John Kerry's days as a progressive are over.

[milkyway]

I keep seeing the Kerry people refer to his record, but that was his record as a Senator from Massachusetts. His record as a potential presidential candidate for the last couple of years is not impressive. When he began viewing his constituency as the entire country, he moved to the right. He had to move back to the left because he was forced to do so in order to win the nomination. Today's indecisive statements about a Constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage is an indication that he considers the race for the nomination over, and he will now position himself as a centrist to appeal to the entire electorate in the GE.

Those who think that once Kerry gets in office he will be a champion of progressive causes are going to be terribly disappointed. He made that very clear today. He will be a poll-following centrist with no charisma (yeah, I know, it's still a hell of a lot better than what we have in the white house now).

Let's hope a President Kerry is not considered a failure. The last time the Dems had a President who was seen as a weak and ineffective President (Jimmy Carter), it was followed by 12 years of Reagan/Bush.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Got some links and votes to back up your assertion?

And don't give me the IWR, PAtriot Act and NCLB.

Barbara Boxer voted for the Patriot Act and is considered a progressive.

Edwards voted for IWR and is considered a progressive.

NCLB was Ted Kennedy's bill originally later bastardized by the leave no rich white child behind Republicans.

And here's his statement (emphasis added for other candidate's supporters who don't read the WHOLE FUCKING QUOTE)

Kerry: Well it depends entirely on the language, whether it permits civil unions in partnership or not. I’m for civil unions - I’m for partnership rights. I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term marriage as much as the rights that people are afforded. Obviously under the constitution of the United States you need equal protection under the law. And I think equal protection means the rights that go with it. I think the word marriage gets in the way in the whole debate to be honest with you. Because marriage to many people is obviously sanctified by a church it’s sacramental…clearly there is a separation of church and state here.

[JailForBush]

2. Say what?

And don't give me the IWR, PAtriot Act and NCLB.

"Barbara Boxer voted for the Patriot Act and is considered a progressive.

"Edwards voted for IWR and is considered a progressive."

There's a big difference between being a "progressive" and being CONSIDERED a progressive. I don't consider anyone who voted for IWR or the Patriot Act a progressive. Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. Thanks. I never knew I should consult you. Now I know.

[Dookus]

9. then there's only one progressive in the Senate

and he ain't running for President.

You may need to expand your horizons a little more. A progressive caucus of one probably won't accomplish much.

[JailForBush]

13. BINGO!

You wrote, "Then there's only one progressive in the Senate."

You got it. Unfortunately, some people want to redefine "progressive" so that all corrupt Democrats can qualify.

[Dookus]

14. My point is that your definition of progressive seems

unduly narrow. Using two bills to define a lifetime of political work seems a little a short-sighted to me.

Wellstone was not progressive? Ted Kennedy is not? Tom Harkin?

I see no benefit in defining the term so narrowly so that it applies to no one.

[JailForBush]

16. These are two awfully BIG bills.

And if we refine the definition so that there are NO elected progressives, so what? We always wind up voting for the lesser of evils anyway.

[Doomsayer13]

17. So Wellstone and Boxer aren't progressives?

Out of their thousands of votes in the senate, it all comes down to 1? or 2? We can't be content with representatives who represent the cause 95% of the time?

[JailForBush]

18. I didn't realize Wellstone voted for Gulf War II and the Patriot Act.

I thought he voted for the war in Afghanistan, which I didn't agree with. But he meets my standards. Kerry doesn't.

[politick]

19. I don't think Wellstone did

vote for the IWR. Onl PAtriot Act.

Still, the poor old soul sure did stand on the losing end of a bunc of 99-1 votes...

[JackRiddler]

26. Wellstone was the leader

of the antiwar movement in the Senate, and would have been very loud about it at just the wrong times for BushCo. Which presumably is why he got Wellstoned in the first place.

[JackRiddler]

21. Gee, I only voted for the Enabling Acts ONCE

and, okay, I cheered for the Invasion of Poland. Is that a crime?!

Why do people ignore my otherwise marvelous record over so many years?

[library_max]

27. Paul Wellstone voted for the PATRIOT ACT.

Still not progressive enough for ya?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[corporatewhore]

10. Just because others didnt haveaspine at the time too doesnt get himapass

[BruinAlum]

3. Your only problem with Kerry is that Dean's days as a candidate are over

[Sam Lowry]

4. You heard it here first:

President Kerry will be President Clinton without the rock 'n' roll.

[clarknyc]

8. Oh goody.

[Sam Lowry]

11. My thoughts

exactly.

[corporatewhore]

7. Kerry voted yes again and again on the one issue that ecompasses every

thing progessive should be against:Free Trade
Vote for freetrade is a vote against
Americans having jobs
workers rights
human rights
the environment
and it is even against the most basic fundamental human right of not being a slave
The effects of freetrade are so oppressive that it led to a armed revolution in bolivia
you know and its not just proggressives but also conservatives now too

[Dookus]

12. if only it were that simple....

there's good things about "free trade" and there are bad things. It's not so hugely one-sided that the answer is obvious. For instance, read an op-ed piece in today's Mercury News, the main paper in Silicon Valley, which has been about as hard-hit as any other area recently:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/7910310.htm

[Fenris]

15. Dookus, you bring up an excellent point

There are advantages and disadvantages of global capitalism, and the people who usually like to bring up global capitalism ascribe to one side or the other, and are quite set in their opinions. The trouble is that, again, there are disadvantages and advantages, and the issue is not as cut and dry as some make it out to be.

Read Joseph Stieglitz's "Globalisation and It's Discontents," written by one of the chief architects of global capitalism who now believes the system as it exists now needs to be reformed. A lot can be gleaned by listening to both sides of an issue.

[JailForBush]

20. U.S. citizens are getting screwed. Third World farmers are getting screwed

The environment is getting screwed.

Yup, I can see the positive side of "Free Trade."

[Dookus]

22. that's

one side of the discussion, albeit presented only in angry rhetoric.

There are good sides, too. For instance a global protectionist trade war would screw a lot of people, too. I believe it would screw them worse than the current system.

We need an international labor movement and a real international environmental movement, NOT more trade barriers. People in India deserve a job just as much as I do (and I've been unemployed for a year now). Due to free trade, a lot of people around the world have jobs they couldn't have had before. A lot of people in the US have jobs because of it - I wouldn't have had a job for the last 12 years if companies were required to use only US workers - neither company I worked for in that time would have existed. Economically, there was no way to compete with other companies (many of them overseas) without using Asian manufacturing.

Did you read the article I linked above? Despite the hue and cry about IT outsourcing, the US still has a trade SURPLUS in IT - which means we do more work for foreign concerns than they do for us. If we cut off other countries from doing IT work, then they'd cut US off - and we'd be the biggest loser.

No, as you and I have discussed before, things are rarely as simple as you claim.

[OneBlueSky]

23. actually, this comment about a constitutional amendment . . .

may be a brilliant move on Kerry's part . . . think about it . . . first, he conditioned his possible consideration of an amendment on the protection of civil rights for gay men and lesbians, so the one they're talking about now will never get his support . . . but by appearing open to discussing the issue, he may well be able to deflect it until after the election . . . since nothing he can support will come out of the Republican Congress before November (or ever, for that matter) . . . deflecting this particular issue will allow the campaign to proceed on the REAL issues (e.g. jobs, wars, the environment, medical care, taxes, etc.) . . . jmho, of course . . .

[Justice]

24. Actually, No

I believe his comments related to the MA constitutional amendment that is being voted on for the first time by the legislature this week.

Kerry's issues with the wording of that amendment are correct - it doesn't just prohibit marriage - it also includes language that would prohibit any "legal equivalent" which could cover civil unions. There is discussion in the Globe about possibly removing those words, which would focus the amendment only on marriage.

Kerry is being smart about not commenting directly on the outcome of the vote - b/c at the end of the day, if the vote defeats the amendment - he doesn't have to comment. If the vote approves the amendment, it has to come up for a vote again next year, and then be placed on the ballot.

[Monte Carlo]

25. If you're going to blame politicians for being political...

... then you are setting yourself up for a world of disappointment. Elections are won from the center, and it pays to appear more centrist that you really are during election season. Look at George W. Bush.