There are very few things policy wise,or platform wise, that really differentiate any of the candidates. The problem is what you are listening for when listening to someone that you like and what you are listening for when you listen to someone you do not like, or do not want to like because of your support of another candidate, has you accepting what your own candidate say as valid, and actually belonging to them, and accepting the stance they are taking as a candidate, while not looking at their records.
Actually, there is nothing that any of the candidates are saying about any of the democratic platform, that wasnt something that Kerry not only supported long before they did, but that Kery took part in developing, authoring, and then sponoring years before the other candididates thought about using in their current platforms for President.
Even Kucinich's stances are not original. And Deans have varied so much during the campaign that anyone who claims that Dean is the only candidate to have had the courage to oppose Bush since the beginning can be seriously be occused of having selective hearing.
Kerry assited the authoring of virtually all of the elements that are becoming part of the entire Democratic Party platform for all of the candidates, from Foreign Polict, to Universal Health care:
This is the platform of the Democratic Party written in as the Democratic Party's Alternative vision for the United States in response to the "Contract with America" "PNAC" and the Bush Administrations Agenda:
| Key Document | August 1, 2000
The Hyde Park Declaration: A Statement of Principles and a Policy Agenda for the 21st CenturyPromote Universal Access and Quality in Health Care That more than 40 million Americans lack health insurance is one of our society's most glaring inequities. Lack of insurance jeopardizes the health of disadvantaged Americans and also imposes high costs on everyone else when the uninsured lack preventive care and get treatment from emergency rooms. Washington provides a tax subsidy for insurance for Americans who get coverage from their employers but offers nothing to workers who don't have job-based coverage.
Markets alone cannot assure universal access to health coverage. Government should enable all low-income families to buy health insurance. Individuals must take responsibility for insuring themselves and their families whether or not they qualify for public assistance.
Finally, to help promote higher quality in health care for all Americans, we need reliable information on the quality of health care delivered by health plans and providers; a "patient's bill of rights" that ensures access to medically necessary care; and a system in which private health plans compete on the basis of quality as well as cost.
Goals for 2010 Reduce the number of uninsured Americans by two-thirds through tax credits, purchasing pools, and other means.
Create a system of reliable "report cards" on the quality of care delivered by health plans and providers.
********************************************************
2. Build a Public Consensus Supporting U.S. Global Leadership The internationalist outlook that served America and the world so well during the second half of the 20th century is under attack from both ends of the political spectrum. As the left has gravitated toward protectionism, many on the right have reverted to "America First" isolationism. This collapse of the old Cold War consensus threatens America's ability to provide international leadership on both the economic and security fronts.
What's needed is a new foreign and security strategy for a new era. Our leaders should articulate a progressive internationalism based on the new realities of the Information Age: globalization, democracy, American pre-eminence, and the rise of a new array of threats ranging from regional and ethnic conflicts to the spread of missiles and biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. This approach recognizes the need to revamp, while continuing to rely on, multilateral alliances that advance U.S. values and interests.
A strong, technologically superior defense is the foundation for U.S. global leadership. Yet the United States continues to employ defense strategies, military missions, and force structures left over from the Cold War, creating a defense establishment that is ill-prepared to meet new threats to our security. The United States must speed up the "revolution in military affairs" that uses our technological advantage to project force in many different contingencies involving uncertain and rapidly changing security threats -- including terrorism and information warfare. This also means undertaking a systematic overhaul of the military to create a force that is more flexible, integrated, and efficient.
Goals for 2010 A clear national policy with bipartisan support that continues U.S. global leadership, adjusts our alliances to new regional threats to peace and security, promotes the spread of political and economic freedom, and outlines where and how we are willing to use force.
A modernized military equipped to deal with emerging threats to security, such as terrorism, information warfare, weapons of mass destruction, and destabilizing regional conflicts
http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=1926Now go and check the signature on this document to se who endorsed it. The only candidate who is running for presidnet on the Democratic Ticket is John Kerry.
Read the entire docucment, and you will find the except for slight nuances, the campaign of every democratic candidate running adheres to the Hyde Park Declaration.
The differnce between Kerry and the other candidates. He assited in the creation of these Democratic Party platform ideals, not just spouts them, trying to make them appear as original ideas. And not just for this campaign. Kerry was involved in developing these ideas as comitments for the Democratic Party. He was doing it four years ago. Every one of todays candidates had the opportunity to sign onto and sponsor these ideas in August of 2000. Only Kerry did.
The differnce is...
There is far less difference between the Democratic Nominees, than there is between the Democratic Party nominees and George Bush.
I am much less interested in a person who gets up and spouts ideas that are given to him by his speechwriters, or by looking at polls for what is popular. In Kerry's case, these are ideas he has been actively espousing and supporting for the Democratic Party against those policies that have been strangling the U.S. since the advent of Ronald Reagan.
I am not interested in a candidate trying to sell himself like underarm deoderant.
There is little substance to a candidate like Dean,wh basically has ripped most of his ideas for this campaign from the goals set by the Party in the Hyde Park Declaration in Augist of 2000. The differnce is tat while Dean was Governor, he actively worked against all of the progressive ideas that the Democratic Party advocated and eventually formulated as doctrine on paper in the declaration.
Like you said, it is easy to say you are for something while running for office, but to actually do something, to ask your party to write legislation for gay rights, rather than to state that you support them when there is nothing on the table in the legislature, is a correct attitude.
And if applied lets say to Dean, you would be correct again. Dean has never actually actively worked for or supported through his actions any civil rights legislation. He has actively opposed the civil rights of many people. Dean actively fought against the civil rights of criminals, has actively fought to prevent people who are arrested from having legal counsel available to them if they cannot afford a lawyer. Kerry has a record of actively civil rights, and to protect the bill of rights. Dean has stated that he thinks the bill of rights protects crimianls, and stated that they create techincalities that allow criminals to get away. Kerry does not support selecting judges who will disregard the Bill Of Rights:
For the defense
August 16, 2001(from the Editorials section)
Dean chose not to reappoint Appel for a third four-year term as defender general, the state official who heads the state’s public defender program. In appointing Valerio, of Proctor, the new defender general, Dean had kind words for Appel. But Appel had clashed with Dean on numerous occasions in his efforts to secure for his office the resources necessary to fulfill his duties conscientiously.
Just two years ago Dean tried to prevent Appel from accepting a $150,000 federal grant aimed at assisting defendants with mental disabilities. For Dean to block a government agency from receiving federal money was unusual in itself. But Dean’s openly expressed bias against criminal defendants provided a partial explanation.
Dean has made no secret of his belief that the justice system gives all the breaks to defendants. Consequently, during the 1990s, state’s attorneys, police, and corrections all received budget increases vastly exceeding increases enjoyed by the defender general’s office. That meant the state’s attorneys were able to round up ever increasing numbers of criminal defendants, but the public defenders were not given comparable resources to respond.
http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/31792Howard Dean thinks that the justice system is flawed, but not because it is racist or targets the poor. He says it doesn't work because "it bends over backwards to help defendants and is totally unfair to victims."
In 1994, Dean stated, "I am one of those people who believe that 95 percent of the time that police arrest somebody they are guilty." He went on to say that "the criminal justice system should deal more rapidly with people who are arrested, and convicted criminals should only be given one chance before being incarcerated for life." Dean has also said that it is acceptable for police to lie to the public during the course of their investigations. <42>
In 1997, Dean changed his stance on the death penalty and declared that he now favored capital punishment. His reasoning was that, "Until life without parole means life without parole, the public is not safe without a death penalty. Until we have a judicial system that can adequately protect us, the only thing that will is the death penalty." <43>
In keeping with Dean's position that the legal system is unfairly weighted in favor of defendants, during his tenure he made major cuts to the Vermont Legal Aid budget and even refused to accept a federal grant offered by then-U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno to assist defendants in Vermont who have mental disabilities. <44[br />
40 David Gram, "Dean's comments on civil liberties cause alarm," Rutland Herald, September 14, 2001.
41 Jack Hoffman, "Dean explains philosophy, plans," Rutland Herald, August 21, 1991.
42 Wilson Ring, "Governor wants to get tougher with criminals," Associated Press, December 10, 1994.
43 Diane Derby, "Dean reignites talk of death penalty," Rutland Herald, November 2, 1997.
44 Diane Derby, "Dean rejects federal grant," Rutland Herald, May 10, 1999.
http://www.openletteronline.com/cgi-openletteronline/aget3.cgi?num=613&type=printDean made it clear early in his tenure that he thought alleged criminals were cut too much slack. "My view is that the justice system is not fair," Dean said in 1991 during his first week as governor. "It bends over backwards to help defendants and is totally unfair to victims and to society as a whole." Robert Appel, former head of the state's public defender system, said he had constant clashes with Dean over funding for the service. According to Appel, Dean said on at least one public occasion that the state should spend less money providing the accused with legal representation, saying that "95% of criminal defendants are guilty anyway." (Carson says the comment was meant as a joke, but Appel counters that even if it was, "the underlying message was pretty clear.")
Which may be one reason why Dean, in 1999, wanted to refuse a $150,000 federal grant to the public defender's office for aiding mentally disabled defendants. "That was unusual, to say the least," says Appel. The state legislature overrode Dean's opposition. Dean spokesman Carson responded that Dean didn't want to create a program that the state couldn't afford to fund if federal money disappeared in the future. But he did not disavow Dean's anti-defendant bent. "This is a governor who was tough on crime and is a big believer in victims' rights," Carson says.
http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,535358,00.htmlKucinich has done the same when it comes to a womans right to choose.
He may have stated hs has had a change of heart. But if you choose to accept his word on it, but you can present no record of action.
And more than a manefesto, or even talking about it in public, it is beter to see what someone has done, The old saying, talk is cheap is never more true than when you are looking at politicians.
So if your criteria is that a candidate says wht you want to hear when they are speaking to you. And if your criteria is just that, that they say what you want to hear, in just the way you want to hear it, then you probably do have selective hearing. Even if you are basing your whole choice on what you hear, you are being even more selective. because you are basing it on what you are hearing the candidate say now, and not listening to what they have said in the past.
And thats the real difference. Kerry is by in large responsible in part, for the creation of many of the ideas that the Democratic Party has placed among its core values for the party's future. Not one of the other candidates has taken such an active reole in defining what the party's ideals are. Certainly not Hiward Dean, who has actively opposed the party's ideals of progressive fiscal responsibility in order to actively put forth his own ideas of fiscal conservatism, which are two verry different things. Dean beleives, and has acted upon, cutting programs from government to balance a budget. Kerry on the other hand, beleives nbot in cutting programs, but in actively removing wasteful elements of government, and in making rich corporations pay their fair share. He has actively passed laws that attempt to do this. Dean on the other hand, as Governor did the opposite, refusing to raise oncome taxes on the rich, while raising taxes that adversely effect the poor and middle class (property taxes adn consupmtion taxes and other excise taxes)
So basically what you are stating here is that you would prefer a candidate who can give a good stump speech, nad says things you want to hear in that speech, even though they have stated in the past things like it being accepetable for police to lie during the course of an investigation, and that government should not pay for legal aid, because 95 percent of all people who are arrested are guilty anyway, and then later using his authority as Governor to shore up those beleifs by cutting funding to public defneders, while greatly increasing the funding of the police force and prosecutors.
Kerry on the other hand, opposes the death penalty in crimnal cases because as a prosecutor, he has seen many attempts at injustice based exactly on the kind of mind set held by Governor Dean.
I guess the difference in how I select a candidate is based on how much the record of their past choices matches what they are saying while they are campaigning for my vote.
All candidates from time to time must vote for legislation, which in part has some elements that are things they dont like, in order to pass other portions of the legislation that they support a great deal.
But on the whole Kerry's entire record in the past, is largely consistant with the philosophy they have held for their entire political career. Kerry' entire career phlosophy has been one of a liberal progressive. Deans is not. Far fromt it Deans record is of a rather conservative person who fovors the trickle down theor of economics and taxation.
Others have pointed this out about Dean. He will say wat people want to hear to get votes, but he never stands up or fights for anything but the interests of big business, and avoids politically dangerous issues:
From a Vermont Sierra Club Activist:
Perspective on Dean from a Vermont Sierra Club Activist: negativeHe did offer nominal,
initial support to a renewables bill two years ago, but when push came to shove he refused to lift a finger in support. He repeatedly had his secretaries and commissioners run various collaborative policy-making groups, only to have the facts emerge later that the
“fix was in” from the start with his road-building, air polluting, power producing campaign donors.
His record is one of opposing just about everything the environmental
lobby supported. He was always there with the lip service as long as there was actually nothing on the table. He has developed a reputation for saying what his audience wants to hear, then doing whatever suits him later.
http://www.thomasleavitt.org/personal/blog/index.php?p=311&c=1Howard Dean: the Progressive Anti-War Candidate?
Some Vermonters Give Their ViewsI know that a lot of you are going to vote for Dean -- he talks a good game; he can be charismatic and charming. But I'm warning you. This man will tell you what you want to hear, or at least tell you something that has some little kernel of something that you can interpret as support for the things that are important to you. But when the time comes to stand up and lead on the issue, to take on the money interests and backsliders in his own party, that stiff little spine will turn into a slinky.
http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.htmlFinally, a good many posts like this are actially started, not to find some reason to support Kerry, but rather, as a subtle means to attack the reasons for supporting Kerry, and the candidate himself.
To be honest, most of the peoplewho do this and support other candidates than Kerry do so primarily for the reasons that you state. By indulging in selective hearing. But for the most part, they dont have the intention of actually listening anyway. Becasue if they actually were not listening selectively, for the most part, they would not be supporting theie own candidate. Dean the presidential candidate, for the most part, does not resemble Dean the governor in any way shape of form. An unbiased look at the things he has said, and how he has backed up those things in the past would cost Dean a great deal of support, and I suppose it is largely why once voters had to start seriously making decisions, abandoned Dean in droves. I was once afraid that the America Democratic electorate was extremely stupid, and so expected them to pick a candidate who could stir thme up emotionally, but whose record was unreliable and not in the interests of most Americans. When they started supprting Kerry in droves, I realized they were capable of detecting a grandstander.
The same thing can be said of all of the other candidates but Dean. Each of them have an inconsistancy somewhere between their past decisions and their current platforma and campaigns. Clake, with his past support of Republicans and is new to the Democratic Party. Not a criticism of Clark who I think is a fine man and a great asset. Just an inconsistancy. Kucinich his stance on abortion and a few other family type issue. Again. I will givbe him the benefit of the doubt, but a big change. Dean. lets not go there, as he has so many inconsistancies, it wold take a book, and if I can finish differences with several publishers, you may be reading them soon anyway.
Edwards. I must say, my only concern about Edwards is his inexperience in Government, but I will also say that there may be inconsistancies in Edwards record but this s my own case of selective hearing. I like Edwards a lot, think that he could be a good president someday, and aside from that, there is so little difference, substatively, between Edwards and Kerry's stances that they are only niticeable to people who have to start bending and twisting them to make Edwards and Kerry seem different.
All of the pundits'polls, and public indicate that the choce of Kerry has to do with electabilty. The ablity to beat Bush. But this factor is built up on other elements. The reason that people perceive Kerry as electable is based on all of the elements I have noted. Consistancy of record over a lifetime of service on issues of importance to the Democratic electorate is the prime thing that makes a canadidate electable. Kerry has more of this than Dean. Clark, Edwards, Or Kucinich. I think so, but it seems so does most of the Democratic electorate.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(185 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
