It would appear that the nominee for the Democratic Party's Presidential candidate will be Sen. John Kerry. Although he isn't officially the candidate yet, I would hope that all here would agree he is the de facto candidate and that brings me to a question to consider. Should John Kerry resign from the Senate? He's missed most of the votes there thus far this year and it seems to me that running for President is going to be a pretty much full-time occupation between now and November. That deprives the fine people of the State of Massachusetts of full representation in the US Senate in these important times.

So the question for debate is..... (we need a drum roll icon)

Should Senator John Kerry resign from the US Senate?

Short answer: NO.

Why should Kerry quit a job before he's got another one? Ask a job counselor and they will tell you it's always easier to find a job when you already have one. There's nothing that requires Kerry to resign from the Senate to run for president, and in an election year nothing very important is going to get done in Congress anyway, so why quit before you have to?

Oh, I see you working here Aquilla. The governor of Massachusetts is a Republican and would get to appoint Kerry's replacement. Nice try, dude.

By the way, to take your reasons to the logical next step, couldn't the same reasons be applied to President Bush? Instead of tooling around in Air Force One jetting from fundraiser to fundraiser and burning up gas on the taxpayer's dime, shouldn't Bush step aside for the next eight months and let Dick Cheney run things while Dubya tries to get reelected?

Let Dubya check his own bags and have some $9.00 an hour security guard go through his luggage.

Unfortunately, the parallel between the President's job and a Senator's isn't so easy to draw...

The President is not required to sit on Committees, to conference with fellow Senators and Representatives, or to be physically present at one particular place to do his job.

The President's job entails signing bills (which can be done anywhere), making executive decisions (which can be done anywhere) and stumping for issues that he wants to see accomplished (which....you get my drift).

The Senate is much closer to being a "9 to 5" type job, where the Senator's physical presence is required on the floor of the US Senate.

All that said, Kerry should not resign. He should, however, make more of an effort to do his elected job (vote on bills, attend Committee meetings, etc.).

Sheesh! Ask a simple question......

Fact of the matter is that when Bob Dole ran against Bill Clinton in 1996, he DID resign from the US Senate, so there is a precedent. As Amlord pointed out, Presidents and Governors can pretty much do their jobs anywhere and on their own schedules. If a Senator misses a vote, there is nobody there to take their place.

Probably should have made this a poll.....

I think it's a question of Kerry's preference. He might want to quit just to avoid all the booby trap votes the Republicans are planning. However, if he wants to stay, that's between the people of Mass. and him, isn't it? Aquilla and Amlord, your concern for the Massachusetts citizenry and Kerry's elected duties is undoubtedly selfless and honorable, but if they're upset the Senator is focusing too much on his Presidential campaign, they can just vote for Bush in 2004 and not re-elect him in 2008.

The Senate will go on in Senator Kerry's absence in the next few months. I would think that the Republicans on this board would be happy that there is one less Democratic voice in the Senate at the moment. Of course, if Kerry is not elected, he can go back.

There have been plenty of times that Senators have been away from Congress in order to campaign for the Presidency. If Kerry wants to be successful in his campaign, then he has to devote his attention to the campaign.

No, I don't think he should leave his position in the Senate. Why should he burn his bridges behind him, especially since you Republicans are so gosh-darned certain that Gee Dubya will be President another four years!

Ah, a man of principle, eh, Aquilla?

Of course in 2000, Senator John McCain didn't resign when he made his run in the Republican primaries and Governor George W. Bush didn't hang up his spurs until he was...errr...awarded with a favorable Supreme Court decision.

This week both Kerry and Edwards left their campaigns to vote on a important gun bill in the Senate.

A President can do their jobs pretty much anywhere? Gee, Dubya must get a lot more done just than clearing weeds off his ranch in Crawford.

John McCain never became the Presidential nominee for his party and as has been stated here previously, there is a difference between the requirements of a governor and President and those of a Senator. I agree that it is entirely up to John Kerry on what he decides to do and according to MSNBC, he isn't going to. Ok, his choice and perhaps an indication to the American people that John Kerry places his political party's interests above those of the people who have elected him to serve, people who have the right to expect a full-time Senator. Something perhaps for people to consider when deciding on whom they want in the Oval office the next four years.

In any case, we can check back on ole John's attendance at Senate votes here from time to time and decide whether the people of Massachusetts are being served by him in the job they elected him to do.

Aquilla



First of all let me congratulate you on your genuine concern for the people of Mass

Second, it appears that the Republicans can't wait for mud slinging to begin.

So much for a honest to goodness campaign concerning what each candidate stands for and their platform.

But it is pretty hard to change the stripes on a zebra. Then he wouldn't be a zebra would he?????

Should he resign. Heck no.

Oh, I frequently have genuine concern for the people of Massachusetts. Every time I see Ted Kennedy on the floor of the Senate I have to wonder, "Just what in the world were those people thinking when they sent that guy there?" I become concerned for their collective mental health until it dawns on me that it's far safer for them to have him sitting in a chair in the Senate than it is for him driving across the bridges on Cape Cod......

In any case, I hardly see how asking a question about whether Kerry should resign from the Senate while he is running as the Democratic Party's nominee for President is "mud-slinging". It's a legitimate question, check his voting record, or lack of one this year in the link I posted above. As it stands right now, the people of Massachusetts have less representation in the US Senate than the people of Wyoming do and there is only one person who can change that - John Kerry. The man they elected. He could do the same thing for his constituents that Bob Dole did for his constitutents in the state of Kansas back in 1996 and resign from the Senate so Kansas would have two full-time Senators. Dole did the honorable thing.

Can the same thing be said for Kerry? It's a legitimate question.

Your concern is so genuine that you cannot refrain from insulting the electorate of the state long enough to claim you're not being phony.

Dole had MANY political reasons for his decision to leave the Senate. He got pounded on minimum wage when he tried to embarrass the Dems with legislative scheduling. Plus, he was Majority Leader- a considerably greater burden to campaigning. Not that I'd expect you to criticize his motives as harshly as you do Kerry's.

Finally, you may think all Massachusetts voters are crazy, but they picked their Senator and seem to be heartily supporting his bid for the Presidency. Oh, I'm sure some of his constituents are rankled- they're called Republicans, and they didn't vote for him in 1996, they're not going to vote for him in 2004, and if he loses, they're not going to vote for him in 2008.

We have these things, called elections, whereby the people of Massachusetts decide their own business. I'm sure political pressure, both national and local, would force any candidate to make all the close votes on issues important to any potential supporters. There's no real issue here unless a majority of his state thinks there is. Mostly, they're in the ABB camp, and love that their Senator is going to be the Democratic challenger.

I'm sure none of this matters to you, and you'll keep beating this particular dead horse. Can we agree, however, that if Massachusetts votes for him in November, and he wins, that he'll spend less time vacationing during his first 9 months in office than our current President did?

My goodness! Ask a simple question, a reasonable question and one that is grounded in precedent based on the actions of Senator Dole in 1996 and suddenly this is "mud-slinging" and some sort of an attack on the voters of Massachusetts?

For those of you who missed it, I'll pose the question for debate in this thread again.

Should John Kerry resign from the US Senate?

What's "mud-slinging" about that? How is that an attack? What's got the rabid anti-Bush folks so riled up here?

oh!!!! I know what it is!!!

It's my new keyboard on my computer! This dang thing has more darn keys on it than you can imagine, and they all have funny little symbols by them. I hit one one time and it shut my computer down. I bet I hit the "Drive the anti-Bush folks crazy" key by mistake! I wonder what one that is......

Let's look at this logically like a detective would (hehe, always wanted to use that icon)....

1. Ann Coulter tells the truth about how Max Cleland received his war injuries and she's "sliming" a war hero.

2. I post a link to a Republican ad on the Internet that references John Kerry's voting record in Congress and that's an "attack" against him.

3. I ask if John Kerry should resign from the Senate so he can spend full time running for President and still make sure that the people of Massachusetts have full representation in the US Senate and that's "mud-slinging".

I need a microscope, there's some little tiny writing by this key on my zippy keyboard. Hang on.......

Eyes are tearing here, but I can make out what it says.......

"TRUTH"

By golly! That's it! It's the TRUTH key that lights their fire!

Case solved!

Aquilla wrote:

What indeed? Sorry I couldn't find a "foaming at the mouth" emoticon to fit your description.

Considering that we Democrats and/or ABB gang are facing an uphill battle this November, and considering the surprise back in the 2000 election when the Supreme Court was ultimately petitioned, as it happened, to decide the outcome of the election, Candidate Kerry is not counting his chickens before they hatch, nor should he burn his bridges behind him. (How's that for time-worn sayings? ) This, although it means less representation for his constituents in Massachusetts, is a prudent way of looking at the political campaign. Besides, I am sure that Senator Kennedy and Kerry's fellow Democrats will keep him alerted to when his presence is required on Capitol Hill, just as Bush's aids tell him what's going on when he is away from the White House ( / , respectively).

It was brought up before by another poster who isn't part of the Bush League contingent that this President takes lots of vacations, spending a lot of time away from the White House, yet who is questioning his work ethic? When he was Governor, both Bush and the Texas legislature didn't convene on a full-time basis--was that adequate preparation for the world's most responsible job? Republicans did not take that into consideration when they entered the voting booth in 2000.

Gee Dubya has raised $100 million dollars at $2,000 per plate luncheons and the like to bankroll this Presidential campaign. While campaigning in Ohio this week, Bush spoke to a bunch of factory workers about jobs. It is interesting to note that he was talking to people who already had jobs, not a line of people at an unemployment office. This man's appearances are well-orchestrated and he is well-insulated when he is always surrounded by those who have jobs and/or sufficient incomes to send hefty donations his way. No wonder he's clueless about the flap over the jobs his administration hasn't created. (But what about your tax cuts?--Don't you care about the extra $300 you're getting? What do lower income taxes mean to the unemployed?)

Kerry does not have that kind of war chest. He is going to be touring the country shaking hands, asking for votes and contributions to the campaign. That cannot be done from his office in Washington.

In our current political system, a person who doesn't have money or powerful friends will never make it to the Presidency, regardless of what sterling character and leadership qualities he or she possesses. If money weren't a factor in getting messages out, Bush and Co. wouldn't have felt it necessary to raise so much money. Kerry is in this to win, and he has to be away from Washington. Too bad he can't be supplied with a jet or a helicopter to make it easier to just hop on back to D.C. to serve his constituency.

You're being more than a bit disingenuous, Aquilla. Your question has been asked and answered. You can pose the question as many times as you like but it's your hard cheese if you don't take the answers seriously and choose to mock them instead.

Personally, knowing your rabid admiration for all things Dubya-related, the crocodile tears you are squirting over the notion that Massachusetts is being poorly served by Kerry's run for the presidency are totally devoid of sincerity. In your sneering derision of Senator Kennedy you take a swipe at the "mental health" of your the voters at that state. Or are you more upset with the two Democratic Senators of Massachusetts than your own two Democratic Senators in California?

You could always move to Ohio. We have two Republican Senators.

The decision of Senator Robert Dole may have set a precedent as to how one can resolve this seeming dilemma as how to run for the presidency and serve the constituents back home. The problem is it is a bad precedent and one set by a loser.

Seeing how there's 100 Senators and only one President (or two if you count Dick Cheney), I doubt the state of Massachusetts will suffer irreparable harm over the next eight months by Kerry's run. If you're so worried about their welfare, shouldn't you be writing to the Boston Globe instead of America's Debate?

Don't pretend that you are motivated by anything more than partisan poltical advantage, Aquilla. It is as clear as glass what motivates you here.

And what does Ann Coulter have to do with this? There's a thread already devoted to ripping her to shreds.

Let's see... From 1776 to the present, you've provided us with a single precedent for a candidate who was so confident of victory, that he was willing to give up his day job to run for President. When he failed to win that election, Bob Dole managed to find a profitable way to continue representing the drug industry's interests as a private citizen.

Although he isn't officially the candidate yet, I would hope that all here would agree that George W. Bush is the de facto candidate for the Republicans. If this is a normal year for him, he will divide his time between his responsibilities as "Leader of the world that I'm freeing." and his responsibilities as owner of a ranch in Crawford, Texas. I agree that running for President is going to be a pretty much full-time occupation between now and November. That deprives the fine people of the United States of full representation by President Bush in these important times. Of course if he did resign, that would leave us with full time representation by Dick Cheney, and perhaps Vice President Karl Rove...

There is an ancient Chinese Proverb, "Be careful of what you wish for, it may come true." World Leaders Resigned to Resigning gives a peek at what would happen if world leaders started responding to such calls as this.

Bob Dole was the last sitting Senator to run as his party's nomination for President. I'd have to go back to see the next one to do that, McGovern in 1972? Maybe? Goldwater in 1964 or JFK in 1960? Don't know, but Senator Dole most certainly did resign from the US Senate in 1996, and I don't think it was because he was so sure he'd win. Hell, I didn't even think he'd win. He resigned because he had honor and understood that the reponsibilities of being a Senator were a full-time job and he placed the representation of the people of Kansas above his own political aspirations and desires.

If I were like the rabid ABB crowd, I'd go ballistic on you for impuning Bob Dole's honor. He was a war hero and he lost the use of a limb in battle in WWII. He fought for things in the US Senate including what I consider to be one of his crowning achievements - the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. With the help I might add of then Senator Al Gore.

But, I'm not like that and I will simply ask that people consider the fact that Bob Dole did leave the Senate and John Kerry hasn't. Take that for what it's worth.

I had no intention of impugning Bob Dole's honor or his record.

I have long held that politicians looking for name recognition should seek commercial endorsement contracts for products that they would use or support while in office.

We all take it for granted that Bush has been backed by the oil industry. Cheney's ties to Halliburton are quite well known. Between them, they have raised $150 million for this campaign cycle. Obviously they owe a great deal of political favors. As a consumer and taxpayer, I am told that I can look forward to gasoline prices in excess of $2 per gallon, and more contracts between Halliburton and the U.S. Government. Without any simple way to discover who is financially endorsing our political candidates; we will nonetheless all be directly affected by such implicit agreements.

Bob Dole has kept his name in front of the voting public by promoting a product which only impacted his relationship with his wife. I actually found it a politically courageous act to advertise the drug that he was advertising. It was quite innovative of Pfizer's advertising agency to seek his endorsement. I don't know how his wife viewed it, but she was the only person that could be expected to be directly affected by his use of their product.

In a breaking CNN news story, Ridge: 'Modest' decline in federal air marshals, it has been reported that the Bush administration has found a way to make flying safer.

The story goes on to say that flying will be safer with "in the neighborhood" of 100 air marshals.

George W. Bush is promising a balanced budget by lowering taxes, safer airways by eliminating air marshals, and that he is committed as a "War President" to bringing peace to the world.

Bob Dole has promised us that Pfizer and Pepsi can make us happier.

If I had to choose between the two of them, I would find it much easier to trust Bob Dole.

All that aside, if the people of Massachusetts feel that John Kerry is not representing them properly at the moment, I'm certain they have recourse to using a recall petition process.

I have said before that George W. Bush is so out of touch that he will likely damage the Republican Party if he insists on being their candidate. I was watching a news story a day or two ago which pointed out that in "rust belt" states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania; George W. Bush has to face voters that disapprove of his record, are unemployed, or are disappointed Republicans. In those states, the commentator went on, he may be hard pressed to get 10% of the popular vote this November. As I live in one of those states, perhaps my viewpoint is skewed by what I read, see on the T.V., and overhear in the stores and gas stations where I shop.

Dole set the precedent, and he found himself unemployed. Reason enough for those who follow not to do the same thing.

I have a lot of respect for Bob Dole, even though I'm a (slather, slurp, slather) rabid anti-Bush voter. I don't dislike Republicans, just incompetent or greedy ones.

The Constitution requires that a candidate for the presidency must be a "natural-born" citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.

Those are the minimum requirements to run for the presidency. There is no requirement that any person has to quit their day job.

The fact of the matter is this is a matter for the citizens of Massachusetts. There is no compelling reason for Kerry to resign his seat in the Senate to make a presidential run. What Bob Dole did was his decision to make and his alone. Back in 2000 when Al Gore tabbed Joe Lieberman as his running mate, Liberman not only did not resign his Senate seat, he ran for reelection at the same time he was angling to become the next Vice-President of the United States.

Covering his bets by not resigning the Senate may not be the most noble thing for Kerry to do, but it is politically astute.

Well, surprise! Are we Bush fans to surmise from your statement that the Bush mongers would actually miss the full representation of President Bush's expertise if he were (as you state) to spend more time on the campaign trail than in the Oval Office? Well, golly, if everything he says or does is wrong, failed, incompetent, a lie... then you people should pray he hits the campaign trail long and hard!

Like Reagan and some other former Presidents...Bush delegates-he doesn't have to dot every "i" and cross every "t" like some former Presidents that worked 16-18 hours per day and aged double their term in office. He hired good people that he trusts, who are responsible and do their jobs. I think they call it "working smart instead of hard." Would any of us like to have a President's so-called day off or vacation (on call 24/7, secret service near by or following in your footsteps 24/7, etc. instead of our own?

Whether or not Kerry keeps his Senate seat is entirely up to him and on the bright side, he will have fewer votes on record. If he has no intention of retiring after losing the election, then why not keep his job because that's where he will end up...back in the Senate with his Nays and Yeas

Opinions stated in my posts may be surmised to be my own opinions, and would most certainly reflect my ABB position more often than any "Bush monger's" (see definition of monger) position.


I felt that it was evident that I was paraphrasing Aquilla’s post which started this thread in my argument that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander; that is to say that if a Senator can’t spare the time away from his official duties to run for President, then it should be necessary for a President to step down while he is running for re-election as well, as he has obviously more official duties than a Senator. (In the vernacular, "Ain't gonna happen, Captain!")

No he should not.

Everyone in the Senate has to run for re-election every 6 years and they manage.

I wish there was a way for elected officials to participate in these votes while campaigning. However, until we come up with "vice-senator" and "vice-congressman" positions then it just isn't likely to happen.

Politicians have to run for re-election. That is just the way it is. The entire House of Representatives is up for re-election every 2 years and yet they manage to get things done.

IMO, the reason Bob Dole chose not to keep his seat in the Senate when he ran for President is because he was the Senate Majority Leader. That requires some heavy wheeling and dealing-both sides of the aisle-on issues up for vote and he felt that while he was on the campaign trail, he couldn't do justice to both jobs. And he was at the age when the idea of retirement comes into mind and made a wise decision to go for broke...leave his position in the Senate and give the run for President all his time and energy...and live with the outcome.

To me, he is one of the funniest politicians and has written several books on quotes, sayings, and humor of past presidents. The veterans have much to thank Bob Dole for...he does more than TV ads.

Anyway....Kerry should keep his job as Senator. He is only 62 and has many good years left as a Senator. Look how long Thurmond lasted...past his 100th birthday!



Thanks for the correction-I really liked that label-just sorry it didn't mean what I thought it meant. Oh, well...

As a professional, if I were to spend most of my day working to obtain a position with another company, my current employer would likely frown on the activity and they would also not be very likely to continue paying me for the work that I am not doing - especially when they would have to pay someone else to do my job.

He is very plainly not doing his job and he should resign.

I don't think he should resign.

If his constituency believes he should, they can make their will be known (I haven't heard a public outcry coming out of Massachussetts).

As I am not a constituent of Kerry, whether I think he should be doing his job or not isn't important, as he is not representing me.

As a constituent of Bush, I do want him to do his job instead of campaigning, and I'll be making my will be known in the election .

I thought it might be a good time to update this thread since the issue apparently hasn't gone away. From Boston.com we get the following.....



Now there is no doubt a partisan tilt to much of this, but an undeniable fact is that Kerry has missed some pretty important votes in the Senate this year. I'm not sure how many of us would be happy if one of our employees was MIA 87 percent of the time. So, given the record I once again raise the question I asked in March.

Should John Kerry resign from the US Senate?

Possibly. I see nothing wrong with Future President John Kerry focusing 100% of his efforts towards the most important issue in the WORLD "BEATING GEORGE BUSH". Not to take anything away from the great people of Massachusetts, but the sake of the entire country is more important.

I think that it would be a great political move for John to resign, and mention every single campaign event that Bush attends while he is supposed to be running a country in one the most difficult times of its history.

Yes Kerry should resign and campaign, and Bush should STOP campaigning and try to run a country for a change. That just MIGHT get him re-elected, if it is not too late already.

The Dems. are not upset with this post....some of us think it is a GREAT idea. Thanks.

I remember reading about this during the Iowa caucuses, when Kerry said that he would 'stand up to George Bush' in the Senate, but he had missed 70% of the votes.
AWOL in Senate


I'm sure that Republicans have done this same thing in the past (except Dole as noted). Maybe the question should be - should John Kerry collect his full Senate salary if he can't make it to work? Or, since he and Kennedy vote the same 93% of the time, maybe he could just give Kennedy some pre-signed vote cards and Ted could do both jobs just as well anyway

In this day and age of virtual offices, I don't see why Senators shouldn't be allowed some provision for casting ballots remotely provided its secure. Rather than have him resign, I think the senate should develop a strategy for enabling senators to contribute without being physically present in the capitol building. This would enable congress members running for re-election to maximize their contribution.

Bush can run the government while jetting across America campaigning, why shouldn't Kerry be afforded the same indulgence once he's the nominee of his party?

Doc

I had avoided posting on this thread because it had become too personal and nasty, but seeing as Amlord has intervened, I'll give it a go.

IMO, if a politicain is a party nominee and a serious contender for President then he/she should resign any current position. Mostly, I feel this because I doubt somebody's conviction and belief of success if they are hanging on to their old job "just in case" they lose. IMO anyone who does not resign all other jobs is probably thinking that there is a strong chance that they will not get the office, and wants the old job to fall back on. I felt this with Joe Leiberman (as Al Gore's vp). It was just a feeling I had that he did not expect to get the job. If Kerry hits a point when he really believes that he can get it then I think that he will resign. If he doesn't resign, I will see this as lack of hope in him. And if he doesn't believe in himself, I think that this may rob him of aggression. I have no party affiliation and this view holds for them all.

Doclotus has a very good point. In this age of e-mail, cell-phones, and instant messaging, it's not that unreasonable to have a senatorial candidate cast their virtual ballot on a given piece of legislation. Carlitoswhey has an interesting view about senate attendance and pay-perhaps index the two together?? Good luck with that ever happeneing, it would be like the foxes regulating themselves from the hen-house. I believe that ultimately, a senator(or representative) who runs for president is ultimately accountable to the people of his/her given state. If the people of Massachusetts don't like their attendance record and don't feel duly represented, I'm sure they will make that given person pay.

The situation can be remedied by absentee swaps e.g. if a representative of one party cannot be present at a vote, a representative of the opposite party agrees to recuse himself or herself from the chamber in order to maintain the balance of representation. Both parties have an interest in entering into these arrangements and honouring them, as they create the flexibility that is required for a politician to attend to the many commitments inherent in the job.

I don't think that your attempt to conveniently exclude Governors and Presidents from this discussion holds water. In theory, they are supposed to be doing full time jobs for their constituencies as well. I'm not sure that George Bush was giving his gubernatorial duties top priority in 2000. If you're going to advocate resignation from Senatorial and Congressional positions for presidential candidates, you ought to advocate the same thing for Governors.

That's an interesting point, Nick, and by the way welcome to America's Debate, but does miss one important thing. Every state to my knowledge has in addition to a Governor, a Lt. Governor, or a vice-Governor if you will. I know for example that in California when the Governor is out of the state, the Lt. Governor automatically assumes full authority and powers. Technically at least, they could sign or veto bills, nominate judges, anything a Governor can do. That situation doesn't exist in the US Senate and I hardly see how it's fair that we could ask one state to recuse part of their representation because the Senator from another state wants a different job.

It really wouldn't matter if Kerry showed up for business anyway, especially since the republicans held up a veterans health care funding bill for political purposes. I can understand how showing up is important, but isn't it equally bad that the other party would play politics and delay such an important for nothing but petty partisan reasons?

Yes i think Kerry should resign but for a much different reason ...

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf

according to his DD214... he was an active duty ensign in the USNR ( US Navy Reserve ) until 17 Feb 1972

which makes his meeting with the NVA a violation of both the UCMJ Article 104 part 904 which he WAS as an ACIVE DUTY member of the USNR subject to, and USC 18 USCode 953 if he were a civilian and the 14th amendment section 3

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


tja, like anyone is going to listen to me

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200402260828.asp

in case anyone thinks that kerry was not helping the enemy in vietnam ...


maybe Ion Mihai Pacepa, the former head of intel in Romania, can help clear things up .

Ok, Angel, I'll bite: except when he was shooting at them or being shot at by them, when exactly did Kerry meet with the North Vietnamese Army and what was the nature of this meeting? This is a new one for me, so you got my curiousity up.

in june, 1970

but let me let keerys own words from the congressional record speak for him ...

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1971

UNITED STATES SENATE;
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,
Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in Room 4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator J. W. Fulbright (Chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Fulbright, Symington, Pell, Aiken, Case, and Javits.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you support or do you have any particular views about any one of them you wish to give the committee?

Mr. KERRY. My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.

Of course Kerry shouldn't resign.

Bush took what I believe was one of, or the, longest Presidential vacations the month before the terorrist attacks. Shouldn't he resign, as well?

Second, in today's political climate, constant campaigning is needed to defeat an incumbent President. This would effectively mean that Senators and Representatives would be barred from using their Constitutional Right to run for President.

What is suggested here would require a Constitutional amendment.

Those eight priciples of madame binh's became the "people's Peace Treaty"

one which kerry push for acceptance and ratification by the US

basically it would have immediately turned south vietnam over to the VC and the north ...

Since i cannot apparently post the "People's Peace Treaty" in full i will give you a link

People's Peace Treaty


in this treaty the current government is de facto null and void as it makes no mention of it ....
only the provisional revolutionary government of south vietnam.

and you wonder who kerry is pushing for ...

maybe the Families of those that kerry deemed not worthy of finding in Vietnam loas and cambodia ( and this is just a fraction of the POW/MIA that kerry as head of the Senate commitee in charge of finding the truth before we normalized relations with vietnam... http://www.coverups.com/kerry/kerry-pow.htm

did you know that after we normalized relations with vietnam kerry's cousin C. Stewart Forbes, was head of collier international?

you may ask... so angel what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

actually it has more to do with the price of the life of a military man who is POW in vietnam 20 years after the war ended...

Collier International was named the sole Real Estate firm for the entire country of vietnam. that would have them make millions of dollars in the rebuilding contracts for vietnam...



Edited to conform cited works to forum Rules.

You realize that he didn't meet with the NVA, but with diplomatic representatives of the government of North Vietnam, right? You also realize that many in our own government were meeting with them, right, including our very own Secretary of State and numerous Congresscritters?

You're stretching the truth here to fit your pre-conceived notion of Kerry's faults.



Ok, this is a stretch as well. Similar to the "we invaded Iraq so that Haliburton could make money for Cheney and Carlisle Group" argument. It's just difficult to consider such conspiracy theories as "truth".

So are you saying it is OK for an active duty member of the military to put together a peace treaty , without proper sanction of the government?

also my appologies yes it was the offical "Provisional Government " (VC) and NOT the North Vietnamese Army NVA
My appologies...

Just for clarification this is the woman he met with ... which was by no means a small feat http://www.onlinewomeninpolitics.org/vietnam/vietleads.htm



here is the rub... Kerry was meeting with members of a foreign government with who were were in armed conflict, either as a private citizen (see...USC18 US code 953 ) or as an active duty member of the US Navy in a non-battlefield negotiation... (UCMJ).

either way the meeting violated the law and was not merely a minor breach of both trust and law...

Our Secretary of State's purpose is to meet with just these kind of people ...

would you have been so forgiving had he met with members of the riechswehr or the riechstag, in 1942?
It really is the same situation ... he was colluding with the enemy ... to the detriment of the US.

Just to play devil's advocate here GuardianAngel...

If this really were a big deal as you are suggesting and Kerry could lose his senate seat because of it, don't you think that some of his enemies in the GOP would have figured this out by now and brought him up on charges? Or even better, brough him up on charges in the 70's when this was fresh and the other side attacked him for protesting the war? His military records are right there on his website for all to see (in fact that is where you got your information). I mean think about it... wouldn't it be a much more effective attack to go after him this way than to suggest he didn't really earn his medals? If this thing actually had some teeth it could sink him.

I think the more plausible explanation here is that this isn't a big deal and no one could successfully prosecute him for it. That would explain why everyone is ignoring it, because it is a dead-end. Even the swift boat vets haven't picked up on it. So I'd say that you are making a tempest in a tea kettle here.

OK...

except for the circular logic involved that it isn't a big deal because no one is making a big deal about it ...

What kerry did was clearly a violation of law... both US Code and (UCMJ)

His DD-214 says it all

and as a matter of fact the swift boat vets and VVAJK have both picked up on this ...

there is a petition with over a hundred thousand signatures to get john REMOVED from his senate seat ...

but these things go unnoticed... i guess...

His statement doesn't say that he met with them and put together a peace treaty. He said he met with them AND the South Vietnamese representatives and thought that a deal could be worked out so that MIAs and POWs could be returned home. And this to you is a problem? Oh, right: because getting those boys home was "aiding and abetting" the enemy, because we could have WON, gosh darn it all, if only we hadn't let those commie pinko symps protest against... oh, never mind.

As for whether he broke the law or USMC, well, isn't that up to the government and military to decide? Seems like they decided this years ago. Heck, if Nixon could have gotten Kerry this way, he would have tried.

As for the supposed hundred thousand signatures to remove Kerry from office, they don't mean a thing if they aren't MASSACHUSETTS RESIDENTS. That's who voted Kerry into office and they're the only ones who can have him removed.

And I'm suggesting that far more vicious and vindictive people than you and I have surely looked at these records before now. If you'll recall Kerry wasn't exactly liked too much by the administration when he came back from Vietnam and started protesting the war. If this piece of evidence is really as damning as you claim, don't you think it would have been used back then?

The logic that we have somehow found this smoking gun and no one has latched on to it just doesn't follow.

Actually, probably not. CJ, you need to understand the mood of the country back then. If you think we are polarized now over Iraq, man it doesn't hold a candle to what happened in those years. Jane Fonda visted North Vietnam, had her picture taken sitting in a North Vietnamese Anti-Aircraft gun and she claimed upon return to this country that our POWs were being treated well. There were blood drives for the NVA and VC by various anti-war groups in this country. They got away with it.

In this column, Bruce Herschensohn talks a little bit about what happened in those times. He even has a quote from John McCain and other POWs........



This was the movement John Kerry was associated with. Does anyone not understand the anger some feel towards him?

Actually the UCMJ is pretty unambiguous about it ...

UCMJ article 104


http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl104.htm

while i dont support the death penalty for kerry at this point for his treasonous acts ( yes they were treasonous) i do believe treason should be something that precludes someone from service as either a senator or president