As I have stated publicly, I am an opponent of the proposed Biolab in the South End. Other than convenience to Academia and area Hospitals, it would be difficult to find a less suitable location for this project.
I have posted today on Blue Mass Group http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9689 my comments relative to the Supreme Judicial Court's opinion relative to the Environmental Impact such a project could have on the South End and the City of Boston area.
This decision by the SJC is a victory for common sense.
Although the case is being sent back for further review, the ruling by the Superior Court judge vacating the Environmental Impact Report effectively means the process review process must start over.
The encouraging result of this decision is that it should effectively put an end to this ill advised project.
If this development project were to continue and the merits again were put before the SJC, the developers will have to deal with the "risks posed by the potential release of a contagious disease from the Biolab, which could cause catastrophic harm". The court went on to say that other locations must be considered for the Biolab.
Additionally, the SJC stated, "Given that the nature of a Biosafety Level 4 facility is to conduct research on highly virulent and infectious pathogens, and given that the Biolab will be located in a densely populated urban area, the likelihood that the release of such a pathogen will cause damage to the environment is extraordinarily high. The fact that University Associates will take all necessary precautions to minimize the chances of a release at the Biolab does not diminish the potential for catastrophic environmental damage if such a release does occur."
Although the decision is cloaked in legal procedures and statutory details, the message from the SJC is loud and clear. This is the wrong project in the wrong place. I agree.
Ed O'Reilly
www.edoreilly.com
A Massachusetts Democrat for the U.S. Senate
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
International Law and Iran
Iran is a sovereign country and any attack upon it would be a violation of International Law according to the Charter of the United Nations http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
The Bush administration wants a dialogue to begin about attacking Iran. It has thrown out several reasons, none of which are justified under International Law, for an attack.
There should be no dialogue about violating International Law.
Ed O'Reilly
Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts
The Bush administration wants a dialogue to begin about attacking Iran. It has thrown out several reasons, none of which are justified under International Law, for an attack.
There should be no dialogue about violating International Law.
Ed O'Reilly
Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Iran Warmongering, Military Commissions Act, Cowboys, Blackwater
The decision today by Secretary of State Rice, to implement "rules" relative to private security agencies operating in Iraq, clearly rejects suggestions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that security contractors be placed under military control. U.S. military commanders and officers in Iraq have sharply criticized the contractors, and North Carolina-based Blackwater in particular, for behaving like "cowboys" and undermining U.S. objectives for bringing stability to Iraq according to today's Washington Post
I have a question: If Iraq had a Military Commissions Act as we do here in the United States, could people serving in Blackwater and other "security" companies be categorized as illegal alien enemy combatants? If so, it would follow that these American Citizens would then be subjected to a legal system that excludes the protections of the Geneva Convention, denies Habeas Corpus and the right to a civilian attorney, and could leave them imprisoned for years without a right to a speedy trial. In reality, as the law now stands in Iraq, murder by these contractors could arguably be above any law.
In terms of Iran, VP Cheney and President Bush seem to be proceeding with the rhetoric that will lead us into some type of military conflict with Iran. The propaganda is not meant to sway the European Community, as both Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are stating, but to convince us, as Americans, that we must use military force against Iran. We must respond to this war mongering in order to stop the momentum at its earliest stages.
I firmly believe that this Administration is intent on military action against Iran, not to protect Iraqi civilians or our troops, but to protect the oil industry in the southern part of Iraq--prior to their leaving office.
As a U.S. Senator, my voice would be loud and clear on this issue. The beating of the drums of war must be silenced by rational dialogue and aggressive diplomacy.
Ed O'Reilly
Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts
I have a question: If Iraq had a Military Commissions Act as we do here in the United States, could people serving in Blackwater and other "security" companies be categorized as illegal alien enemy combatants? If so, it would follow that these American Citizens would then be subjected to a legal system that excludes the protections of the Geneva Convention, denies Habeas Corpus and the right to a civilian attorney, and could leave them imprisoned for years without a right to a speedy trial. In reality, as the law now stands in Iraq, murder by these contractors could arguably be above any law.
In terms of Iran, VP Cheney and President Bush seem to be proceeding with the rhetoric that will lead us into some type of military conflict with Iran. The propaganda is not meant to sway the European Community, as both Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are stating, but to convince us, as Americans, that we must use military force against Iran. We must respond to this war mongering in order to stop the momentum at its earliest stages.
I firmly believe that this Administration is intent on military action against Iran, not to protect Iraqi civilians or our troops, but to protect the oil industry in the southern part of Iraq--prior to their leaving office.
As a U.S. Senator, my voice would be loud and clear on this issue. The beating of the drums of war must be silenced by rational dialogue and aggressive diplomacy.
Ed O'Reilly
Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Washington Red and Blue is Green All Over
As a Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts running for the seat currently held by John Kerry, I was appalled by the Democrats' failure to address a tax loophole
Washington Post
for some of the wealthiest people in America. This tax loophole for billionaires has been called the size of a Mack truck by Huffington Post
It is a sad day in America when the only common ground that Republicans and Democrats have found is the bowing to powerful special interest lobbying. John Kerry skipped out of the Senate to start his vacation a day early on August 3rd and was AWOL on the important FISA vote which took a big chunk out of our Constitution. Again, it is the non vote that really defines the lack of leadership and absence of the courage of convictions. Should not the U.S. Senate have shortened their month long vacation while we are at War to take up a loophole that could pay for the health care of every low income child in America through the age of 12?
If you would like to stop the influence of special interests, please visit Act Blue
Ed O'Reilly
www.edoreilly.com
Washington Post
for some of the wealthiest people in America. This tax loophole for billionaires has been called the size of a Mack truck by Huffington Post
It is a sad day in America when the only common ground that Republicans and Democrats have found is the bowing to powerful special interest lobbying. John Kerry skipped out of the Senate to start his vacation a day early on August 3rd and was AWOL on the important FISA vote which took a big chunk out of our Constitution. Again, it is the non vote that really defines the lack of leadership and absence of the courage of convictions. Should not the U.S. Senate have shortened their month long vacation while we are at War to take up a loophole that could pay for the health care of every low income child in America through the age of 12?
If you would like to stop the influence of special interests, please visit Act Blue
Ed O'Reilly
www.edoreilly.com
Saturday, September 22, 2007
John Kerry's Calculation Paralysis
The image of a detached John Kerry standing idly by while the Florida student was arrested and tasered last week illuminated the consistent picture of who John Kerry really is. While the very concept of democracy has been blasted away by a Republican agenda, John Kerry as a United States Senator, has consistently shown a lack of leadership and an inability to respond without calculating his own political image and/or his own political ambitions.
This obsession with political self interest was clearly demonstrated by Senator Kerry’s vote to authorize military action in Iraq and has continued through last month’s lack of participation and interest on the extremely important Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act vote. Even the delayed response to the Swift Boat Veterans attacks can be traced to calculation obsession. Although John Kerry may vote the right way on a particular issue, it is consistently the result of considering what is best for John Kerry.
In many ways, John Kerry epitomizes what is wrong in Washington. He is detached from ordinary people and excessively consumed with political self interest. Senator Kerry’s explanation the following day for his actions/inactions in Florida was convoluted and calculated. His reaction to the defeat of the marriage equality amendment was strikingly similar (I am a firm supporter of marriage equality and Senator Kerry is not).
Last June, John Kerry held a forum in Natick, Massachusetts and the result of that forum came close to the result in Florida. In Natick, it was apparent from the beginning that people were not happy with John Kerry for many reasons. Some of the concerns were John Kerry’s lack of standing with convictions during the 2004 Presidential election, the walking away from Ohio with $15m left of our money in his campaign fund (half of which he has taken and put into the 2008 Massachusetts Senate race) when there was a team of lawyers on the ground to contest the election, and for his vote to authorize military action in Iraq.
As people lined the two aisles waiting to speak in the Natick auditorium, the tone consistently contained disappointment and outrage. After several questions, it was clear that John Kerry was not comfortable answering any more questions and he went on one long diatribe after another in order to fill up the time and avoid having to answer any more questions.
Senator Kerry’s mini filibuster at the Natick forum resulted in extreme frustration and controlled chaos. As the comments grew more intense and the crowd more anxious, I carefully watched the Natick Police Sergeant standing in the back of the auditorium. As a criminal defense attorney for over 25 years, I was tuned in to how he was reacting. Although it was clear that his awareness was very heightened and that he was ready to move if a crime was committed, he stayed back and out of the way of the verbal volleys. This police sergeant demonstrated tremendous professionalism. Nonetheless, most people left the forum exasperated.
Since the Natick forum, John Kerry will only appear in Massachusetts when he is in control of the dialogue. I have been to approximately 35 Democratic events during the last several months where open dialogue was the norm. John Kerry has appeared at none of these occasions.
Senator Kerry, despite having a month off from the Senate, has declined many invitations by local Democratic Committees to appear with me to discuss the War in Iraq, Health Care, Education, Special Interests, the Environment and Renewable Energy.
The people of Massachusetts want Senator Kerry to debate these issues. Unfortunately, after careful calculation, Senator Kerry has come to the conclusion that although debate and dialogue may be in the best interest of the people of Massachusetts, it is not in John Kerry’s best political interest. Isn’t that what politics as usual is all about?
I invite you to visit my website to see where I stand on the issues and thank you in advance for doing so [Ed O'Reilly http://www.edoreilly.com]
If you would like to help end politics as usual please click on [Act Blue http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/18072]. Since John Kerry started with over $7m of our campaign contributions left from the Presidential Election of 2004, your help is extremely important and greatly appreciated.
Ed O'Reilly
www.edoreilly.com
This obsession with political self interest was clearly demonstrated by Senator Kerry’s vote to authorize military action in Iraq and has continued through last month’s lack of participation and interest on the extremely important Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act vote. Even the delayed response to the Swift Boat Veterans attacks can be traced to calculation obsession. Although John Kerry may vote the right way on a particular issue, it is consistently the result of considering what is best for John Kerry.
In many ways, John Kerry epitomizes what is wrong in Washington. He is detached from ordinary people and excessively consumed with political self interest. Senator Kerry’s explanation the following day for his actions/inactions in Florida was convoluted and calculated. His reaction to the defeat of the marriage equality amendment was strikingly similar (I am a firm supporter of marriage equality and Senator Kerry is not).
Last June, John Kerry held a forum in Natick, Massachusetts and the result of that forum came close to the result in Florida. In Natick, it was apparent from the beginning that people were not happy with John Kerry for many reasons. Some of the concerns were John Kerry’s lack of standing with convictions during the 2004 Presidential election, the walking away from Ohio with $15m left of our money in his campaign fund (half of which he has taken and put into the 2008 Massachusetts Senate race) when there was a team of lawyers on the ground to contest the election, and for his vote to authorize military action in Iraq.
As people lined the two aisles waiting to speak in the Natick auditorium, the tone consistently contained disappointment and outrage. After several questions, it was clear that John Kerry was not comfortable answering any more questions and he went on one long diatribe after another in order to fill up the time and avoid having to answer any more questions.
Senator Kerry’s mini filibuster at the Natick forum resulted in extreme frustration and controlled chaos. As the comments grew more intense and the crowd more anxious, I carefully watched the Natick Police Sergeant standing in the back of the auditorium. As a criminal defense attorney for over 25 years, I was tuned in to how he was reacting. Although it was clear that his awareness was very heightened and that he was ready to move if a crime was committed, he stayed back and out of the way of the verbal volleys. This police sergeant demonstrated tremendous professionalism. Nonetheless, most people left the forum exasperated.
Since the Natick forum, John Kerry will only appear in Massachusetts when he is in control of the dialogue. I have been to approximately 35 Democratic events during the last several months where open dialogue was the norm. John Kerry has appeared at none of these occasions.
Senator Kerry, despite having a month off from the Senate, has declined many invitations by local Democratic Committees to appear with me to discuss the War in Iraq, Health Care, Education, Special Interests, the Environment and Renewable Energy.
The people of Massachusetts want Senator Kerry to debate these issues. Unfortunately, after careful calculation, Senator Kerry has come to the conclusion that although debate and dialogue may be in the best interest of the people of Massachusetts, it is not in John Kerry’s best political interest. Isn’t that what politics as usual is all about?
I invite you to visit my website to see where I stand on the issues and thank you in advance for doing so [Ed O'Reilly http://www.edoreilly.com]
If you would like to help end politics as usual please click on [Act Blue http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/18072]. Since John Kerry started with over $7m of our campaign contributions left from the Presidential Election of 2004, your help is extremely important and greatly appreciated.
Ed O'Reilly
www.edoreilly.com
Monday, August 13, 2007
Yearly Kos, John Kerry AWOL, and Our Constitution
On May 20th, the day after I announced my candidacy for the U.S. Senate, from and for, Massachusetts, I was told that I had to take a serious look at "the blogs". Of course, not knowing anything about a blog, my first reaction was to ask, "Are you sure?" I had no idea what a blog was and I wondered why I had to even think about going to such a place.
Well, I have always loved adventure, so I agreed to take a look into the world of blogging. One of my first posts was on http://www.bluemassgroup.com/ entitled "My Candidacy for the U.S. Senate” http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7401
After a short time, I came to realize that blogging was a whole lot more than just a group of people reading and writing. In the area of politics, blogging contained an under the radar community of political activists. In July, I heard about a convention being held in Chicago and had a desire to learn more. I signed up and went to Chicago, not knowing exactly what to expect.
Last week, I attended the Yearly Kos Convention in Chicago and soon realized “Netroots” is a progressive movement intent on changing politics as usual and using the internet to effectuate non-violent change. The “netroots” bloggers of today are very similar to the generation, of which I belong, who protested on the streets in the 1960’s and 1970’s.
Howard Dean spoke at YKOS Convention and talked about how this new generation isn’t as confrontational as our generation was. I respectfully disagree with this statement in many respects. First, this new generation is not all about new. I met people like Dave Johnson http://www.blogger.com/profile/15379071611629790251 who was a political activist during “our” generation and who has taken the same passion and commitment to social justice into the world of blogging. I appeared on blog talk radio with Dave and James Boyce, another well known blogger. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/showlauncher.aspx?show_id=43448&link_type=stream_downloads&link=http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/blogtalkradio/show_43448.wax
I also spent some time with Matt Stoller http://mattstoller.com/ , whose light aura, clear intelligence, and self assured and modest demeanor, left me no doubt that he has all of the makings of becoming a great leader for our country. Matt is showing the courage to work in areas outside the comfort zone that comes with being around people with similar political belief systems. He is working to develop common connections and alliances where others can not see or will not look. For instance, in the area of keeping the internet free from further regulation, Matt has teamed up with many groups outside the “liberal” framework. It is this fearless and unbiased searching for commonality of purpose that will someday unite us all again as Americans. Matt is leading via “Netroots”.
Although not an endorsement, Matt Stoller wrote about our time together in the Open Left Blog in an article entitled “A Good O’Reilly in Massachusetts”
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=558
In many ways, “netroots” really is confrontational and does hold politicians accountable. In the 1960’s and 70’s large numbers of people just showing up for a demonstration was a statement. At YKOS more than 1,500 people showed up and these attendees represented tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people who read and write in political blogs every day.
The disbursement of information is a powerful tool and the people who attended the YKOS Convention represent a growing political movement. Howard Dean talked about campaigns as dialogue and listening, not just for listening for the sake of getting elected, but in a way that actually integrates the ideas of constituents into the policies and positions of candidates.
On the other hand, the holding back of information is deceptive and undemocratic. Our leaders need to be held accountable. The results of “Netroots” has been the opening up of campaigns and candidates to questions outside of the traditional media and Washington beltway mentality. “Netroots” demands that Candidates and Politicians enter into real and meaningful dialogue.
Immediate and Specific Application of Honest and Open Dialogue
Upon my return from Chicago, I read that my opponent, Senator John Kerry, was AWOL relative to one of the most important votes of this Senate term--the FISA vote http://156.33.195.33/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309
My first reaction was that, for a U.S. Senator to miss such an important vote, there had to have been a family crisis or a medical emergency. To my astonishment, Senator Kerry’s spokesperson said he left the Senate to go on a charity bike ride http://video1.washingtontimes.com/bellantoni/2007/08/kerry_misses_fisa_vote_would_h.html
As the facts have come out, this statement by a spokesperson may not have been the entire truth. The charity bike ride was the next day—August 4th! Senator Kerry was present in the U.S. Senate in the morning of August 3rd at 9:38 am when he voted to approve a U.S. District Court Judge http://156.33.195.33/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00308 .
However, there seems to be no record of Mr. Kerry being in the Senate after this morning vote was taken although 2 more votes were recorded on August 3rd http://156.33.195.33/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_1.htm
I recently sent Senator Kerry a letter http://edoreilly.com/?q=node/38 calling upon him to tell his employers, the people of Massachusetts, what time he left work on August 3rd, whether he entered into any of the debate on the FISA bill, and exactly where he was at 9:16 pm when the FISA vote was taken at his place of employment, the United States Senate.
Riding or Posing?
Until a response from John Kerry, himself, to the contrary, the truth may be that Senator Kerry was not really riding at the time of this vote, as stated by his spokesperson. Senator Kerry may actually have been posing at a gathering the night before the race. To think that a U.S. Senator could be AWOL for one of the most important votes of this session because of the lure of sound bites and photo ops is almost beyond belief.
Most Americans can not leave their jobs at their leisure. When I was a corrections officer, it would have been unthinkable for me to just leave my post in a guard tower to get my picture taken for even a well known, worthwhile and important charity event. When I was a firefighter, it would have been unconscionable for me not to respond to a medical emergency or a fire because I wanted to bask in the lights of cameras. Is not our Constitution of equal merit?
Senator Kerry’s spokesperson said he would have returned to Washington if needed. Does the U.S. Senate not debate and exert the power of persuasion over fellow Senators within the U.S. Senate Chamber? Isn’t the job of a United States Senator more than a perfunctory activity?
The FISA vote was an extremely close vote where one vote would have made a difference. If Senator Kerry is a leader, as he self proclaims, he had a duty to at least stay and try to persuade just one fellow Democrat to stand up for our Constitution. The bottom line is that by not voting, Senator Kerry subverted the very nature of the democratic process.
Furthermore, by being AWOL on the FISA legislation, Senator Kerry has given up all future credibility to lead any fight against this Imperialistic Presidency. Leaders lead by example.
In 2002, Senator Kerry, over the objections of Senator Robert Byrd and the insistence of Senator Kennedy, voted to give the Executive Branch unbridled power to wage war in Iraq which has left us in the present situation. Last week, Senator Kerry gave the Executive Branch unbridled power to electronically eavesdrop without a warrant on the citizens of the United States.
As with Iraq, Congress is going to have a difficult time undoing the damage done, as this op-ed in Saturday’s New York Times so succinctly states: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/opinion/11sat1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Senator Kerry has insisted that he is leading the fight in Washington. When it came to the FISA vote and standing up for our Constitutional Rights, there is no doubt Senator Kerry was leading the flight from Washington.
In the tradition of “netroots”, perhaps Senator Kerry could speak for himself rather than through a spokesperson on the FISA vote. How can the principles of “netroots” and open dialogue occur through spokespeople? The people of Massachusetts and this country want honest and open dialogue in order to insure the integrity of the democratic process. After all, when it comes to photo ops and sound bites, has Senator Kerry ever had difficulty standing front and center?
Ed O’Reilly
Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate from, and for, Massachusetts
http://www.edoreilly.com
Well, I have always loved adventure, so I agreed to take a look into the world of blogging. One of my first posts was on http://www.bluemassgroup.com/ entitled "My Candidacy for the U.S. Senate” http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7401
After a short time, I came to realize that blogging was a whole lot more than just a group of people reading and writing. In the area of politics, blogging contained an under the radar community of political activists. In July, I heard about a convention being held in Chicago and had a desire to learn more. I signed up and went to Chicago, not knowing exactly what to expect.
Last week, I attended the Yearly Kos Convention in Chicago and soon realized “Netroots” is a progressive movement intent on changing politics as usual and using the internet to effectuate non-violent change. The “netroots” bloggers of today are very similar to the generation, of which I belong, who protested on the streets in the 1960’s and 1970’s.
Howard Dean spoke at YKOS Convention and talked about how this new generation isn’t as confrontational as our generation was. I respectfully disagree with this statement in many respects. First, this new generation is not all about new. I met people like Dave Johnson http://www.blogger.com/profile/15379071611629790251 who was a political activist during “our” generation and who has taken the same passion and commitment to social justice into the world of blogging. I appeared on blog talk radio with Dave and James Boyce, another well known blogger. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/showlauncher.aspx?show_id=43448&link_type=stream_downloads&link=http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/blogtalkradio/show_43448.wax
I also spent some time with Matt Stoller http://mattstoller.com/ , whose light aura, clear intelligence, and self assured and modest demeanor, left me no doubt that he has all of the makings of becoming a great leader for our country. Matt is showing the courage to work in areas outside the comfort zone that comes with being around people with similar political belief systems. He is working to develop common connections and alliances where others can not see or will not look. For instance, in the area of keeping the internet free from further regulation, Matt has teamed up with many groups outside the “liberal” framework. It is this fearless and unbiased searching for commonality of purpose that will someday unite us all again as Americans. Matt is leading via “Netroots”.
Although not an endorsement, Matt Stoller wrote about our time together in the Open Left Blog in an article entitled “A Good O’Reilly in Massachusetts”
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=558
In many ways, “netroots” really is confrontational and does hold politicians accountable. In the 1960’s and 70’s large numbers of people just showing up for a demonstration was a statement. At YKOS more than 1,500 people showed up and these attendees represented tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people who read and write in political blogs every day.
The disbursement of information is a powerful tool and the people who attended the YKOS Convention represent a growing political movement. Howard Dean talked about campaigns as dialogue and listening, not just for listening for the sake of getting elected, but in a way that actually integrates the ideas of constituents into the policies and positions of candidates.
On the other hand, the holding back of information is deceptive and undemocratic. Our leaders need to be held accountable. The results of “Netroots” has been the opening up of campaigns and candidates to questions outside of the traditional media and Washington beltway mentality. “Netroots” demands that Candidates and Politicians enter into real and meaningful dialogue.
Immediate and Specific Application of Honest and Open Dialogue
Upon my return from Chicago, I read that my opponent, Senator John Kerry, was AWOL relative to one of the most important votes of this Senate term--the FISA vote http://156.33.195.33/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309
My first reaction was that, for a U.S. Senator to miss such an important vote, there had to have been a family crisis or a medical emergency. To my astonishment, Senator Kerry’s spokesperson said he left the Senate to go on a charity bike ride http://video1.washingtontimes.com/bellantoni/2007/08/kerry_misses_fisa_vote_would_h.html
As the facts have come out, this statement by a spokesperson may not have been the entire truth. The charity bike ride was the next day—August 4th! Senator Kerry was present in the U.S. Senate in the morning of August 3rd at 9:38 am when he voted to approve a U.S. District Court Judge http://156.33.195.33/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00308 .
However, there seems to be no record of Mr. Kerry being in the Senate after this morning vote was taken although 2 more votes were recorded on August 3rd http://156.33.195.33/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_1.htm
I recently sent Senator Kerry a letter http://edoreilly.com/?q=node/38 calling upon him to tell his employers, the people of Massachusetts, what time he left work on August 3rd, whether he entered into any of the debate on the FISA bill, and exactly where he was at 9:16 pm when the FISA vote was taken at his place of employment, the United States Senate.
Riding or Posing?
Until a response from John Kerry, himself, to the contrary, the truth may be that Senator Kerry was not really riding at the time of this vote, as stated by his spokesperson. Senator Kerry may actually have been posing at a gathering the night before the race. To think that a U.S. Senator could be AWOL for one of the most important votes of this session because of the lure of sound bites and photo ops is almost beyond belief.
Most Americans can not leave their jobs at their leisure. When I was a corrections officer, it would have been unthinkable for me to just leave my post in a guard tower to get my picture taken for even a well known, worthwhile and important charity event. When I was a firefighter, it would have been unconscionable for me not to respond to a medical emergency or a fire because I wanted to bask in the lights of cameras. Is not our Constitution of equal merit?
Senator Kerry’s spokesperson said he would have returned to Washington if needed. Does the U.S. Senate not debate and exert the power of persuasion over fellow Senators within the U.S. Senate Chamber? Isn’t the job of a United States Senator more than a perfunctory activity?
The FISA vote was an extremely close vote where one vote would have made a difference. If Senator Kerry is a leader, as he self proclaims, he had a duty to at least stay and try to persuade just one fellow Democrat to stand up for our Constitution. The bottom line is that by not voting, Senator Kerry subverted the very nature of the democratic process.
Furthermore, by being AWOL on the FISA legislation, Senator Kerry has given up all future credibility to lead any fight against this Imperialistic Presidency. Leaders lead by example.
In 2002, Senator Kerry, over the objections of Senator Robert Byrd and the insistence of Senator Kennedy, voted to give the Executive Branch unbridled power to wage war in Iraq which has left us in the present situation. Last week, Senator Kerry gave the Executive Branch unbridled power to electronically eavesdrop without a warrant on the citizens of the United States.
As with Iraq, Congress is going to have a difficult time undoing the damage done, as this op-ed in Saturday’s New York Times so succinctly states: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/opinion/11sat1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Senator Kerry has insisted that he is leading the fight in Washington. When it came to the FISA vote and standing up for our Constitutional Rights, there is no doubt Senator Kerry was leading the flight from Washington.
In the tradition of “netroots”, perhaps Senator Kerry could speak for himself rather than through a spokesperson on the FISA vote. How can the principles of “netroots” and open dialogue occur through spokespeople? The people of Massachusetts and this country want honest and open dialogue in order to insure the integrity of the democratic process. After all, when it comes to photo ops and sound bites, has Senator Kerry ever had difficulty standing front and center?
Ed O’Reilly
Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate from, and for, Massachusetts
http://www.edoreilly.com
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
I am posting the following on bluemassgroup blog today:
As I reflect on Saturday's Convention, I want to thank the members of our party for the graciousness for which I was received. As a long time John Kerry supporter, who became disillusioned after his vote to support President Bush's unilateral military action in Iraq, I found many delegates sharing my feelings of disenchantment. I also found commonality with delegates who put their efforts behind Howard Dean's courageous stance against the Republican Propaganda Machine at that time. Ultimately, I shared every delegates support for Mr. Kerry as our Democratic Presidential Nominee.
My candidacy for the U.S. Senate is the result of many months of discussions with the people of Massachusetts. As a supporter of Mr. Kerry's for over twenty years, I felt that others must share in the disappointment, not only with Senator Kerry's vote on Iraq, but with his inability to stand with a clear message of convictions.
I also thought that others must share the dissatisfaction I felt from Mr. Kerry having $15m left in his campaign fund as we lost Ohio by the slimmest of margins. It was not only the loss in Ohio, but the decision not to contest the voting process, that disturbed me. Not surprisingly, the delegates with whom I spoke, shared in these same emotions.
My candidacy for the U.S. Senate is about change. It is about the courage of convictions. It is about the commitment to clear and concise Democratic principles. As a person from a working class background, I understand how it is to live week to week on a paycheck. I understand the value of public education. As a former union worker, I understand the power of standing together. I understand the concept of "We the People".
I also understand that my candidacy is not about me, but about us--about us, as a United Democratic Party in these United States. The time has come to carry the message that new leadership means a new partnership; a partnership between our U.S. Senator and the people of Massachusetts--a partnership that brings a renewed sense of purpose. It is a positive message of hope and change in our state, our country and the world.
As I reflect on Saturday's Convention, I want to thank the members of our party for the graciousness for which I was received. As a long time John Kerry supporter, who became disillusioned after his vote to support President Bush's unilateral military action in Iraq, I found many delegates sharing my feelings of disenchantment. I also found commonality with delegates who put their efforts behind Howard Dean's courageous stance against the Republican Propaganda Machine at that time. Ultimately, I shared every delegates support for Mr. Kerry as our Democratic Presidential Nominee.
My candidacy for the U.S. Senate is the result of many months of discussions with the people of Massachusetts. As a supporter of Mr. Kerry's for over twenty years, I felt that others must share in the disappointment, not only with Senator Kerry's vote on Iraq, but with his inability to stand with a clear message of convictions.
I also thought that others must share the dissatisfaction I felt from Mr. Kerry having $15m left in his campaign fund as we lost Ohio by the slimmest of margins. It was not only the loss in Ohio, but the decision not to contest the voting process, that disturbed me. Not surprisingly, the delegates with whom I spoke, shared in these same emotions.
My candidacy for the U.S. Senate is about change. It is about the courage of convictions. It is about the commitment to clear and concise Democratic principles. As a person from a working class background, I understand how it is to live week to week on a paycheck. I understand the value of public education. As a former union worker, I understand the power of standing together. I understand the concept of "We the People".
I also understand that my candidacy is not about me, but about us--about us, as a United Democratic Party in these United States. The time has come to carry the message that new leadership means a new partnership; a partnership between our U.S. Senator and the people of Massachusetts--a partnership that brings a renewed sense of purpose. It is a positive message of hope and change in our state, our country and the world.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Democratic Principles?
John Kerry is having his opening "kickoff" this evening. Most Massachusetts Democrats do not know about this opening of his Senate Campaign because the minimum amount to attend is $1,000. If a constituent would like to belong to a smaller group and have an audience with our, "elected by the people U.S. Senator," the cost is $2,300.
I find this event, which should be the most inclusive of any campaign, to be an affront to the rank and file Democrats across the state.
I have written Mr. Kerry a letter (www.edoreilly.com) indicating that I will be declining this invitation.
More importantly, I have asked Senator Kerry, in this letter, to donate the $15m Democrats contributed to his Presidential Campaign Fund. This is/was not his money to spend on other campaigns or as he sees fit three years after the Presidential Campaign that he lost. He should have used the money to win in Ohio and, at least, contest the election.
I am particularly upset because Mr. Kerry paid himself back $6.4m from the fund, but didn't return anyone else's money.
I have called upon Mr. Kerry to donate all of this money to charitable Veterans' Groups. Please read the entire letter I sent to Senator Kerry at www.edoreilly.com .
I do not believe Mr. Kerry's vote to support the war in Iraq was a mistake because everything John Kerry does is very calculated. I'll comment on that later. If, on the other hand, we are to believe it was a mistake, he should pay Veterans and their families for that mistake. Quoting Mr. Kerry's own words to support the troops "not just in words, but in actions".
I find this event, which should be the most inclusive of any campaign, to be an affront to the rank and file Democrats across the state.
I have written Mr. Kerry a letter (www.edoreilly.com) indicating that I will be declining this invitation.
More importantly, I have asked Senator Kerry, in this letter, to donate the $15m Democrats contributed to his Presidential Campaign Fund. This is/was not his money to spend on other campaigns or as he sees fit three years after the Presidential Campaign that he lost. He should have used the money to win in Ohio and, at least, contest the election.
I am particularly upset because Mr. Kerry paid himself back $6.4m from the fund, but didn't return anyone else's money.
I have called upon Mr. Kerry to donate all of this money to charitable Veterans' Groups. Please read the entire letter I sent to Senator Kerry at www.edoreilly.com .
I do not believe Mr. Kerry's vote to support the war in Iraq was a mistake because everything John Kerry does is very calculated. I'll comment on that later. If, on the other hand, we are to believe it was a mistake, he should pay Veterans and their families for that mistake. Quoting Mr. Kerry's own words to support the troops "not just in words, but in actions".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
+better+than+(3).jpg)
