If Kerry is the Democratic nominee

[Dhalgren]

of course I will vote for him and of course he will make a better president than Bush (Jesus, I can't think of anyone who wouldn't). The problem many Kerry supporters don't understand is that Kerry IS the compromise candidate. He is the safe, not too liberal, pro-military candidate who is guaranteed not to make too many changes in the staus quo. Now, I know that many (maybe most) Kerry supporters think that this is a good thing, but many, many of us do not. We will vote against Bush in Nov., but you should have a little magnanimy and not constantly rub everyones nose in it - at least not until Kerry wins in Nov.

Thanks for listening - and remember, don't hate liberals. :hi:

[Frances]

1. Look at it this way

There will be more room for liberals at the table than there has been since FDR

Please don't forget that fact

[Zynx]

13. Even since Johnson? That was about as liberal as it got.

[dtseiler]

2. Here's hoping ...

... that he'll start the ball rolling on moving to cleaner, renewable energy. Incentives for consumers like tax breaks for hybrid cards instead of renewable tax breaks for SUVs. Incentives for auto makers to do more research and together find a real solution.

He's got RFK Jr's support, hopefully RFK Jr and Kucinich can get the environment back on track in a post-Bush* world as well.

[blm]

16. Kerry's enviro record is to to the left of Kucinich's even.

I didn't believe back in 92 that Kucinich was too conservative to support because of his stand on abortion and flag burning, and I don't believe it when someone tries to claim that Kerry is a centrist 'status quo' politician today.

I think they just have no idea about what drives either man in their heart and soul, and have not read their full records to understand them and judge them accurately.

[vi5]

3. Liberal Oasis said it best a while back.....

Only 28% of people identify themselves as Liberal. That's not enough to win an election without compromise. Plain and simple, that is the truth.

Kerry's voting record is probably as liberal or more liberal than that of any president that we have had. I fail to see where such a compromis is a bad thing.

[cyclezealot]

15. I will probably vote Kerry over nader.But

Kerry's votes for war and bad trade is entirely suspect. Do you not view the Move On piece on Bush's lies. And to take Kerry's Iraq position seriously.It is a morally bankrupt position.. "I was hoodwinked." Real leadership ! . I don't think he will make a good candidate, at all . Rove will have fun with that....Does his staff not read new laws(Patriot Act) .Then he needs new staff........Kerry will introduce a draft and get into an Iraq quagmire. Kerry takes money from media interests I despise. Not room for suspicion..?
As long as Nader does not run tooo Seriously, I think his views being on the national stage is a good thing.Even a good thing for Kerry to keep him from selling us out.
While Kerry's views are better than Bush's, Kerry is swayed by big money donor's who run Bush...I hope Nader will keep Kerry's better instincts intact.

[MessiahRp]

18. Kerry will not bring back a draft

I don't think most Democrats no matter how Liberal were entirely sure how bad NAFTA would work out when coupled with our fraudulent tax code.

But just to assure of this Kerry has said on numerous occasions he will not institute a draft. The sad part is Dems like Charlie Rangel have asked for one and even Hillary was hinting towards it the other day.

We need to change their minds first.

Rp

[vi5]

22. All that is well and good....I never argued as to what...

you should or shouldn't vote on. I fact by and large I agree with you.

The difference is that I recognize that my views and my self description of being a liberal and the issues that affect me are not shared by even close to a majority of americans or even I would dare say a majority of democrats.

Therefore I will be more than happy to accept smaller increments of what I want then to complain about not getting 100%.

[Jersey Devil]

4. Outside of DU I doubt Kerry is considered "not too liberal"

This is not the real world. The truth is that Kerry is about as far to the left as will be tolerated by most voters, particularly the "centrists" in the Dem Party and the independents.

And you can bet your boots that from now until November the Repubs will try to paint him as the most liberal Dem nominee who ever ran for President. Anyone to the left of Kerry wouldn't have a chance.

That's the real world. I am happy that our nominee comes from the liberal wing of the party. But to suggest he isn't a liberal is just plain ludicrous.

[stldemocrat]

5. Kerry

I think you need to give Kerry another look. He served his country in Vietnam and the Senate. From what I have read, in the Senate, he tried to put the brakes on a lot of the anti-Communist extremism coming out of the Reagan administration. The way Reagan overhyped the threat of Communisim, kind of reminds me of how Bush is now overhyping the terrorist threat today.

[meegbear]

6. ... many, many of us do not.

Iowa
Kerry 38%
Dean 18%

New Hampshire
Kerry 39%
Dean 26%

Arizona
Kerry 43%
Dean 14%

Delaware
Kerry 50%
Dean 10%

Missouri
Kerry 51%
Dean 9%

New Mexico
Kerry 42%
Dean 16%

North Dakota
Kerry 50%
Dean 12%

Oklahoma
Kerry 27%
Dean 4%

South Carolina
Kerry 30%
Dean 5%

Michigan
Kerry 52%
Dean 17%

Washington
Kerry 49%
Dean 30%

Maine
Kerry 45%
Dean 26%

Tennessee
Kerry 41%
Dean 4%

Virginia
Kerry 52%
Dean 7%

District of Columbia
Kerry 47%
Dean 18%

Nevada
Kerry 63%
Dean 17%

Wisconsin
Kerry 40%
Dean 18%

Hawaii
Kerry 50%
Dean 8%

Idaho
Kerry 54%
Dean 11%

Utah
Kerry 55%
Dean 4%

Maybe many, many of you at the meetups and the deanforamerica site, but it looks like many, many others have a different view.

[Dhalgren]

8. I support DK. How come you left his 30% in Hawai'i out

of your list? Just currious.

[meegbear]

9. You didn't say who you were supporting ...

and posts of this nature are usually Dean people. Not meant as a snub to DK.

[jonnyblitz]

17. "posts of this nature are usually Dean people."

boy you are certainly on a mission.....

[salin]

19. "I.see.Dean.People."

;-)

[DjTj]

51. LOL!

That was good.

[Evil_Dewers]

56. LOL

Do I have your permission to put that in my siggy line?

[WilliamPitt]

12. Oof

I felt that one from here.

:)

[Dhalgren]

7. A general reply

Yes, I agree that Kerry is far from right-wing and has been left of center during much of his career. He has, however, gone very 'center' since Bush took office. Now, again, I am not trashing Kerry, I am saying that many liberals have problems with many of the votes and stands he has taken over the last few years. I agree that this is a right-wing dominated country and I uderstand that only a centrist (with stealth liberal leanings) may have a chance at the Presidency this year. But this is a compromise and we should just be honest about it. This doesn't threaten Kerry at all. All the good, little leftists will line up and vote against Bush in Nov. - count on it - but let's just be honest and open about what it is we are doing.

[stldemocrat]

21. Kerry

If you take a look at the field of Democratic candidates who ran this time, and research their records, Kerry is probably #3 most progressive. I would put DK, and Sharpton at 1 and 2. DK for all his good ideas does not have the best overall package. Al Sharpton has too much baggage. I voted for who I would put at #4, John Edwards. I think that if he were from MA, instead of NC, then he would probably be more free to be his true self. I think if you look at Howard Dean, in the past he was not all that progressive, esp. if you compare him to others from VT like Bernie Sanders and Leahy. Overall I think Kerry is a good choice (although my second choice).

[Dhalgren]

27. Thank you!

Now that was a well thought out and constructive post. I think that we can discuss and even disagree on political matters without all of this rancor and bad blood. Now, I agree with you on most of what you said, but I think that a lot of lefties have a real big problems with kerry's stand on IWR, Patriot act, OHS, the military in general (additional 40k troops over seas), his stand on gay marriage, etc. I know Kerry has been very liberal in the past and is still quite progressive on some issues, but there are places and instances where leftists have serious disagreements with Kerry.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. It is false to say

that Kerry is calling for 40000 additional troops 'overseas'

It just isn't what he has said at all, a false characterization.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html

[Dhalgren]

42. I'm sorry, that was the quotation I saw in the article posted here.

I'll see if I can find it. If that is not what he called for then that is good news.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. The LA Times went with that headline and that's what the story

said as well, and that mischaracterization has been picked up by other media as well, but if you read the actual speech, (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html), that's not what Kerry said.

Kerry also addressed this in the last debate:

KERRY: None of those troops are going to Iraq that I've talked about, that 40,000.

That is a reflection of the fact that our military is extraordinarily overextended. Our Guards and Reserves have been turned into almost active duty. When we bring the rotation of these four divisions back, over the course of the spring, we'll only have two divisions actively prepared to do what we need to do in our country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16969-2004Feb29.html

Kerry wants to increase the number of regular army troops temporarily by 40,000, to take the pressure of the Guards and reserves. He is not in any way, shape or form saying he wants to increase the number of troops overseas.

[WilliamPitt]

10. Most of us do not think the status quo is a good thing

I don't anyway. But getting Bush out is a compromise worthy of making. If Kerry is the nominee, and he wins, we become the base. A Kerry presidency guarantees at least four years of good work pushing him to do the right thing. A Kerry presidency is just a start. A Bush presidency is death to anyone who wants to change the status quo.

[blm]

11. This liberal is proud to support Kerry and his longtime liberal record.

I am also proud that Kerry has investigated and exposed more government corruption than any other lawmaker in modern history.

I support Kerry FOR the great change he will bring to America. Publlic financing of campaigns and environmental goals greater than any candidate in my lifetime.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. The main thing you don't understand

Is that when you make the following characterization:

" He is the safe, not too liberal, pro-military candidate who is guaranteed not to make too many changes in the staus quo. "


You are absolutely wrong in every way. Your opinion is not based on Kerry's record, nor on his statements, nor on his life.

So remember, don't hate liberals like John Kerry and I, just because your candidate lost.

[Dhalgren]

23. My candidate hasn't "lost" yet. He's still in the race.

Why is everyone so defensive about this issue? Kerry's positions are, as stated in his campaign, are very "centrist" and not very "liberal" from a leftists view point. Why can't a good Kerry supporter say "O.K., so you think my candidate is not far enough left. Fine, he isn't as far left as you'd like, but I appreciate the fact that you will vote Democrat in Nov." We are allowed to have differences of opinion as to what is and is not liberal, or left or center, and on and on. I guess that I just don't understand the animosity of some Kerry folks in regards to this issue.

[salin]

24. perhaps another case of "I.see.Dean.people"

Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean....

lol - sorry I find the rote responses to you to be a tad humorous.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. Perhaps you should look up the word 'rote' in the dictionary

you aren't using it properly.

[salin]

33. perhaps reflexive

or pavlovian is more appropriate.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

35. No, you aren't using those words correctly either.

Your attempts to insult those who disagree with you could only be described as clumsy and incoherent.

[nomaco-10]

37. And your attempts to insult and belittle......

people on this board have been duly noted by more than a few.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

39. Your notation is noted.

Not cared about, but noted. lol

[salin]

40. Ah..

perhaps an eye of the beholder thing in terms of appropriate adjective use to describe behavior that might fall into the category of canned response line to perceived dean poster. Note I did tag your response as a "perhaps"... as sentiment in the post of "just because your candidate lost..." implies rote dean response but... could be construed as meaning Kucinich as well. Now the earlier example of the pavlovian anti dean (and thus perceive criticism as obviously from a dean supporter) put forth by Meegbear... is self-admitted (in terms of the reflexive reaction to the poster as "obviously a dean" supporter and tailoring a nice (canned?) response accordingly.

Not to let the Dean folks off the hook... some in those ranks are just as guilty as the reflexive, combative response to percieved Kerry supporters.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. Your 'perception of my perception' is false, c'est tout.

Your characterizations of the supposed hidden meanings of what I said are products of your own mind.

I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I said: "just because your candidate lost..." because the thread is entitled "If Kerry is the Democratic nominee" -- the PREMISE of the thread is if ALL OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE LOST. OK?


And who is this 'Dean' guy you keep mentioning? Is he running for President?

[salin]

52. lol

at least the humour does remain in tact... it can be all of our saving grace.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. Look I just don't agree with your characterizations at all

And that's what I said. I don't know who your candidate is because you haven't said who it is. So I can't compare Kerry to your candidate. You haven't talked about any of Kerry's positions and how you disagree with them, so we can't have a debate about ideas.

You did say whoever "don't hate liberals"

Which is offensive to me. As if you have the monopoly on the word 'liberal' and any one who disagrees with you ( although you don't state what that disagreement is) is likely to HATE you.

I am a liberal and I have been since I first voted in 1978. So it is meaningless to tell me "don't hate liberals".

So forgive me if I say one more time, your characterizations are complete nonsense, not based on reality, IMHO.


I'm glad you've decided to vote Democratic in November. But don't expect me to allow you to paint me as something I'm not, or put forth broad sweeping characterizations of Kerry unsupported by facts.

Yes , we are allowed to have differences of opinion - and that's just what I'm stating, a difference with your opinion.


As for your candidate 'still being in the race', that is not the premise of your thread.

[Dhalgren]

34. O.k., fair enough.

I support Dennis Kucinich for President. The problems I have with Kerry are primarily on stands he has taken in the past few years. His support for IWR, OHS, Patriot act, NCLB, gay marriage - these are just off the top of my head. Perhaps I should have said "leftists" instead of "liberals", but then "liberal" is a relative term. I have voted "liberal" since 1972 (so there - just kidding) and I will admit to a certain amount of exasperation with this country and this party. We have a real oppertunity, here, to bring our party and our country back from the brink. Sorry for the misunderstandings.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. Paul Wellstone and Ted Kennedy aren't liberals according to that criteria

And I agree that Kucinich is more liberal that Kerry.

All I can really say is that I think you will have a different opinion about President Kerry in 2008.

[Dhalgren]

44. Again, fair enough.

Honest to the gods, I am not attempting to bash Kerry. I am just giving you my take on how things stand. I do not hate John Kerry, nor do I support him. I disagree with many of his stated positions -that's all. I would have disagreed with Wellstone if he voted for something I disagreed with - same goes for Kennedy and even DK. I support Dennis because I believe strongly in the things he represents and I believe him when he makes his statements about policy, ideals, etc. Kucinich voted for the flag burning bill back several years ago - I disagreed with him on that vote and I said so. We are not robots nor brainwashed cultists, here. We pick a candidate and support him/her, that's all.

[ordentros]

20. "If Kerry is the Democratic nominee"

I'll vote and financially support Nader since he is pushing single-payer healthcare. I believe this healthcare policy is the Real Deal that America needs. Edwards' wife also said that single-payer was politically dead in the democratic party and Dennis noted that the democratic party wouldn't let him add it to the party's platform since it would "upset some of the party's supporters."

[Lindsey]

28. I'm an ABB'er

...plus, Kerry is anti-death penalty as am I. I basically think he's a decent human being. Nader rating the dems a D+ and the Repubs a D- absolutely sickens me. I just voted here in CA and I voted for Kerry.

[mobuto]

30. Kerry's plan comes close

to providing health care for all Americans. And unlike Nader, he has a chance of getting his plan put into law.

[nomaco-10]

26. "If Kerry is the Democratic Nominee"

It's not if at this point, it's when, and when he does, I intend to join every watch dog group there is to hold his feet to the fire when it comes to his ties to special interest groups, waffling on important issues, pandering to corporate interests, his promise to create jobs, provide health care to every American, repair relations with foreign countries and clear up the blood letting he helped to unleash on the people of Iraq. If Kerry does win the GE, he'll start running for a second term from day one which means more of his waffling, pandering, rhetoric sputtering, career politician, namby pamby, nuanced, double speak. I expect I'll be very busy trying to keep one John Kerry on the straight and narrow, but I'll have plenty of help.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. Go for it.

Your insults notwithstanding, watch dog groups are good things.

[The Magistrate]

36. The Problem, Mr. Dahlgren

At least from the point of view of Sen. Kerry's supporters, is rather different. If you cannot go "whole hog" for the man, no one ought to have any problem with that; what is necessary is the greatest possible total of votes in November. What is difficult to stomach are the claims that Sen. Kerry is in essence a Republican, is responsible himself for all the acts of the criminals of the '00 Coup, and similar nonesense, that are pressed to this day by some who have supported a defeated candidate, or who proclaim an intention to with-hold votes on account of these fantasias in November. These latter frequently come from persons who actually have opted out of the electoral process through allegiance to various splinter factions, and who in fact actually desire defeat of the Democratic Party in the up-coming elections. This sort of thing, Sir, will be fought where-ever it is noted, and ought to be fought where-ever it is noted.

"I will fight the secesh till Hell freezes over, then fight on the ice!"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Dhalgren]

48. I'll give you that, Mage,

and I have, myself, been guilty of a bit of hyperbole now and then in some sort of illadvised fit of pique. I think that we have to realize that the terms we use 'liberal', 'centrist', 'left', 'right' are all relative terms - and we can disagree. It need not devolve into slobbering cries of "Your man is a communist!" and "Your candidate molests small children!" I am not bashing anyone when I say that Kerry's stated stances on numerous issues are not very "liberal" - I can say IMO, but it shouldn't be necessary. Any time a person says this is what a liberal (or centrist or leftist) is, it is an opinion. I enjoy discourse, not assassinations of any stripe. (Although, again, I have felt compelled at times to "go overboard" when being sorely pressed by ardent partisans - so for those times a quick though real apology).

[TheDonkey]

41. Have you ever heard Kerry speak?

Or read the bills he supports.

Kerry is anything but status quo on the enviroment, education, healthcare, job creation, ENERGY, American modernization, etc etc.

Not too liberal? Kerry has been fighting for things many of us at DU have bitched about for years. His lifetime score, and current scores prove that.

[Uzybone]

43. Its hard to hate yourself

I'm tired of these insinuations that Kerry supporters are not liberals.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

47. BINGO!

[Dhalgren]

49. Again, "liberalism" is a relative thing.

Liberal conpared to what? I said before that I should have used the term "leftists", maybe that would be easier for folks to deal with.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

50. How about liberal compared to Ted Kennedy?

The GOP attacks Kerry cuz his liberal rating is higher than Ted Kennedy's, yet, somehow he's not 'really a liberal' :eyes:

[sangh0]

53. "Liberal" compared to what?

Liberal compared to almost all of the other Dems.

[Dhalgren]

54. I know that over his career he has been very liberal, no question.

But over the past few years he (along with numerous other Democrats, some liberal) he has voted FOR most of the Bush agenda. Now, does this mean that he no longer is as liberal as he once was? Does it mean he is just trying to fool the Republicans into thinking he agrees with them so that he can trick them later? The various statements he has made and the numerous votes he has cast over the last few years WHEN WE NEEDED HIM MOST are what has made me rethink his status as liberal. Centrist? No problem - he is a centrist based on his record over the last 4 years and the statements he has made in the campaign. I am not putting him down, I just disagree with you on where he stands on progressive issues.

[sangh0]

55. I disagree

Stripping school vouchers, voting against tax cuts, and voting against tort reform is not my idea of voting with the Bush* agenda. Those were the three main proposals from Bush* during the 2000 campaign.

Also, when both houses are controlled by Repukes, along with the White House, there aren't many liberal bills that make it to the Senate floor for liberals to vote on

[Dhalgren]

57. O.k., we have a different level of acceptance.

I believe that Kerry is way more liberal than Bush, but that's not the criterion I use to decide "liberalness". I could give you a list of all the things Kerry is for or against that I think are not very liberal, at all - but you know that list already. As I have said, I will vote for Kerry in Nov. if he is the nominee, but I won't support him and be inthusiastic in my vote, because he has moved too far right for me. Isn't it enough that the left votes for him, do we have to identify with him, too? Do we have to lock-step agree with every litle waffle he takes, every section of the population he marginalizes, every soldier he sends to replace NG and Reservists? Please, we aren't automatons.

[sangh0]

59. No need to be an automaton

For one thing, the votes of unethusiastic voters count just as much as the enthusiastice ones.

For another, IMO there must be something wrong with you (or your thinking) if you agree 100% with a politician. I wouldn't expect anyone to be 100% for a candidate. Not even Kerry, who is my personal favorite candidate.

[saoirse]

58. I don't view Kerry as a "compromise candidate" at all

He's a traditional liberal in the best sense of the word, with a history of both idealism and patriotic service to his country that no other candidate even comes close to matching.

Folks, there's a lot more to a candidate than their positions on the issues. If they want to implement their agenda they have to be able to rally support for their views not only among voters, but members of Congress as well. And that takes a lot of what might be called "intangibles" - personality, communication ability, and so forth. All the great presidents who were able to make sweeping changes did so mainly due to the power of their personality - maybe it's not fair, but it's the way things are.

John Kerry has undoubtedly learned a lot during his decades of service in the Senate, but his heart is still as idealistic as it was when he testified before Congress during the Vietnam War. He still has passion, but he's learned how to harness it to get results.

I think he'll be a great president.

[lams712]

60. Kerry has LOTS of flaws, but...

....I think he will at least respect the liberal/progressive wing of the party (unlike Clinton and even Carter----remember both touted their "moderate" approach and did not accomplish much even though their party controlled Congress--in Clinton's case for the first two years).

I think he IS fairly liberal in an establishment sort of way. He is actually like FDR. FDR was considered a wealthy liberal in a moderate, insider sort of way who turned out to be a very bold and patently liberal leader. I think John Kerry has the potential to be another FDR.
Unfortunately, I think there is equal poltential for Kerry to be another wishy-washy, pseudo-liberal, centrist like Clinton.