« McCain: John Kerry was “Unfair” | Home | The War on Terror is The Wrong War? »
Where’s The Duke?
By Matt Margolis | September 6, 2004
Sometimes curiosity leads to interesting discoveries. My curiosity has recently lead me to find very interesting things about John Kerry.
Based on the way he’s lead his campaign, lugging along with him former veterans who served with him as shiny trophies meant to awe followers and support the image that Kerry is a war hero. While hearing the phrase “band of brothers” over and over again, you’d think John Kerry is one who never forgets friends of the past – particular those he served with.
Well, he has forgotten on friend in particular. A friend he did serve with.
Former Governor of Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis.
John Kerry served as Michael Dukakis’s Lieutenant Governor for two years.
But you wouldn’t know that by checking out John Kerry’s campaign website.
A search on Kerry’s website for the term ‘Lieutenant Governor’ and ‘Dukakis’ reveals a deliberate effort by the Kerry campaign to distance himself from the former Governor of Massachusetts and unsuccessful presidential candidate. The only query result I could find was one where the Kerry campaign quotes current Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts Kerry Healey, who said in her poorly delivered speech, “John Kerry doesn’t like to talk about serving as Michael Dukakis’s lieutenant. And for good reason. Why would he want to remind voters of Dukakis’ legacy of skyrocketing taxes, high unemployment and a plummeting economy?”
The truth is – and Kerry’s own website confirms this – John Kerry has been careful to not connect himself to Michael Dukakis. Even though over a year ago, while Howard Dean was the candidate-du-jour Michael Dukakis was speaking out on behalf of Kerry, saying even way back then that John Kerry would have the best chance of all the contenders at that point of beating George W. Bush on election day.
So much for gratitude.
Michael Dukakis has also made four contributions to Kerry’s presidential campaign, totaling $2,000 – the legal maximum. The earliest of these contributions was for $750, in early September of 2003. Dukakis also donated $1,000 to Kerry’s Senate campaign back in June of 2003.
So much for gratitude.
John Kerry served with Michael Dukakis for two years as his Lieutenant Governor – that’s a lot longer than the four months he spent in Vietnam.
So much for loyalty.
John Kerry fails to mention Dukakis on his biography page as well, where it is stated “John Kerry was elected Lieutenant Governor in 1982.” But whose Lieutenant Governor? We know, but John Kerry doesn’t want you to know. To be fair, there was a politician he did serve with and chose to name only a few paragraphs later:
As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, he worked closely with John McCain to learn the truth about American soldiers missing in Vietnam and to normalize relations with that country.
John McCain. You’ve heard that name from John Kerry before.
That’s quite a way to show appreciation isn’t it?
Interestingly enough, John Kerry has brought in someone else connected to Dukakis, John Sasso, Dukakis’s former presidential campaign manager. Sasso, by the way, only donated to John Kerry after Kerry’s victories in the primaries.
But where’s the Duke?
Why is it that Kerry is avoiding Dukakis like the plague? Dukakis only failed miserably to beat George W. Bush’s father George H.W. Bush for President, and no Democrat has been elected as governor of Massachusetts since Dukakis raised taxes during a recession… No big deal right?
There’s more. Plenty more. The two years Kerry served as Dukakis’s Lieutenant Governor will tell you a lot more about Kerry than his four months in Vietnam.
John Kerry won’t touch those two years with a ten-foot pole. But we will… You can count on it.
Topics: John Kerry Watch |
Related Posts:
September 6th, 2004 at 10:17 pm
Incredible article on what is right in Iraq despite what Kerry says
http://insideviewfromiraq.blogspot.com/2004/09/iraq-media-is-misleading-world.html
September 6th, 2004 at 11:02 pm
Thank you so much for supporting our president i could not agree with you more
September 7th, 2004 at 1:06 am
Post it. i dare you.
September 7th, 2004 at 1:13 am
Guess not.
I’m Out a here.
Its been fun while it lasted.
-Chicago43
September 7th, 2004 at 10:31 am
Hmm that’s funny. When I do a search on georgewbush.com for “saudi royal family”, nothing comes up. Is Bush trying to distance himself from these family friends because of political implications? Matt, it’s politics. You should know this is one strategy of the game that both sides use.
September 7th, 2004 at 12:23 pm
post what chicago?
if you posted something and it didn’t show up, then you triggered the automatic moderation. you probably had too many links, which flagged it for comment spam. So i guess you’ll have to wait until i get home.
and for the record, anyone who pulls the “i dare you post this” kind of crap, don’t hold your breath.
September 7th, 2004 at 12:39 pm
http://www.drudgereport.com/dncg.htm
September 7th, 2004 at 6:28 pm
Kevin, the Saudi’s have literally billions invested in this country and have had a very friendly relationship with EVERY president including Clinton and Bush. This is a silly point you are trying to make, Bush nor Clinton were running mates of the Saudi’s nor did they serve with them during their terms. The Saudi’s are huge power players with tremendous influence. Any president ignoring them would be completely stupid.
Quit reading the looney conspiracy theory websites and use your own brain.
September 8th, 2004 at 12:45 am
Ed, my point was that neither candidate is going to bring it up if it’s not politically favorable to talk about a relationship they have with another person or party. It’s common political strategy. What’s so silly about that point? Now it *would be* a silly point if I said that that Presidents should not be friendly toward Saudi Arabia, or that the Saudis were appointed public service positions in a President’s administration. But I didn’t say that.
But now that you bring up the fact that the Saudis do have such tremendous influence on what this nation does and the policy it pursues, I think that the Bush family’s cozy relationship with the Saudis is a threat to the security of the nation, more of a threat than say, under Clinton or Kerry, whose family fortunes do not rely on oil. And I also believe that Kerry will do more for alternative energy than Bush would, which naturally would diminish the influence that Saudi Arabia has on this country’s policies, since we’d be less dependent on it for something we’d otherwise need. I’m especially concerned about our energy policy because it’s evident that there really isn’t much oil left out there and now India and China and the rest of the emerging economies are going to compete with us for what’s left. Then we have to use brute force or other not-so-nice techniques to get what we want like a junkie who needs his fix.
Nice insult there with the “use your own brain” comment. I can see you’re really elevating the political discourse and all. Since you called me a name, I think it’s fair to point out your inability to correctly use the apostorphe. Here’s a quick lesson.
September 8th, 2004 at 3:03 am
Kevin,
What cozy relationship? (please be specific - names, dates, contracts?)Doesn’t texas oil COMPETE with Saudi oil? Besides inuendo, do you have any proof at all?
Oh, and let me get this straight: Bush puts his money in a blind trust, Chaney walks away from a Billion Dollars in options, and Teresa Heinz Kerry does not even disclose her finances???? Now, here we have evidence. Well, at least suspicious behavior. But I’ll be interested in seeing what “proof” you have about the Bush family and the Saudi family. (I mean that - show us the beef - convince me).
September 8th, 2004 at 4:37 am
Hey idiots, see what your president was up to during ”
his service” in Alabama.
http://www.texansfortruth.org/index.html
September 8th, 2004 at 10:21 am
Kahn, don’t tell me this is news to you.
Bin Laden Family Liquidates Holdings With Carlyle Group
The ex-president’s club
Dark Heart of the American Dream
Now, can you explain to me why it’s in America’s interest to have a President with a personal stake in the success of the oil industry? I think that developing alternate fuel technologies would be beneficial for America not only in terms of our relationships with foreign countries, but also economically, if we become the global leader in these technologies. We have more of a chance of that happening under Kerry.
September 8th, 2004 at 11:12 am
Kevin,
Woah there son. It’s obvious to a moron that the Bush Family is in oil. Did you actually read these articles? Where is you link between the Saudi’s and the Bushes? They are in the same business? Is that it? You slander the whole Bush family because they are in the oil business? What a load of crap.
You should be ashamed of youself. Or at least, you should examine your willingness to slander people based upon inuendo alone. Too bad you are a typical democrat.
September 8th, 2004 at 12:44 pm
I can see that there’s no convincing you, but other visitors of this site should see that there could just *possibly* be a conflict of interest. I believe there is, you don’t. Fine. Let’s vote.
September 8th, 2004 at 1:20 pm
No big surprise here. Death toll in Iraq passes 1000 and it gets no mention whatsoever. This war that 18 months ago was so important is now on Project Ignore.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040908/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_1
Thankfully the death toll is only 1000. What’s even worse is that while The Bush Campaign has (quite effectively) become the “YOU WILL DIE IF YOU VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY” Campaign Iraq is slowly going the way of Afghanistan.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=54&u_sid=1196878
One by one the cities of Iraq are falling into the hands of insurgents. If Iraq really is the center of the War On Terror than the nation is losing that war.
In a rare moment of truth at the incredibly successful RNC Convention Arizona Senator John McCain told reporters to expect the US to be in Iraq 10 to 20 years. Active duty troops are being pulled from North Korea and Europe. Reservists are on extended deployments. The IRR is being called up (a few weeks back the Armed Forces called up a 68-year old man). Next step after that is the draft folks.
Every guy here ought to think about whether they are willing to go to Iraq themselves. What about your son? Your grandson even? Long after President Bush leaves office there will be troops in Iraq. And that, not “Doing the Will of God By Liberating the Oppressed People’s of the World” will be Bush’s final legacy.
September 8th, 2004 at 2:21 pm
Jay-
have YOU ever served in uniform? I doubt you understand the patriotism and commitment of the men and women serving there now.
We ARE pulling out of Europe - we have been there SIXTY YEARS! Does Germany need us? Korea - the force we have there was as a deterrent. The idea wass that the Nortyh would trigger a bigger war, because they would have to kill our forces along the DMZ to attack. They are distributed in an awful way to actually fight. They are there as a trip wire. Now, take the fact that the South voted an anti-American government in and that we seem to be the only people upset over the Norths nukes and I agree its time to leave. We have been THERE since 1945. And, after the armistace was signed (note - NOT a peace treaty) we have lost people there every year.
If the Democrats cared about our troops, maybe they should not have been against virtually every weapons system in the last 30 years and maybe they should have supported the funds to feed, arm, and armor them. What a bunch of hypocrites.
September 8th, 2004 at 2:21 pm
I wish this blog had a spell checker! I need one when I get excited.
September 8th, 2004 at 9:08 pm
Khan, I’ve said before that the Armed Forces wouldn’t take me because of an industrial accident where I can’t straighten my left arm. I never questioned anyone’s committment in the Armed Services. You use that whenever I point out that the war in Iraq isn’t going well. You don’t seem to think very highly of John McCain or Max Cleland’s service, but you think awfully highly of Mr “HAD OTHER PRIORITIES” and Mr. OBGYN http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/obgyn.html
You got emotional like Zell Miller with Chris Matthews.
Khan, if North Korea really is part of Bush’s “Axis of Evil” then there pretty much is no excuse for pulling out. They have nukes and are run by a madman who can do nothing but blackmail the world. They are certainly far more of a threat than Iraq ever was. Don’t backtrack on that now. I know Bush says, “You don’t set a deadline for dictators.” but he most certainly gave a deadline to Hussein. Troops aren’t being pulled out of Europe because Bush suddenly noticed the Cold War ended 15 years ago. Those troops aren’t being redeployed to Buffalo and you know that.
No one benefited from the toppling of Hussein’s regime than Iran. Now they along with North Korea, have nukes. We will not be attacking them anytime in the foreseeable future. The Iraqis are doing to us what we did to the Brits
225 years ago. They can’t beat us in the field directly, but they can drain our money and our will. The troops are stretched thin. States like North Dakota already have no one left to send. Are you IRR, because you might get called up. We are now one step away from a draft.
Bush is ignoring the Iraqi quicksand, because it helps his campaign. Kerry should be ripping Bush a new one on it, but he doesn’t seem to get it that he should. But no matter who wins in November, Iraq is still on the downhill slide and with no foreseeable way out. You might want to acknowledge that instead of shooting the messenger by questioning my patriotism.
September 9th, 2004 at 9:28 am
Jay, I am beyond my IRR commitment and my oldest son is in the Army in Germany, and I do not believe your statements are unpatriotic. However, I do disagree with you on the status of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Tremendous progress has been made in both countries. Afghanistan is now poised to hold their first elections with over 10 million registered to vote, over 40% of which are women. Their infrastructure is now actually viable and children are going to school and getting healthcare.
In both countries, the power grid, roads, waste management, etc basically had to be built from scratch due to the horrendous condition they were in from years of neglect. In Iraq, there are some cities that are basically strongholds of insurgents as well as those disaffected by the fall of Sadaam. Nobody has ever said the work would be easy or quick. The question is ‘Is it worth doing?’. We have tried burying our heads in the sand and hoping the extremists would go away…that did not work to the tune of 3,000 souls. I HATE when we lose even one young American, but sometimes it is necessary. I also hate when a fireman dies in a fire, but I don’t go picket the mayor to close down firehouses. Our men and women in the armed forces have made a commitment, understand it, and are determined to be successful.
There are resources out there that track the progress in each country and do not simply highlight the latest tragedy. If you took all the negative stories in our own country, and that is all you showed on the news in another country…what do you believe their view would be of our country? They would think we were on the verge of a total meltdown as well. That is what we are seeing with the coverage in Iraq.
The enemy has shifted over the last 40 years and it is absolutely appropriate to shift our troop strength to confront the current threat, that is the correct thing to do. Korea is nuclear due to the wonderful job Jimmie Carter and Clinton did in their brilliant ‘negotiations’ that amounted to ‘promise not to build nuclear weapons and we’ll give you hundreds of millions to develop peaceful applications’. Now Bush has to deal with it as best he can….the point is, Sadaam is gone and cannot continue to pursue nukes, Libya has turned all their equipment tomake them over, and Iran is backpeddaling and getting tremendous International pressure for inspections. Sounds like Bush’s approach has been just a little more effective, don’t you think?
September 9th, 2004 at 9:41 am
Kevin,
I am sorry I did not use the ‘apostorphe’ correctly. I didn’t know this was an AP writing exam.
You bring up valid points about needing to move away from a non-renewable source of energy like oil which will ulitmately put us in a very bad position. I agree with you on that and I want any candidate elected to the presidency to make it a feature. However, it is one thing to say you will do it and another to have a viable plan to do it. Both candidates have said they would promote alternative energy development and have proposed plans to do it. So that is just a matter of who do you believe, and in that aspect Bush gets my vote every time. Kerry changes too much.
I understand the point you were trying to make, my point was that you missed the point about having an established political relationship with someone and then totally ignoring it in your campaign. Matt was not saying that the problem was Kerry not bringing up things that might hold a negative light to his campaign. If that was the case he would have examined how many times Kerry’s Senate record was mentioned, or how many times his involvement with VVAW was mentioned etc. His point was, this was a man he was second in command to of a state, served with for 2 years and who has supported him in his campaigns since and Kerry completely ignores him. The point is the man has no loyalty or basic decency. It is a matter of character.
September 9th, 2004 at 11:05 am
Jay - hadn’t heard about your accident before - sorry.
So, forgive us if we plan to fight a different kind of war in Korea OK? THINK THINK THINK about what you said. Madman with nukes. So, should we leave our troops in the same static positions they’ve been in for 50 years? How about we rely less on ground troops and shift to “strategic” deterrent assets (like ICBM’s and missile submarines)? The nature of the threat has changed. Ony a dolt would think we should not change to meet it (oh - guess JFK2 is a dolt). Your argument actually explains why we should redeploy - NOT why we should stay.
September 9th, 2004 at 7:41 pm
Khan, the troops aren’t being shifted from North Korea for some strategic purpose. They are being pulled so they can go serve in the Middle East.
And Iraq and Afghanistan are not doing well. If they were Bush would have been bragging about them the last several months. Instead we get a rehash of 911 without mentioning Osama Bin Laden (?), and the same promises about thing like tort reform and helping small businesses that Bush talked about four years ago and hasn’t done a damn thing about in his first term.
I keep hearing about how everything in Iraq is peachy keen and how the insurgency is made up by the liberal media to spite Bush (I don’t hear anything about Afghanistan anymore). But the conspiracy theories wear thin as the body count mounts and every several weeks a new city in Iraq becomes a “no-go” zone. Besides, it’s not our job to engage in nation-building.
September 9th, 2004 at 10:41 pm
Jay, don’t know where you get Bush doesn’t address Iraq. From his acceptance speech at the GOP Convention:
“Our strategy is succeeding. Four years ago, Afghanistan was the home base of al-Qaida, Pakistan was a transit point for terrorist groups, Saudi Arabia was fertile ground for terrorist fundraising, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons, Iraq was a gathering threat, and al-Qaida was largely unchallenged as it planned attacks. Today, the government of a free Afghanistan is fighting terror, Pakistan is capturing terrorist leaders, Saudi Arabia is making raids and arrests, Libya is dismantling its weapons programs, the army of a free Iraq is fighting for freedom, and more than three-quarters of al-Qaida’s key members and associates have been detained or killed. We have led, many have joined, and America and the world are safer.
This progress involved careful diplomacy, clear moral purpose, and some tough decisions. And the toughest came on Iraq. We knew Saddam Hussein’s record of aggression and support for terror. We knew his long history of pursuing, even using, weapons of mass destruction. And we know that September 11th requires our country to think differently: We must, and we will, confront threats to America before it is too late.
In Saddam Hussein, we saw a threat. Members of both political parties, including my opponent and his running mate, saw the threat, and voted to authorize the use of force. We went to the United Nations Security Council, which passed a unanimous resolution demanding the dictator disarm, or face serious consequences. Leaders in the Middle East urged him to comply. After more than a decade of diplomacy, we gave Saddam Hussein another chance, a final chance, to meet his responsibilities to the civilized world. He again refused, and I faced the kind of decision that comes only to the Oval Office a decision no president would ask for, but must be prepared to make. Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time.
Because we acted to defend our country, the murderous regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are history, more than 50 million people have been liberated, and democracy is coming to the broader Middle East. In Afghanistan, terrorists have done everything they can to intimidate people yet more than 10 million citizens have registered to vote in the October presidential election a resounding endorsement of democracy. Despite ongoing acts of violence, Iraq now has a strong Prime Minister, a national council, and national elections are scheduled for January. Our Nation is standing with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, because when America gives its word, America must keep its word. As importantly, we are serving a vital and historic cause that will make our country safer. Free societies in the Middle East will be hopeful societies, which no longer feed resentments and breed violence for export. Free governments in the Middle East will fight terrorists instead of harboring them, and that helps us keep the peace. So our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq is clear: We will help new leaders to train their armies, and move toward elections, and get on the path of stability and democracy as quickly as possible. And then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.
Our troops know the historic importance of our work. One Army Specialist wrote home: “We are transforming a once sick society into a hopeful place The various terrorist enemies we are facing in Iraq,” he continued, “are really aiming at you back in the United States. This is a test of will for our country. We soldiers of yours are doing great and scoring victories in confronting the evil terrorists.”
September 9th, 2004 at 11:38 pm
It is a strategic redeployment and even Kerry called for it last year. The fact that it frees up troops for the mid-east is a happy coincidence
Afghanistan is NOT doing badly. Just have to disagree with you. Iraq, read my post, yes it is hard. And who says we are not to do nation building? How else could we win?
September 10th, 2004 at 6:46 am
Hey Kevin…what is an “apostorphe”, anyway. Is it anything like an apostrophe?
September 10th, 2004 at 2:55 pm
Bush said it isn’t our job to engage in nation-building in 2000. Pat Buchanan was saying after three weeks in Iraq we will inherit our own West Bank and that’s exactly what’s happened. Ali Sistani has given tacit approval to the new government so long as elections are held in January, 2005. If elections are pushed back and he withdraws his approval, well then just pack up and go home, cause Iraq is lost. If elections are held then how legit are they if vast sections of the country aren’t represented? Then I guess we end up with a Shiite theocracy like Iran. Then how is that a victory for us?
September 10th, 2004 at 11:31 pm
Hmmmm….Bush says that we shouldn’t be involved in nation building back in 2000. Then the game changes after 9/11. Does his position have to remain the same after you switch from playing Baseball to Football???