How, exactly, was Kerry a DLC candidate?

[ShaneGR]

I've read this a lot lately, and I wonder where people get this. The DLC candidate was Lieberman, and we all know where Joementum went.

So, how exactly is a Massachussetts liberal a DLC candidate?

Discuss.

[JohnKleeb]

1. the guy has a very similiar voting record to Teddy Kennedy

a very similiar voting record. Hell I dont see how a man who has a lifetime score of below 10 from the American Conservative Union is regarded as even moderate and an 92 from Americans for Democratic Action.

[DaveinMD]

3. because everything is the DLC's fault

its so much easier than thinking.

[JohnKleeb]

10. people blame everything on the DLC

its horseshit to me, and no I am not "Defending" them, I am simply stating facts when I say that Richard A. Gephardt and Nancy Pelosi our two latest house leaders and Tom Daschle and Harry Reid aren't members of the DLC.

[merh]

21. Is DLC another name for the big dog's penis?

:shrug: Just wondering.

Folks don't like DLC because they want to be like the repukes. We don't need to be moderates, we need to be democrats! Adopting the repukelite ideals is a joke.

[ShaneGR]

5. Exactly

This is what's weird to me about a lot of the talk about the election. You can say that Kerry didn't have the personality, but you can't say he was a DLC guy. It just strikes me as odd how a lot of people say he ran this really moderate campaign. I just don't think so.

[Radical Activist]

14. No, no. Dean was running the moderate campaign

He said during the convention that he thought he represented the moderate wing of the Democratic Party. So I guess Kerry winning the primary was really a victory of liberalism over the forces of establishment moderates in the party. Doesn't Dean get confusing?

[JohnKleeb]

28. It is confusing

Kerry's record is more liberal than Dean.

[Cheswick2.0]

43. His record is not more liberal than Deans

not in the last few years.

[Cheswick2.0]

44. wow, even a thread about Kerry is a thread about Dean to you

LOL

[JohnKleeb]

27. Interestingly enough

most teachers I talked two said they actually saw a difference in the two candidiates than they did in 2000, thats not a diss of Gore woh I like but more so a comment about Bush playing a moderate in 2K.

[Radical Activist]

30. There was a clear differenc this time

much more so than in 2000. Good point. I think that's why fewer people voted for Nader in '04. It was much harder for Bush to run as a moderate this time after the crap he's pulled.

[Cheswick2.0]

52. nope...........people voted for Kerry because he wasn't bush

and Gore is much more progressive these days than Kerry.

[JohnKleeb]

53. Right I wasnt criticizing Gore

at all but from what Ive observed people did think that there was a more clear difference.

[LSparkle]

33. How can he be #1 Senate Lib and DLC?

DLC is more like the "Blue Dog" Demo/Dixiecrats. Even though he's not in the standard region, Joementum still qualifies. Clinton was DLC, and so was Gore until he wised up (probably starting with his endorsement of Dean).

[JohnKleeb]

36. Gore was actually a key member in the early DLC

If you guys think the DLC is bad now, it was more conservative in the 80's, even against abortion rights somewhat, a lot like yes the blue dogs.

[Cheswick2.0]

50. nope

sorry Gore left the DLC long ago and it was never as conservative as it is now.

[GRLMGC]

6. Why let a little thing like facts get in the way?

Geez, JohnKleeb, what are you thinking?

[JohnKleeb]

8. hah

facts are good aren't they.

[lastliberalintexas]

45. Because lifetime voting records

don't mean jackshit. The way he'd votd for the past 4 years told me how he'd act and re-act when challenged- and the result wasn't pretty.

Truly- why the hell do I care if someone was a liberal 30 years ago if they vote with the fascist neocons *today*? In the words of Ms. Jackson, just what the heck has he done for us lately?

[arcos]

2. Kerry is a member of the DLC...

http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm?viewAll=1

[DaveinMD]

4. politicians

join everything. Its networking. Its how you build relationships with people.

[arcos]

7. Sure...

but I don't think that's the point...

Is he a member of the DLC? Yes. Is he then a DLC candidate? Yes.

[DaveinMD]

he was a progressive

not a moderate Democrat. He's the most liberal nominee we've had since Dukakis. HE comes from the Kennedy wing of the party. His consultants were the Kennedy consultants. Blaming the DLC for this loss is ridiculous.

[arcos]

19. well, I'm not blaming the DLC...

And I didn't say he wasn't a liberal... In fact, I didn't say anything at all about Kerry, just that he's DLC.

[DaveinMD]

25. You are not the reason I wrote that

Everyone here blames the DLC for the result of the campaign even though Kerry was a progressive candidate.

[Cheswick2.0]

41. Kerry was NOT a progressive candidate

if he had run 15 years ago he might have been.

[DaveinMD]

58. Yes he was

his platform was progressive as was his campaign. He didn't call for state ownership if that's your threshold. But he called for almost universal health care, tax increases for the wealthy, was 100 percent pro choice, would have provided college education to everyone who wanted it and ran against the war. He's a progressive. Even Dean said he was more liberal than he was.

[debsianben]

101. RAN AGAINST THE WAR?

Kerry slammed Bush in the debates for not sending ENOUGH troops off to die for oil and empire in Iraq. Whenever the war came up, he tried to out-hawk him.

Expressing tactical differences over how best to pursue counter-insurgency operations is not being "against the war."

[DireStrike]

122. It's a "mexed missage"

First he implied, "you're doing the war all wrong". Then he said "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time."

It's very difficult to pick out his actual position. He never really changed his position, but it's impossible to see that without an in-depth analysis.

[debsianben]

125. OK

So when you say that "he never really changed his position", you're agreeing that he consistently held a pro-war position, although sometimes he rhetorically dressed it up otherwise? The position he held when he voted for the IWR, the position that he held when he blasted Bush for not sending enough troops in the debates, the position he held when he attacked Dean for saying that the world was no safer because of the war?

[CTLawGuy]

55. Kerry is DLC

this is why

1. The DLC never criticized him during the primaries like they did Dean, even though at one point Kerry was the frontrunner. This implied that they thought he was acceptable.

2. He voted for the resolution allowing bush to make war in Iraq, the DLC position.

3. He believes that tax cuts are better for the middle class than fully funded social programs or health care, or fully funded schools. This is the DLC position (and also the Republican position). This is also a strange one for Kerry considering he voted AGAINST the tax cuts.

4. He described himself as "not a redistributionist democrat".

5. He believed the best use of new revenue gained from closing the tax shelter loophole was to cut corporate taxes by 5%, considering the multitude of higher priorities, such as funding NCLB, health care, homeland security, other than lessening corporate tax burden.

[DaveinMD]

59. let's go through this

everyone went after Dean because he was the front runner. They went after him because they wanted Lieberman.

He voted for the resolution and criticized the war right away.

He ran on raising taxes on the rich. He just didn't go as far as Clark, which would have put some real populism into the campaign. He proposed huge funding programs for health care and education. Far from what the Al From's of the world wanted.

His entire career is an a progressive Democrat and Kennedy's people were all over the campaign. Regardless of what he calls himself. That is a language point.

He proposed to cut corporate rates at the same time as closing a whole bunch of loopholes and raising taxes on the wealthy. Nice try.

[CTLawGuy]

60. but when Kerry was the front runner

the DLC stayed quiet.

he voted for the IWR and then said "don't use the power I just gave you". Its like giving your 10 year old son a beer and saying "don't drink beer."

he thought that rather than funding social programs, a tax cut would be better for the middle class. This is the Republican position.

Kerry was progressive until he decided to run for president.

And aren't there 10,000 things that should be done with extra revenue BEFORE cutting corporate taxes????????

Nice try at you.

[DaveinMD]

62. the idea of cutting corporate taxes

is to make the expense of avoiding taxes less than the cost of paying taxes. He would have raised enough revenue from the increase on wealthy individuals to fund all sorts of programs.

By the time Kerry was the front runner, their boy was toast. So they had no incentive to criticize him. Lieberman was already done. The IWR vote was made because he wanted to have the same power as President. And he's known he'd run for President for quite some time. Nothing changed.

[CTLawGuy]

64. No,

Kerry was the ORIGINAL front runner back in late 2002- early 2003. And the DLC said nothing until Dean criticized their precious war.

I thought the point of closing loopholes was to make avoiding taxes impossible. Why would you need to cut taxes more?

there are 10,000 other things he could have funded with that money. The tax cut was a ploy to appeal to business.

Also, guess what? there arent that many really wealthy people. I doubt the revenue gained from just canceling THEIR tax cut would have gotten you that much.

[DaveinMD]

66. raising taxes

on those making above 250,000 would have raised a huge amount of revenue. Many of these people make millions. Remember, Clinton balanced the budget by raising these taxes. Just returning them to Clinton era levels would raise a ton of money.

[CTLawGuy]

70. I agree

thats what howard Dean advocated, returning taxes to clinton era levels and balancing the budget again.

[DaveinMD]

71. I preferred the Clark approach

we should take the tax issue back through populism.

[debsianben]

103. The Same Power?

You say that the IWR vote was because he wanted the same power as President.

Doesn't the fact that he wanted to have the power to unconstitutionally cluster-bomb, invade and occupy oil-rich third world countries tell you everything you need to know? Any Presidential candidate who was more than two millimeters to the left of Bush wouldn't want that particular power.

[DaveinMD]

116. don't twist the meaning

Presidents want the ability to use all the tools of diplomacy. Kerry would have used those tools completely differently.

[debsianben]

124. Tools of Diplomacy?

A resolution authorizing a President to invade a sovereign country that has never attacked or even threatened to attack the USA is NOT a legitimate "tool of diplomacy". It is a tool of terror and bullying, by definition, and there would have been no legitimate use for it. Even if Iraq had WMDs (it didn't, and there was no reason to think that they did), so what? The US has more WMDs than any one else, and Iraq had the same right to possess them that the US did. No President would have had a legitimate reason to disarm them at gunpoint, which is what "the IWR as a tool of diplomacy" thing gets down to.

So again, what is the legitimate diplomatic purpose to be served by threatening to illegally invade another country?

[lonestarnot]

67. What loss, Don't you mean theft?

[Hippo_Tron]

82. Kerry wasn't from the progressive wing of the party

You're believing the "#1 liberal senator" myth that the GOP put out. I liked Kerry's policies somewhat and I agree that he is more liberal than some progressives on DU make him out to be, but the fact is that his voting record is more centrist than the hard-line liberals of the party. If you'd like, I can name ten senators off of the top of my head who I feel are more liberal than Kerry.

[DaveinMD]

85. I think he was

he was against the death penalty, he voted against welfare reform in 96, he voted against the tax cuts, wanted to increase taxes on the wealthy and numerous other things. He's a good liberal. He's not the firebrand that my favorite-Paul Wellstone--was. But he's a good progressive.

[Hippo_Tron]

89. Welfare reform wasn't liberal by any means...

He also supported several free trade agreements and of course there is that skeleton in his closet known as the IWR. This is not to say that I dislike John Kerry, I'm just saying that he has established a more moderate voting record in the senate than most would think. I think that ultimately he falls between the DLC and the progressive wing ideologically.

[DaveinMD]

90. he voted against welfare reform

he may have been the only one up for re-election that year to do so. And he had a very tough election.

[Hippo_Tron]

92. Also to his credit he did vote against DOMA...

Hence I say that his voting record has some liberal marks on it and some not-so liberal marks on it, making it far from a "very liberal" record, but not a sellout record by any means either.

[DaveinMD]

94. he's liberal

not very liberal. He's not a socialist, but he's not a centrist either.

[ShaneGR]

9. LOTS of people joined the DLC during the early 90s

Including Howard Dean. Bill Clinton was the Chair. There are also a lot of names on that list who really have nothing to do with the DLC. Edwards was on their list, but they wouldn't let him speak at their convention this year.

[arcos]

12. yup, Dean was DLC, and Clinton was the Chair...

That doesn't change anything... Kerry is still DLC.

I don't think DLC members are the antichrist, but why deny the fact that he is?

[ShaneGR]

17. If Kerry was a DLC canddiate...

Why did the DLC endorse Lieberman and not Kerry?

[arcos]

26. The DLC didn't endorse anyone...

I don't seem to remember any endorsement, and Google doesn't seem to find any either... do you have a link?

[debsianben]

104. Didn't Clinton found the DLC?

I've never understood all this nostalgia for Clinton, as if he was anything but an anti-welfare, pro-corporate "free trade" militarist. Michael Moore called Clinton "our best Republican President ever" in "Stupid White Men", which seems about right.

[Tippy]

114. Al From was founder

The DLC was founded in 1985, by Al From. The past chairs include former President Bill Clinton, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, former Rep. Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma, Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana, former Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, former Sen. Charles Robb of Virginia and House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri.

[jpgray]

11. When Dean was an elected pol, so was he

DLC membership does not by itself denote conservative politics. Shrum and From however will get all the vitriol you want from me.

[DaveinMD]

13. Shrum was horrible

but he's not DLC. He's a Ted Kennedy guy.

[jpgray]

22. Didn't mean to imply he was

But his strategy is just as flawed as From's--I don't get pissed off at a label, I get pissed off at the people who are screwing up.

[DaveinMD]

24. that's the right attitude

its not a matter of DLC. Its a matter of the same incompetent consultants keep getting hired. I don't get it.

[JohnKleeb]

29. right its not so black and white

[arcos]

15. I agree, I never said otherwise... n/t

[merh]

16. Those who call Kerry that are just pissed off cause their candidate

didn't make it past the primaries and because Kerry "lost" the election. They refuse to recognize how many votes Kerry won and/or to recognize that votes were stolen and there is election fraud.

Sore losers, so they can't stand it that Kerry won't act the same way they do!

[lastliberalintexas]

47. You're right

I can't stand it that Kerry won't act the same way I do- or would, if given the opportunity to vote in the Senate. Why, I would have killed for the chance to vote against the IWR, NCLB, all of the Bush tax cuts, the Patriot Act, and the Medicare monstrosity. I would have paid dearly to have had the media voice to say that "Yes, by God, I *am* a redistributionist, and here's why." I would have given my kingdom for a horse to have had the bully pulpit that he squandered.

So yes, you are correct. I can't stand it that Kerry won't act like me, a liberal Democrat who is unafraid to stand up for what I believe.

[merh]

54. and one who has does not hold office or has successfully run for

office. Do me a favor, campaign for something, dog catcher, school board member, supervisor, mayor, whatever and use those all too easy liberal talking points and see if it gets you any where.

I could go on and on about the IWR but you apparently have you mind made up on that - it is not my place to defend the man, but I can appreciate what he has done over the years and where he has come from.

For all the "this is how I would do it" folks, let me know when you start your campaigns, I will gladly donate to them.

[Julien Sorel]

18. He wasn't Howard Dean.

The vast majority of the DLC bashing thing comes from Deanites. If you were here during the primaries, you will recall that it was, according to them, Dean against the DLC, and all the other candidates were cast as part of the DLC anti-Dean conspiracy. Any one of them who won the primary would have become the "DLC candidate."

The DLC is the Emmanuel Goldstein of the Deanite movement. If it didn't exist, they'd have had to invent it. In fact, to the extent that the Deanites here mis-represent what the DLC stands for, they've re-invented it, anyway.

[CTLawGuy]

56. Dean seemed to be the only candidate with any chance to win that the DLC

complained about...

and also, only the four of the five members of Congress who ran were DLC, Lieberman, Gephardt, Edwards, Kerry. They are DLC because they believed in the DLC's strategy of not standing up to the republicans.

Sharpton, Kucinich, Dean, Clark, and Braun were not DLC.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CTLawGuy]

61. not standing up to republicans

Vote YES on IWR to "take the issue off the table".

Run ads in 2002 showing how much you worked with president Bush.

Voting for Bush's tax cuts.

voting for the Patriot Act.

[Julien Sorel]

63. Mendacious:

The DLC was against Bush's tax cuts.

Where did the DLC run these ads?

The DLC was for the Iraq war from the start, and had been for it since Clinton. It had little to do with "taking it off the table."

Two people in the senate and about 15 people in the House voted against the PATRIOT Act. What did the DLC have to do with it?



You just made up a bunch of shit and threw it at the DLC. Even if all this stuff hadn't been invented, it doesn't demonstrate "the DLC's strategy of not standing up to Republicans."

But you still won't change your tune. You have absolutely no evidence, no support, no nothing, but you'll keep pounding away at the keyboard producing the same tired shit, not caring that it's false.

[JohnKleeb]

65. It was one person in the senate

and House Blue Dogs were more likely to support the cuts than the DLC was. In fact, I can't prove it because vote smart aint working but my book I got says that DLC House Chair Ellen Tauscher voted against it as did Senate DLC Chair Evan Bayh as well, I am no fan of those two but they did oppose the tax cuts. Tax cuts were supported by democrats who are blue dogs, you don't hear too much about them here on DU that said.

[CTLawGuy]

69. The DLC is effectively in control of the party

because they put the last elected Democratic president in office.

They're the ones who advocate "moving to the center", which has been the electoral strategy of the Democrats for 4 years. This strategy change is a result of Bill Clinton's "triangulation" strategy success in 1996.

Several Dems ran ads saying how much they worked with Bush, including Max Cleland.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1464-2003Jul2¬Found=true
-----------------
It opened with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. "As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators," said a narrator, "Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead. He says he supports President Bush at every opportunity, but that's not the truth. Since July, Max Cleland voted against President Bush's vital homeland security efforts 11 times!"
--------------------------


And lookie here on the DLC website: Here's our boy Kerry listed as a memeber of the "New Democrat Coalition". Where's Ted Kennedy? Funny, I thought they were chummy.


http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm?viewAll=1
---------
Alderman, Monmouth IL
Steven B. Jones, State Representative, AR
Donald Jones, Council Member, Jefferson Parish LA
Patty Judge, Secretary of Agriculture, IA
Charlie Justice, State Representative, FL
Tim Kaine, Lt. Governor, VA
Vera Katz, Mayor, Portland, OR
Steve Kelley, Senate Majority Whip, MN
Randy Kelly, Mayor, St. Paul, MN
Joseph E. Kernan, Governor, IN
John Kerry, U.S. Senator, MA
Lynn Kessler, State House Democratic Leader, WA
Marjorie L. Kilkelly, State Senator, ME
Kwame Kilpatrick, Mayor, Detroit, MI
Ron Kind, U.S. Representative, WI
Victor King, Trustee, Glendale, CA
Herb Kohl, U.S. Senator, WI
Richard Kriseman, City Councilman, St. Petersburg, FL

-------------

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hippo_Tron]

86. Alright, to act as a voice of reason between you two...

1) The initial Patriot Act vote is not a fair criticism of the DLC. Pat Leahy, Ted Kennedy, and Paul Wellstone all voted for it. Renewing parts of the act is another and much more complicated story.

2) If you look at the way the Iraq War Resolution vote went, every single member of the DLC except I believe Stabbenow voted NAY. Were there non DLCers that voted YEA? Yes there were; Reid, Daschle, Hollings, and Schummer all being examples. Is it a valid criticism, yes.

3) His point about the DLC controlling the party is valid. Our last 3 presidential candidates have been DLC and the chairman of the DNC has been from the DLC. We have been moving to the center on economic issues and frankly I don't think that it's working.

4) I don't know if Wes Clark was a DLC plant or not but I do know that he was 100% against the Iraq War, so I'm guessing that would be a no.

[Julien Sorel]

97. Ah, the sweet voice of reason.

How nice.

Unfortunately...

You simply re-stated what I already said in point 1.

Point two is fallacious, (and you mixed it up anyway). DLC members come largely from conservative or conservative districts. Under those circumstances, they are often going to vote differently than people like Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer. It's the usual "No duh" that's left out of the foolish DLC bashing here. Is the DLC some group of puppetmasters who have the Democrats dancing on their strings, or does the DLC enunciate positions that many Democrats, especially those serving certain types of constituencies, would have already adopted? Dean, the great anti-DLCer, had a record of governance and campaign positions that were entirely in line with the DLC, except the IWR, which he never had to vote on. Is Dean a crypto-DLC puppet?

Point three is restating what the mendicant said, with almost no better evidence. Shrum ran Gore's campaign with a different theme than the DLC wanted -- a populist theme. If the DLC had been in control, that wouldn't have happened. Almost all of Kerry's campaign staff came from Ted Kennedy and other non-DLC people. Again, if the DLC were really in control, Lieberman would have been the nominee.

Reason isn't needed. Reasoning is.

[Hippo_Tron]

105. Here's the thing

1) I never supported Dean's candidacy, and probably won't if he runs in 2008.

2) You are correct that more moderate represenatives and senators tend to join the DLC. The trouble with this is that the DLC is a group designed to appeal to people who are fiscally moderate and socially liberal, basically the "rich liberal elite" stereotype that the Republicans like to portray democrats as. Why people in more Republican districts join a group like this is beyond me, since fiscal conservatism and social liberalism is EXACTLY what people in small towns are generally against. People in small towns and rural communities often tend to support economic populists and fundamentalists christians at the same time. Since these people don't really exist in modern politics, the GOP has managed to pretend that thier candidates are economic populists and fundamentalist christians and get their votes. Democrats aren't helping their situation by proposing a more moderate fiscal agenda, granted I don't think that the democrats should become socially conservative by any means. My point is that this is perhaps why people like Max Cleland are loosing their seats in the south.

3) You do have a point about Dean being a former DLCer, again I'm not a Deaniac.

4) Kerry's campaign staff started with DLC people until at one point he was polling lower nationally than Sharpton. That's when he brough on board Kennedy's people and started actually competing with Dean, who again was very much a moderate in actuality, but very much a populist in rhetoric. Personally I think that Kerry should've brought on Carville, Begala, and all of Clinton's old guys in March instead of September when he finally did. Not sure if Carville is necesarilly DLC, though. If they are, then to your credit, there are DLC strategists who know how to win elections, although personally I think that Clinton ran a populist campaign in 1992.

5) Just because Bob Shrum is a bad strategist, doesn't mean that populism is a bad strategy.

6) Let me re-phrase my comments about the DLC controlling the party, to say that they have a lot of influence. You are right, Joe Lieberman was not the nominee, the voters ultimately got to choose the nominee and if the DLC had their way it would be Lieberman considering that well, he is the chair of the DLC. Nonetheless, Kerry is still a member of the DLC, as was Edwards.

[Julien Sorel]

107. Reasonable answers.

On two: You can't please everyone. That's the nature of politics and life. For decades, Republicanism was about fiscal conservatism. This goes back to Hoover, probably McKinley, if I looked at it. Many moderates, Republicans and otherwise, are that way because they believe in fiscal conservatism. The Democrats are not, as the party is currently aligned, going to appeal to anyone who is socially conservative whatever their view on economics.

Three: My point was less about Dean than it was the putative power of the DLC. I read their stuff and agree with much of it, but am not a member, and dislike certain of their policy positions, as well as their tendency to grovel to various interest groups. Many Democratic politicians are going to find themselves voting in a way the DLC espouses because it's the right thing to do, politically or otherwise, not because the DLC said so. Yet you, and particularly the other guy, implied otherwise. That was my point.

Four: Kerry's original strategist was, if I recall, Jim Jordan. I'm not aware of any particularly strong ties between he and the DLC.

Five: I seriously doubt Bob Shrum is a bad strategist, but that's neither here nor there. And personally, I'm on the fence about populism. The point about Shrum is simple: he's anti-DLC, but has run the last two presidential campaigns for Democrats. Where's the DLC power?

Six: Ford, Johnson, Truman, FDR, Harding, Taft, the list goes on and on. Free Masons all. :tinfoilhat: The reasoning is similar.

[Hippo_Tron]

108. I disagree with your defeatist mentality on winning social conservatives

I'll get back to this more when I'm done reading "What's the Matter with Kansas", but here's my assessment as of now.

The attitude of the Democrats right now is that 60+% of the people living in each deep southern state, and each northwestern state have been brainwashed by people like Pat Roberts and Jerry Falwell. While I admit that these people have gained influence over the past few years, I don't think that it's as great as the media makes it out to be.

First off, Democratic presidential candidates don't spend any time in states like North Dakota, South Dakota, or Montana. Why, don't they? Because each of those states has three electoral votes and a history of being solidly red in presidential elections. But the fact is that states like these aren't as red as we think they are.

- Bush won Montana in single digits, pretty good considering it's swimming in a sea of red.

- Montana just elected a populist Democratic governor and is in the process of overthrowing their Republican state government.

- Clinton won Montana in 1992

- North Dakota has an entirely democratic congressional delegation, and its senior senator, Byron Dorgan, is more liberal than Kerry on fiscal, social, and foreign policy issues.

- South Dakota HAD an entirely democratic congressional delegation. Had Kerry the luxury of being able to make a few campaign stops in South Dakota, he could've pulled Daschle in on his coattails. It also would've helped if Daschle had resigned his leadership position so he could vote the way he wanted to. Clinton also came within 2 points in South Dakota in 1996

- Nebraska has a Democratic, okay well DINO, Senator but still, anything's good from such a red state. They also have a Republican senator who has been very critical of the Iraq War.

- Kansas has a Democratic Governor, who was put in largely because moderate Republicans were turned off by the fundamentalist nutball GOP candidate. A sign of what is to come nationally?

- Wyoming has a democratic governor.


Alright now to my little bit of pessimism, as I see it now, there is nothing positive to report about Utah. They are the closest thing to a theocracy that we will ever see (or at least I hope) in the United States. Idaho isn't looking too good either, when their one term GOP senator can't even be challenged for re-election, ESPECIALLY when his name is Crapo. I mean come on, we could've had so much fun with that name.

My point is that democrats have shown that they can compete in red states, the problem is that because of modern electoral politics, there is no reason for presidential candidates to even bother visiting those states, thus, they go Republican in huge numbers.

[Julien Sorel]

109. Republicans don't campaign there either.

At any rate, all this is off the topic, so I'm done.

[Zensea]

115. I bashed the DLC a decade before I ever heard of Dean

I was suspicious of Clinton clear back in 1992.

My criticism of the DLC is not based on my support for Howard Dean, my support for
Howard Dean is based on my longstanding critique of the DLC.

[BlueManDude]

20. He wasn't Howard Dean - that means he's DLC. n/t

[quaker bill]

23. Be serious

Kerry may have a "liberal" voting record, but he ran as a moderate with a "stronger on defense" twist. He did not run for President as a "liberal" candidate.

It is really just that simple. The bought the DLC/PPI line, all of it. No light could shine between his position on "issues", (to the extent some actually came up during the campaign) and the DLC position.

[DaveinMD]

31. he ran on raising taxes on the rich

that's not exactly a DLC type message. He ran on expanding health care for all childran and many adults. Its not the DLC's fault he gave that stupid I voted for it before I voted against it answer. ITs not the DLC's fault he screwed up that answer on if he had it to do all over again. He ran agaist the war the entire campaign, but couldn't get past that answer.

[XemaSab]

74. That's exactly why

They were able to paint him as a flip-flopper.

He voted for the war before he voted against it.

Not only that, but he ran an anti-war campaign, but said that if he had to vote again, he'd still vote for the war.

How the hell does that work out?

Personally, I think he shifted with the antiwar wind, and ganked that issue from HoDe and DeKu, among others, in a weak effort to keep the progressive base on board.

[quaker bill]

76. Sorry, I was there listening to the speeches

He ran on a middle class tax CUT, which would be made affordable by rolling back part of the Bush tax cut for the wealthy few.

He did discuss making existing health insurance more available and "affordable". He did not propose a single payer system or anything of the sort.

The "I voted for it before I voted against it" answer was nothing more than a poorly phrased but accurate recounting of the event.

He did not so much run against the war, as he ran against it's management. No doubt the management has been awful. He believed that the threat of military force and potential use of it was appropriate to disarm Saddam. This is why he voted for IWR and when asked if he would do it again, said so. This can hardly be marketed as an anti-war position.

He did not run as a liberal.

[LittleClarkie]

34. Don't most candidates try to run as a "moderate"?

I remember being told that in school, because they're trying to appeal to the greatest number of people they can.

He did have a "stronger on defense" twist, but that was one of Kerry's strengths. His credentials as district attorney, and as a foreign affairs expert, meant that he was much stronger in that area than many Dems can claim. He needed that extra twist during wartime.

I still find it amusing that the Bush people moved foreign affairs into the first debate slot because they thought that would be their strong suit and Kerry's weak area. Silly Republicans.

[JohnKleeb]

37. yes we were just taught that

that candidiates run to the center, its true, and most people are centrists whether we like it or not.

[quaker bill]

78. I may be off here but

I think he ran on what he believed was the right course for the nation. Kerry did not make this stuff up to package himself. If so he was a damn fool for choosing so poorly politically.

I mean if you are just going to make stuff up, why not chose a consistent story that will win? You know, kinda like what Bush / Rove do.

I think Kerry ran as a moderate because that is what he believes in.

[LittleClarkie]

81. Thank you

People don't always understand that.

They figure he was making himself "Republican lite" to get elected. But esp in foreign policy, I think he not only knew what he was talking about, but he believed what he was promoting was right for the nation.

Funny, or sad, thing about Kerry is he is more sincere than he sometimes sounds. He has to get pretty riled to let his emotions show. And he's hipper than he looks. So things come off seeming phoney when really he's sincere. That's my take, anyway.

[ShaneGR]

35. Gees, let me count the ways he ran as a liberal

1. He proposed national health care.
2. He proposed raising taxes, even if it was just on the rich. Sorry, ANYONE who runs on raising taxes is automatically a FAR left liberal to, well, over 50% of the country.
3. He is pro-choice.
4. He spoke endlessly of "Global Tests" working with "The World", etc. In today's climate, that's pretty liberal language... even if I and many agree with it... we are liberals!


You know, I could go on and on, but I won't. The bottom line is that if there is a criticism of Kerry, it's that he was inconsistent on the war. That's about it.

[quaker bill]

73. Not paying close attention?

He proposed "affordable healthcare". This was by no means a single payer system.

He ran on a middle class tax CUT. The expense of which would be offset by a partial roll back of the Bush tax cut for the wealthy. The proposal was set up to be revenue neutral. It was marketed as a tax cut and was entirely consistent with DLC policy.

He was pro-choice, so is the DLC.

He ran on Progressive Internationalism, which includes terms like "global test", "the world", "stronger on defense", "muscular foriegn policy", and "strong alliances". This stuff is right out of the DLC playbook.

Sorry, no sale.

[DaveinMD]

75. universal coverage

need not be single payer. Even Howard Dean said this. He ran on raising taxes for the rich. The tax cuts were to pay for things like a college education.

[quaker bill]

79. True, but universal coverage was never proposed

At the very best, Kerry's plan was widely acknowledged to leave out 15 to 20 million people. It would have been a great improvement. But it was never "universal". Further it was based in private insurance. This is not a liberal position. It is moderate, but alot better than we will see under Bush, which is why I worked to elect Kerry.

[DaveinMD]

83. I think it was pretty liberal

especially considering how Gore skewered Bradley for proposing a very similar plan.

[quaker bill]

119. Since Bush was selected, anything in the mainstream seems liberal

Kucinich ran on Universal single payer healthcare. Kerry ran on a more centrist position that was entirely consistent with DLC rhetoric. My comment is not intended as criticism, as I think it was a pretty good plan. I just think that it falls out in the middle of the spectrum of ideas on the issue.

[Hippo_Tron]

87. His voting record isn't that liberal...

He was very liberal his first few years in office. But then he supported almost every moderate/centrist piece of agenda that Clinton proposed. The Republicans of course think that Clinton's agenda was on the "radical left" and thus call Kerry a liberal for supporting it.

[Leilani]

32. Kerry /Edwards were the candidates of the establishment

or of the powers that be...whatever you want to call it...DLC is oversimplification.

Clark & Dean were outsiders, & were against the war, which the party establishment had supported.

The more time passes, the more I learn about what went on, dirty tricks, media blackouts, etc., the more I realize neither one had a chance.

But the establishment wanted the support of their backers, & wanted their money. Dean, & then Clark were the big fundraisers on the net.
Their supporters transferred to Kerry, because they told us to, & because we were against Bush.

I don't pretend to speak for Dean people, but as a Clark supporter, am I disillusioned? You bet I am.

[jpgray]

40. You don't believe Dean and Clark were establishment?

Clark has tons of connections to the military industrial complex, and Dean sided time and again with IBM and exploitative corporations over the environment in Vermont. I like both Dean and Clark, but I think this black and white labeling of candidates is about the most foolish thing that goes on here.

[Leilani]

46. There was lots of dirty stuff done to Clark

by surrogates of other candidates, & the more I read, I see it was done to Dean as well.

[jpgray]

49. I think you can make the argument they were less establishment

But I don't think you can say Kerry = establishment, Clark & Dean = not establishment. That makes no sense to me, especially when you have Kucinich and Sharpton in the primary race.

[JohnKleeb]

51. agreed

[Leilani]

100. I didn't mention Sharpton & Kucinich

because I was talking reality....neither would win the nomination...they were message candidates.

But I'll revise my words: how about "inside the beltway" candidates, vs "outside."

[JohnKleeb]

48. hell Dean was chairman of the dem governors at one time

I agree with what you're saying btw. I agree totally about the black and white labeling.

[Pepperbelly]

38. I thought he was a member.

Almost all of them are. Which is what kind of amuses me about the DLC hysteria.

[arcos]

68. According to the DLC page, 20 Senators are...

just a litte under half.

[Cheswick2.0]

39. because he kissed the ass of the DLC to get their support

and he was their candidate all along. Once he said he would not be redistributing wealth and that he would appoint James Baker to his cabinet, that was a direct apppeal to the DLC. Signing onto PPI and the IWR was also to win the DLC favor.

[lastliberalintexas]

42. IWR, NCLB, Patriot Act,

vote in favor of some of Bush's tax cuts, the "I am not a redistributionist" comment, the "I would have voted the same way (to invade Iraq)" comment, the "I would consider the appointment of pro-life judges" comment- and many, many more reasons.


So, why don't you tell me why you think Kerry wasn't the DLC candidate? I'll give you that Lieberman was probably their first choice- but he certainly wasn't their only choice.

Kerry was the worst of all worlds- perceived to be the dreaded liberal, even though he'd bent over for Bush the last 4 years. Great candidate you had there.

[DaveinMD]

72. this is some revisionism

One Senator voted against the Patriot Act. Some of them very liberal. NCLB was supported by Ted Kennedy. HE crafted the compromise. He's the liberal standard bearer. Kerry was and is a liberal

[XemaSab]

77. According to

Project Vote Smart (www.vote-smart.org), Kerry voted with Bush something like 73% of the time in 2002. He was surpassed in this only by Edwards and Lieberman, who were up there at 76% of the time.

Gephardt and Kucinich, on the other had, were down in the 30's that same year, yet Gephardt was attacked for being too capitulatory.

So does this make Bush 73% liberal?

Sorry, Kerry's no liberal.

[DaveinMD]

84. well according to ADA

Kerry is a liberal. Kerry is the most progressive person our party nominated since Dukakis or Mondale. I'd say Mondale.

[XemaSab]

91. According to Bush

Kerry is the most liberal senator, but the analyses I've seen put many people WAY to the left of Kerry, such as Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy.

According to my own analysis, Bush is the worst president ever and if Bush calls someone a liberal, it's not true by sole virtue of the fact that everything that comes out of the man's mouth is pure garbage.

[DaveinMD]

93. Americans for Democratic Action

is the oldest liberal organization and according to their scorecards, Kerry is liberal.

I agree with everything you say about Bush.

[XemaSab]

95. mmm...

Kerry may be a "liberal" in today's political climate, but there's a VAST amount of space to the left of him.

From where I'm sitting, Boxer is too conservative.

But this is something about which reasonable people can disagree.

:-)

[DaveinMD]

96. policy wise

I agree with you. Politically, its not feasible. As I said, Paul Wellstone was my favorite. I met him a few times and he was such a wonderful man. He just introduced himself as Paul. The most down to earth politician I ever met. And I've met a bunch.

[XemaSab]

102. It's totally feasible politically....

In Sweden.

:-)

[DaveinMD]

106. I'd move there

but I'd miss baseball and football too much.

[XemaSab]

111. I'd move there

But I'd miss being warm and speaking english.

And these are two things I really like....

[Hippo_Tron]

88. If you haven't, read this article about the DLC by Jon Corzine

http://www.ourfuture.org/onmessage/other_contributors/corzine_4_16_01.cfm

I think that he does a very good job of delivering RESPECTFUL criticism to his fellow democrats.

[greenohio]

99. Kerry was a DLC member, a liberal one, but a member nonetheless.

People will try to paint him as a moderate now, because he hasn't won. He really wasn't, and as far as DLC goes, he is about as liberal as they come. His DLC link is support for NAFTA, and the war.

[ShaneGR]

123. This is not relevant...

That letter is written in 2000 and Corzine even alludes to the fact that the initial mission of the DLC in the early 90s had SUCCEEDED. By succeeded, I mean they had elected Clinton twice.

Kerry joined the DLC way back in the early 90s.

[Hippo_Tron]

126. It is very relevant, Corzine talks about the exact that we are debating...

He points out in a reasonable and level-headed manner, the flaws of the DLC. Tell me how it's not relevant to this discussion about the DLC?

[itzamirakul]

98. Here is another great article to help you

understand how the DLC has sold out the Democratic Party to corporate interests.

www.alternet.org/story/20702/

[shuffnew]

110. DLC is just an extension of the RNC

http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/read.aspx?ID=3426

[itzamirakul]

112. And so is their off-shoot, the NDN...

headed up by Simon Rosenberg who had an argument with Al From, the nutcase behind the DLC and decided to set up his own Republican-lite organization.

Al From disgusts me when he says that "we must distance ourselves from Michael Moore." What the hell has From done that would anywhere equal the way Moore got the truth out. People like From are interested in one thing only - getting big contributions from corporations to line their own pockets with. I Wonder what his salary from the DLC is? Or just how the corporations are paying im to keep the Dems in a losing position?

[WI_DEM]

113. I don't consider him the "DLC" candidate

but he was more preferable to the DLC than Dean was. And I never understood that, because Dean is in many respects more moderate than Kerry--except that Dean got labeled an anti-war candidate which may be the reason the DLC was so against him. They and others in Washington had the misguided belief that if you opposed Bush on the war resolution that it would make that person "weak on defense."

[CTLawGuy]

120. The DLC didnt like Dean

because Dean thought we take should strong, differentiated positions from the republicans, which is not what the DLC wants.

-He was against the war because we should not go to war unless we know the truth and we have a good reason to. Kerry and the DLC think we should "trust the president" and give him the power he wants, when he wants it, no matter what the potential harm.

-He wanted to get rid of all of Bush's irresponsible tax cuts, not keep some of them. Dean believes that a balanced budget and more fully funded social programs are better for the middle class than a measley 300 dollar check. kerry supported keeping some of the tax cuts, even though he voted against them. Kerry believes he can fund what he wants to on new tax revenue solely from 2% of the population.

-Dean believes that gay rights are human rights and are not subject to compromise. He did not condemn the Mass Supreme Court decision, he instead proclaimed it as a good means to ensure equal rights. He did not support a constitutional amendment in VT to ban civil unions, instead he put his career and life on the line to sign them into law. It's sad that kerry said he might have supported a ban on gay marriage in MA.

[Doomsayer13]

117. only on DU is kerry the "DLC Moderate" candidate

he was a lot of things, but moderate wasn't one of them.

[Killarney]

118. exactly. DU is like bizarro world.

In the real world, people didn't vote for Kerry because they said he was a Massachusetts liberal, too liberal, not strong on defense, wouldn't protect our country, pinko commie with French blood.

On DU, he was a moderate/DLC/Republican shill, etc.

DU is not representative of the real world and the average Democrat.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

121. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

Sold out like a DLC appeaser. Next question?