Larry Endorses the Military Commissions Act

Below is the entire segment of the October 2006 pre-election debate between Larry Kissell and Robin Hayes which concerned the Military Commissions Act. There was no further discussion about the Military Commissions Act either before or after this segment of the debate.




When Larry was confronted by "UWTB" with the bare fact that he (Larry Kissell) had endorsed the Military Commissions Act in his 2006 debate with his Republican opponent Hayes in the comment section of a diary post on Daily Kos, his supporters stepped in for him to deny it. They said UWTB was "spreading bullshit" and "lying like a Republican." They accused UWTB of being "negative" and "smearing Larry," saying that UWTB "ought to be ashamed" for "twisting" Larry's statement and using it "out of context" and to "shut the hell up."

It wasn't enough for them to attack the truthfulness of the statement, they felt compelled to take it down a notch; they launched into a virtual tirade filled with hostility, name-calling, mockery, and vicious ad hominem attacks on his current progressive Democratic opponent (John Autry).

They called Mr. Autry "odd," an "unstable hack," and an "alcoholic," among other false and nasty accusations (even though UWTB wasn't engaging in the same kind of mean and nasty ad hominem attacks against their candidate Larry). Larry's supporters had simply been confronted with the truth and they weren't taking it very well. They didn't seem to be capable of civil or reasoned debate about the issue that had been presented.

They even went so far as to bring Mr. Autry's wife into it, feigning concern about her embarrassment and shame.

It went on like this for awhile in two sections of the comment thread, but there was one post in particular that stood out for me. The person using the name "Rant" said; "Put it on his website and send a press release how John wants gays to climb the fence from Mexico and get married on our tax dollars by an Atheist clerk of court."

Now let me try to put this in perspective....

I'm fairly certain that these people personally attacking John Autry and UWTB, instead of defending their man's position, are long-time Kissell supporters. In fact, I'm fairly certain I know who they are (especially since they sometimes call each other by their real names when they make comments to each other on the Kissell posts) and that they have been actively working with the Kissell campaign since 2005 and/or early 2006. They have been trying to sell their candidate as a progressive to progressive groups locally, and especially to the progressive Daily Kos crowd, to obtain their support and $$, but they are not nearly as "progressive" as they make themselves out to be.

Exhibit A is the flash movie above, proving the initial statement by UWTB that Kissell endorsed the Military Commissions Act. I was able to obtain the whole debate and I excerpted the entire segment where the Military Commissions Act was discussed. I decided to include the whole segment so that no one could accuse me of "twisting" anything or taking anything "out of context." I made sure to include the initial question about it through to where the moderator began to ask the next (and last) question, so people could see it was the whole segment. Now anyone can watch it and decide for themselves who was lying and who was telling the truth.

Exhibit B is how they responded to the truthful charge. If these people were working within the campaign or even if they were just longtime supporters, shouldn't they have known what their candidate's position was on something as important as the Military Commissions Act? I have to wonder which is worse, not knowing what their candidate's position was or lying about it. What were they doing when they were responding to UWTB? Were they lying or ignorant? How could they accuse UWTB of "lying" or "twisting" things "out of context" if they were merely ignorant and not lying themselves?

But it was the type of response that they gave that brings the point home. They used right-wing tactics to make their argument; name-calling, mockery, hostility, and ad hominem attacks rather than engage in a civil debate about the topic in question. But more directly, what "progressive" would say something like "Rant" said? Here it is again; "Put it on his website and send a press release how John wants gays to climb the fence from Mexico and get married on our tax dollars by an Atheist clerk of court." What has Rant got against gays and atheists? That sounds like the kind of put-down an extreme right-winger would make, certainly not something a true progressive (and probably not many Democrats) would say.

So how "progressive" is Larry and his group really?

Just so everyone here knows that I'm not making any of this up, here is the link to the diary post if anyone wants to read it for themselves; http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/29/85242/4144.

The sections I'm talking about come from two different places on the comment thread. The first one starts approximately 40 - 45% down the page.

See additional evidence about Larry's not so "progressive" nature below.

Larry Buys into Republican Spin and Framing

Aside from Larry buying into the concept of a "war on terror" (that both the 911 Commission Report and an Army War College report concluded was too vague, ill-defined, and unfocused -- recommending some other term be used), and aside from Larry attempting to frame his positions on the issues using historically Republican positions (less taxes, less government, family values, etc.), just prior to the last election cycle, Larry bought into the Republican spin regarding a joke John Kerry made dissing Bush.

On October 30, 2006, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA) was speaking at a campaign rally in Pasadena, California when he launched into a series of one-liners with Bush or the Bush Administration as the butt of his jokes. He had just finished saying he had just come back from Texas, where Bush once lived, but now he (Bush) "lives in a state of denial," when he went on to say; "Education, you know, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." As Kerry said later, he was referring to President Bush's poor preparation for the war, which was clear from the context. Kerry said that he had botched the joke by not adding the word "us" in the punch-line, as in; "...you get us stuck in Iraq," but it could still be understood to mean what he intended (even without the word "us" inserted) by the context (as in Bush getting himself stuck in Iraq).

Nevertheless, various Republicans, Fox News, and the White House seized on the comment, and took it out of context, to spin Kerry's joke to imply he was referring to the troops being uneducated.

I grant that Kerry could have said it better, but their interpretation requires you to believe that in the middle of dissing Bush, Kerry suddenly decided to diss the troops. Not only would that have been out of character for Kerry (a former vet himself), and too incredibly stupid for any politician to say, but it wouldn't make any sense in the larger context of what he was saying.

As Keith Olberman commented on MSNBC's Countdown a couple of days later; "Kerry called them stupid and they were too stupid to know they were being called stupid."

Obviously, they did know better and they also knew they could use it to create a distraction right before the election.

Kerry, having learned his lesson from not responding fast enough to the Swift Boat charges in the last election, tried to fight back, but the stir created by the right-wing echo chamber was too great. When it became clear that many people were buying the spin, he apologized for any misunderstanding.

On November 1, 2006, the Kissell campaign sent out this press release:

-----------
Statement of Larry Kissell

"John Kerry's committee called my campaign yesterday and offered to put me on his slate of endorsed candidates. I said no thank you - that we may be a campaign in need of funding, but I don't share his views. I found his recent comments and lack of apology reprehensible.

Today, I saw that he finally apologized - and for me, just like many other Americans, it was too little too late. There may be Democrats who disagree with me, but I believe Mr. Kerry's comments show how disconnected he and the other Washington politicians really are from reality. Democrats and Republicans alike have to stop the politics of division and gotcha. It's time to take our country back from the Washington politicians of BOTH parties."
-----------

When I first read Larry's statement, I considered that he also might know better, but he was saying this for political reasons. The alternative was to believe that he was either not well informed or he had bought into their spin.

Regardless of which it was, Larry helped them spread their lie of distraction by lending weight to it, and I thought it was ironic that Larry was speaking out for stopping the politics of "gotcha" while he was helping it along.

The real shame here is that at the same time Kerry was making his joke, Bush made a statement during a campaign speech. Bush said that a Democratic victory in the midterm elections would mean that "terrorists win and America loses."

So, here we have Bush saying something incredibly more "reprehensible" than even the worst interpretation of what Kerry said, essentially unapologetically linking votes for Democrats as a victory for terrorists on the same day as Kerry's botched joke.

And which of the two statements did Kissell choose to condemn?

Kerry's of course.

Are these the actions and positions of a "Progressive" candidate?

REFERENCES:

Kerry's Remarks -- IN CONTEXT

Fox News misrepresented Kerry's remarks on "get[ting] stuck in Iraq"

Dobbs misrepresented Kerry's remarks, as CNN ignored AP report supporting Kerry's explanation

Broadcast networks all led with Kerry's "botched joke," entirely ignored Bush's statement that a Democratic victory means "terrorists win and America loses"

Bush Says 'America Loses' Under Democrats

Larry's Stance on the War in Iraq

In 2005, Larry reached out to some of the local progressives to gain their support in the upcoming election. He addressed one progressive group in Charlotte that was eager for change and eager to do something to make that change. In his address to that group, he gave his position on the conflict in Iraq, which was essentially; since we had created the situation there, we were bound to stay as long as it took to make things right. This is otherwise known as the "Pottery Barn Argument."

Once his campaign discovered that this was a sticking point in getting the group's endorsement, a compromise was negotiated. A one year time-limit was established by his campaign for our obligation to Iraq. His website reflected this new deadline by titling his stance on this issue "Out in 2006."

The group, feeling that since Larry (if he should win) would be advocating immediate withdrawal by the time he became a congressperson (because it would be after his deadline had passed), endorsed his campaign and many people in the group became active in it, devoting their time, effort, and money.

On August 29, 2006, with what we thought was Larry's deadline only a few months away, Larry made a statement calling for our troops to be "out in one year." To some in the group supporting him, this seemed to be change in his promise of "Out in 2006."

When confronted about this discrepancy by his progressive supporters, the Kissell campaign argued that his position hadn't changed, that Larry had always said; "out in one year."

Yes, it was true that at the end of 2005 he said this, and during the fall of 2006 he was still saying this, but how did that jibe with his promise "Out in 2006" as expressed on his site?

It may seem to be a minor thing today (since we will be lucky to get out in two or three years), but some of the group felt he had misrepresented what he meant when he said it the first time, since the deadline now seemed to always be a year from whenever he talked about it. At least, the plain words on his site ("Out in 2006") seemed to be disingenuous. If his stance had always been "out in one year," his site should have said "Out in One Year (From Whenever I Talk About It)" instead of "Out in 2006."

In the light of what many in the group perceived as Larry's move to the right in some of his positions as the election grew near (his stance on immigration, his support for the Military Commissions Act, etc.), many progressives that had been supporting him felt they had been mislead.

As of this posting, Larry's site still says; "Out in 2006" although most of the text underneath was removed sometime after his August 29, 2006 announcement from what was there in the first part of 2006. The text that had been removed was replaced by a link to his August 29 announcement.

Here is a screen shot of his page at the time of this posting:




Note the item circled in red; "Iraq: Out in 2006" and below it where he says; "My position is out of Iraq by the end of 2006." Then it gives a link to his August 29, 2006 statement calling for our troops to be "out in one year."

Here is the current screen shot of that page:




I suspect that Larry's website may change after they discover this post; this is why I took screen shots. However, it may be interesting to check out now or in the future to see if they have. Therefore, I will also give the links to the pages above (although, the links might be changed in the future as well).

The link to the first page above is: http://www.larrykissell.com/issues/issues08.asp.

The link to the second page above is: http://www.larrykissell.com/issues/issues35.asp.

Larry's Immigration Plan

In an email sent out to some Kissell supporters on October 07, 2006 by his campaign manager Leanne Powell with the subject heading "Please be on the look out for Hayes Commercial" was this paragraph clarifying Kissell's position on immigration (emphasis mine throughout):

"As for immigration Larry's position is more conservative the [sic] Congressman Hayes. Mr. Hayes supports the President's amnesty plan and protection of businesses that employ illegals. Larry says our immigration policy should be based in sound public policy not hate, that said, he believes that we have to secure our borders, deport illegals, prosecute those that bring them over the border and hold employers responsible that employ them. Larry believes that illegal aliens are just that-- illegal and to offer amnesty is to penalize the law abiding people waiting patiently and following the rules to be able to persue [sic] the American Dream."

From an article about Kissell in the March 16, 2007 Salisbury Post:

"On illegal immigration, Kissell said it's just that — illegal....

"The federal government has not done a good job keeping track of immigrants or keeping illegals out of the country, he said. He does not support the president's plan for giving guest-worker permits to illegal immigrants. He supports the proposal to build a fence along the border and combined that with other efforts.

"'What we've done so far has not worked,' Kissell said. 'We've got to stop the bleeding. We've got to stop the influx of 3 to 4 million illegals coming in every year. Once we've done that, it's a combination of finding out who's here and dealing with those on an individual basis. Then, we've got to deal with the companies that are hiring known illegals.'"

On Larry's website there is this:

"Kissell's immigration plan will use the vast technology resources of the newly formed Homeland Security Department to identify and track down illegal immigrants...."

CONCLUSION

So, as far as Larry's position on immigration, it is; "more conservative" than Congressman Hayes. He wants to "build a fence along the border and [combine] that with other efforts," including; "dealing with" "illegal immigrants" by using "the vast technology resources of the newly formed Homeland Security Department to identify and track [them] down" in order to "deport" them.

We are talking about an estimated 12 million people here. In addition to the costs of building a fence along the border with Mexico and the costs and repercussions of his other proposals, what would be the costs of hunting down and deporting 12 million people from the United States (not to mention the moral and ethical considerations of separating families)?

Who does he think is going to pay for all this?

Is Larry's position on immigration moral, practical, or "sound"?

Is it Progressive?

Larry's "Kissell Cult"

When I first considered what to post on this blog, I wasn't thinking about posting anything about Larry's supporters, but it has become clear that this deserves a post here as well.

In another post, I cited how some of his supporters/campaign workers reacted when they were presented with the fact of Larry's endorsement of the Military Commissions Act. They reacted with denial, hostility, name-calling, mockery, and viciously false ad hominem attacks (see Larry Endorses the Military Commissions Act for more).

This seems to be their typical approach to anyone that makes the slightest suggestion that Larry is anything less than perfect. A civil and reasoned debate or discussion to any challenge seems beyond their abilities. They seem to believe Larry can do no wrong and anyone that questions that belief will feel the full force of their wrath -- and any acquaintance with civility, the issue at hand, or (for that matter) the truth, is thrown right out the window.

The person going by the name "Rant" on Daily Kos seems to be the worst; he appears to be their appointed attack-dog. Although (as I've said elsewhere) I'm fairly certain I know who many of his supporters are on Daily Kos (because they sometimes refer to each other by their real first names in the comments) and what relationship they have with the Kissell campaign, I will refrain from revealing this knowledge without absolute certainty (and out of some respect for Daily Kos rules that the "Kissell Cult" doesn't seem to want to abide by themselves when they attempt to expose the real names of those debating them on the site). However, I suspect if anyone knew what Rant's relationship was with the Kissell campaign, they might be surprised in light of some of the things he has said.

As just one example of their vicious personal attacks and dishonesty (as I covered in more detail in the post I cited earlier), Rant responded to the fact that Larry had endorsed the Military Commissions Act with denial and then by falsely accusing Kissell's current progressive opponent (John Autry) of being "unstable" and an "alcoholic." Aside from the fact that Mr. Autry is neither "unstable" nor an "alcoholic" (John doesn't drink at all), this has nothing to do with the fact of Larry endorsing the Military Commissions Act.

I've covered most of the rest of what Rant and others said in the comment section of that particular diary in the post earlier cited, and if that were the only instance of the type of behavior I'm talking about, there wouldn't be a need to make a separate post about it here.

However, because I am aware of other instances of this kind of behavior (and because I expect there will be many other examples in the future), I feel like this will be as good a place as any to document them as I have the opportunity.

Stay tuned....