in concert with the King James Version or the Catholic Bible, its predecessor, with only modest changes in the language, without any deviation from the original context. In looking at issues held dear by the Left, specifically Abortion, it behooves them to print a newer version. In Matthew 5-17 Jesus commenting on the Law states (paraphrasing): that he did not come to change it but to fulfill it. In all interpretations other than McElvaine’s, Jesus is referring to the Law of Moses - the 10 Commandments, which, if memory serves includes that one biggie: “Thou Shalt Not Murder.”
How far will the Progressives go to subvert Religion? In an attempt to counter the Republican ideology, which does bring God into the public square, the new brand of liberal Christians are doing the same. Isn't this a contradiction of their constant mantra of “Separation of Church and State”? (One can just imagine how McElvine interprets the Constitution!)
Finally, the problem with Mr. McElvines weak thesis is his lack of research. Had he taken the time to actually compare several Bibles, he would have found that, yes indeed, as a Jew, Jesus did conform to the law. Specfically those practices set down by the prophets and he also encouraged those that followed his teachings to keep God’s commandments, forever linking the old to the new testament. In other words, the Church Leaders who met at Denver, as well as the millions of Christians of like mind, including Catholics, do not use pro-life as a code word for Abortion. Code word? They have no need for code-words as they are all reading the non-McElvine’s approved Bible, which is pretty clear on that point. Note of interest, McElvine fails to mention which version of the Bible he prefers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
