After all the bitching and moaning, Ed O'Reilly got his chance to debate Sen. Kerry on the issues, and poor Ed came up a little ... wanting. He's consistent, though, I'll give him that. It's been a year since the first time I encountered Mr. O'Reilly on the blogs, and he's just as evasive and empty as that first time on kos when he sided with the Swift Boat Liars. For all the fuss he made about it, you'd think he would have used the debate opportunity to tell people how he planned to make their lives better if he was to be elected to the United States Senate. He did not. O'Reilly's responses today showed us a number of things, none of them good for Ed. Most obvious was his apparent lack of understanding of how Congress works and of Senator Kerry's record.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

A group of voters greeted Sen. Kerry as he arrived for the debate, and offered some testimonials in support of the Senator.

It's great to see all those fine Massachusetts folks show up to support their Senator who has been working for them, as the woman in the video says, 'for decades'. That's an important point, and one that was raised in the debate. Teddy's health is an issue, and as much as I hate to point it out, one that makes an even stronger case for Sen. Kerry's re-election. Seniority in the Senate is important, and JK has 23 years of it. That's a lot of power.

Anyway, the debate ...

You can watch it here at the WBZ site.

As O'Reilly likes to point out (ad nauseum), Sen. Kerry voted for the IWR. It's true, he did, as did 76 other members of the Senate. He cast his vote based on what he learned from meetings with Pentagon officials, Colin Powell, and other national security and intelligence officials. He was the only Senator to meet with the UN Security Council. His vote was based on his best knowledge and the national security interests of the US. He was wrong to trust the administration to do the right thing, something he's admitted repeatedly. Everyone knows it. He made a mistake and trusted the Republicans to do what they said they would. They didn't, and the rest is history.

Listening to O'Reilly, though, you would think it was John Kerry's vote that single handedly took the country to war, and he just seems more disingenuous with each repetition. We know that Bush was going into Iraq with or without the Senate's vote. We also know that Sen. Kerry has been battling against Bush on the war since before it started. You only have to read his floor speech from the vote to know that. O'Reilly also ignores that the Kerry/Feingold amendment is the current Senate plan for withdrawal. Although Ed would like you to think the Senator woke up one morning and decided we should go to war, that's just disingenuous and misleading. But the IWR is O'Reilly's big issue, the one he's been hyping since he decided to run for Senate, so he had to play his hand.

With a strategy reminiscent of the RNC, O'Reilly offered his usual fare of attacks with no solutions. Not surprising, he seems comfortable with Rovian smears and right wing tactics.

What I don't get is why O'Reilly wanted 23 debates. So he could play angry little man 22 more times? So he could complain about the IWR vote from 2002 over and over and over again, each time absolving Bush and his neocon pals of responsibility for their war? Some people have jobs, Ed.

Not that Ed appears to care much about people's jobs, as he again maligned Sen. Kerry's work as Chairman of the Small Business Committee. Now, why would someone who aspires to the Senate belittle a committee whose purpose is to help the American people and the businesses that employ most of them? O'Reilly also made the bizarre claim that Sen. Kerry hasn't done enough to support other Democrats, even though the record shows that Sen. Kerry has been a tireless advocate for Democratic candidates and for our presidential nominee, and has given large sums of money to their campaigns (including $14 mil to candidates, $30 mil to the DNC, $3 mil to the DCCC and $3 mil to the DSCC) and rallied his supporters to volunteer and donate.

“Give me five more John Kerry’s,” says Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). “He’s a fighter, and he puts his money where his mouth is.” – Roll Call, 5.1.06

What seems to be missing here is O'Reilly's support of other Democrats. I've yet to see him show his support for Barack Obama or any congressional candidate other than himself. When the Senator pointed to his support of our Presidential nominee, did O'Reilly concur? Why, no, he didn't. And he hasn't. What kind of Democratic candidate doesn't support the Dem Presidential nominee?

O'Reilly's pretty good at attacks, but what he didn't do was tell us what he plans to do to help people with jobs, housing, heating assistance, health care, food prices or any of the issues that are important to American families. He likes to shoot down others' work, but what has he done for Massachusetts and the country?

So, that's it. The debate was Ed O'Reilly's chance to show Massachusetts what he's made of, and he did. Too bad for Ed, people are just sick of politicians who do nothing but cut down their opponent and offer no ideas of their own.

Here's the Kerry campaign response to Ed O'Reilly's debate performance. Seems they caught Mr. O'Reilly in a few 'inaccuracies'.

BOSTON – The Kerry Campaign today issued the following information refuting Ed
O’Reilly’s false statements made in the WBZ debate.

“Senator Kerry and Ed O’Reilly had the chance to address Massachusetts voters about the issues. O’Reilly however, squandered that opportunity. Jon Keller asked both candidates well-informed, substantive questions and when given the chance to delve into the issues Ed O’Reilly sounded a lot like John McCain and Sarah Palin. When you have no real record of service and no ideas to run on – all you’re left with are attacks. Bottom line – Ed O’Reilly can’t respond to the issues because he doesn’t understand the issues,” said Kerry Campaign Manager Roger Lau.

“Being a United States Senator is a serious job, and a candidate for that job shouldn’t be allowed a free ride by sheer virtue of his novelty,” Lau continued. “Ed O’Reilly’s say-anything brand of politics has gone un-answered for too long.”

O’REILLY LIE #1 – When asked how he would go about securing an “important line item” for the state, O’Reilly said “My first step would be to call the Department of Commerce” and then I would call the “New England Council on Biotech Industries.”

Truth – The Department of Commerce plays no role in securing appropriations for Massachusetts. In fact, the Department of Commerce's funding is authorized and determined by the members of Congress.

Truth – The “New England Council on Biotech Industries” does not exist. Perhaps Ed meant to refer to either the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council or the New England Council, two organizations Senator Kerry knows well. The Massachusetts Biotechnology Council provides services and support for the biotech industry in our state. In an August 4, 2008 press release, the MBC had this to say about Senator Kerry's role in securing funding for Massachusetts biotech companies: MBC President Coughlin noted that Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and Congressman Richard Neal are key players on the budget writing committees that preserved the biotechnology tax benefit measure within the larger housing measure as it moved through the legislative process. "We want to thank Senator Kerry and Congressman Neal for their work on this bill, and of course we thank the entire delegation for voting in its favor."

O’REILLY LIE #2 – Ed O’Reilly said that John Kerry is the least generous Senator when it comes to helping other Democrats get elected.
Truth – John Kerry's leadership PAC, then called Keeping America's Promise, was the largest contributor to Democratic campaigns in the 2006 cycle, raising over $14 million for the successful drive to retake Congress for the Democrats. Keeping America's Promise donated more than $4 million to Democratic organizations and candidates across America, including the entire Massachusetts delegation.

Truth -- In 2008, Campaign for Our Country (formerly Keeping America's Promise) has made contributions to Democratic organizations and candidates across America.

Truth – “Kerry has a big electronic address book and hasn’t been shy about using it.” – Washington Post, July 2, 2006

Truth – “Give me five more John Kerry’s. He’s a fighter, and he puts his money where his mouth is.” – Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois), Chair DCCC

Truth – “Senator Kerry has been a tremendous help to the NH Democratic Party and the Democratic candidates in NH. From contributing money, to raising money, to campaigning with our candidates, his efforts have made a tremendous difference in both 2005 and 2006. Whenever we’ve needed help, Senator Kerry has been there for us.” – Kathy Sullivan, Chair, New Hampshire Democratic Party

Truth – “I am extremely proud to have Senator Kerry support me, and particularly honored to stand with him as a fellow Naval officer. He has given me extraordinary support from the very beginning of my campaign, from advice to friendship to very significant fundraising assistance.” – Former Vice Admiral Joe Sestak

Truth – “Keeping America’s Promise (Kerry’s PAC) has been extremely helpful to our campaign by not only raising awareness of race, but also significant funds.” – Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia).

O’REILLY LIE #3 – When confronted with the fact that Senator Kerry secured hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding that would help Massachusetts residents, Ed O'Reilly stated "that bill came from the House of Representatives and that's where it originated."

Truth – While he likes to refer to himself as a "defender of the Constitution," Ed O'Reilly should consider actually reading the Constitution. Specifically, Article 1, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution which states: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. O'Reilly claims he could easily replace John Kerry in the Senate and not impede the flow of federal money to Massachusetts. Shouldn't Ed have at least a rudimentary knowledge of how the federal appropriations system works before making that highly dubious claim?

O’REILLY LIE #4 – Ed O’Reilly claims that Senator Kerry’s chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship isn’t influential or important.

Truth – Massachusetts’ small businesses are the backbone of our state’s economy. Today, there are over 650,000 small businesses in Massachusetts that generated $23.9 BILLION in income in 2006 (last year for data).

Truth – Small businesses represent 98.1% of all firms and employ approximately 50% of the state’s workforce.

Truth – Companies in communities across Massachusetts received $267 MILLION in SBIR and STTR awards during the most recent award period, second only to California nationally. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Kerry secured the reauthorization of the SBIR and STTR programs, a crucial pipeline of federal funding for Massachusetts.

Truth – There are nearly 200,000 women-owned businesses in Massachusetts, representing over 30% of the state’s businesses, generating $30 BILLION in revenue and employing over 177,000 people. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Kerry secured permanent funding for women's business centers across America, including the Center for Women and Enterprise in Boston.

O’REILLY LIE #5 - Ed O’Reilly claims he’s a “hard worker.”

Truth - O'Reilly gave up the chairmanship of the school committee because "it was too many calls and too much coordination." – Gloucester Daily Times, June 12, 2007.

Truth - In the Feb 23, 1984 edition of the Gloucester Daily Times, O'Reilly is featured in an article title Councilors defend attendance records. The article states: "the council has meet [sic] seven times since the new council took office in January; Ross and O'Reilly have missed two meetings each. No other councilors have missed a meeting…He defended his attendance, saying he scheduled his winter vacation months before city voters elected him to the council... 'I feel badly that this is happening at the beginning of the term – it’s certainly not the trend,' he said. 'I'm not saying I'm sick or I have a bad back. I'm saying that I'm going on vacation, and it's vacation that I always take in the winter.”