10 Questions about Kerry and the direction of the Party

[CTLawGuy]

Not meant as flamebait, but I think these questions go to the heart of why there is so much resistance to Kerry on the left. It would be nice to discuss the implications of Kerry's (since he will become the de facto leader of the dems) positions on our party, as well as some general questions about party directions.

1. A. Is supporting the IWR a progressive action (I'm talking about the RESOLUTION, not the WAR itself)?
B. Were Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone wrong to vote against it?
C. Does the Congress have no responsibility to restrain the President from taking harmful and misguided actions with our military?


2. A. Are admittedly small tax cuts better for the middle class than spending on social programs such as education, health care, homeland security etc.?
B. Is that not the longtime position of the Republican Party?
C. Should it be the concern of those looking out for the middle class that lack of federal funding due to tax cuts forces states to raise their taxes on the middle class?


3. A. Was voting for the Patriot Act without fully understanding it excusable?
B. Isn't a crisis situation when we need our leaders in Congress to have the most level heads and the most calm emotions?
C. Was Russ Feingold wrong to vote against the Patriot Act?


4. A. What do our leaders hope to accomplish by opposing gay marriage?
B. Will even one religious fundamentalist vote Democratic because we do not support gay marriage?
C. Why should homosexuals support a party that will not stand up for their rights?


5. A. Should elected party members who endorse Bush be allowed to stay in their respective caucuses?
B. By allowing them to stay, does it give the message that the party is weak?
C. Is this message a bad thing?
D. Is having as large a caucus as possible more important?


6. A. Why is the Republican Party the majority party?
B. Did the Contract with America have something to do with it?
C. Is it because the Republicans appeal to their base, or to swing voters?


7. A. If a man gives millions of dollars to charity, opens hundreds of orphanages, and discovers the cure for cancer, but then 5 years later murders a cop, is he not a murderer?
B. Would you give that man a lesser sentence because of his good deeds five years ago?
C. Would you hold it against anyone who gave him the same sentence as any other cop killer?


8. A. Is it a good thing that in 2002, Bush won the states that both our House and Senate leaders reside in (MO and SD)?
B. Does that fact affect their performances as leaders, esp. in an election year?
C. Would it be plausible for the Repubs to make Chris Shays (CT) and Susan Collins (ME) their leaders?


9. How important are each of the criteria with which to choose a vice-president?
A. Ideological balance (Moderate, Progressive)?
B. Regional Balance (Northeast, South/West/Midwest)?
C. Personality balance (articulate/reserved, passionate/insipring)?
D. Constituency balance (white, minority/female/young/)?


10. A. Is being the anti-Bush candidate enough to win the election?
B. Do swing voters particularly dislike Bush?
C. What is the best way to bring potential Nader voters into our camp?
D. Is Nader that big a deal?
E. How do the two major parties differ in how they treat their respective bases?
F. What are three reasons to vote FOR Kerry, not AGAINST Bush?

Thank you for reading, now sound off!!

[blm]

1. I'm done.

If you don't bother reading Kerry's entire record and his stand on the issues by now.... well...what does that say....but, instead you spend your time asking questions, in a deliberate chip on the shoulder way, that are easily answered by going to his site and studying his record, his positions on the issues and his speeches.

It takes some time. Possibly as many as 3 or 4 whole hours.

[CTLawGuy]

6. did you read any of my questions?

or did you just put in your cut and paste response?

Also, what is wrong with asking questions? that is how ideas formulate, and that is how progress is made.

Furthermore, my questions aren't about Kerry's record, they're about our attitude toward issues.

[wyldwolf]

30. In a nutshell...

You already have an answer for all the questions you asked. Your purpose was to set people up so you could swoop in and show them how "bad" Kerry is.

This isn't a new ploy. It has been done here over and over. We know the trick. You're not that clever.

Now you're going to say I won't answer your questions. No, you don't score brownie points with that. That has also been tried over and over.

[CTLawGuy]

31. Oh you got me

Im just mad I couldnt force the evil unelectable Howard Dean down your throats.

Now I will just come to the realization that I love John Kerry and John Kerry loves me, and beat myself back into submission...

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

32. It isn't that simple, and you should know that

If one says IWR was or was not progressive, you then open up the debate one more time (for the 999th time) for the purpose of piling on John Kerry.

Your post in nothing more than an underhanded attempt at smearing him - only you want to lead others into the thread to actually do the smearing.

[CTLawGuy]

33. so we should not ask what is progressive and what isnt????

NT

[wyldwolf]

35. not for the 999th time when the sole purpose is to smear John Kerry

You know what you think the answers are already, and most of DU has their minds settled on the issues, too. So the constant rehash under the guise of "innocent questions" is, like I said, just an attempt to lead others into one more smearfest of John Kerry while you sit back and admire your "cleverness."

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

42. You don't want to know what other people think

... you want to begin one more divisive thread covering issues that have already been covered over and over again. Don't pretend you've never seen them before.

Kerry is the nominee. Deal with it.

[CTLawGuy]

46. then it would be pretty fucking silly for me to ask questions of

people if I didnt care what they wanted to know...

If I wanted to bash kerry I would write a bumper sticker that said,

Dated Dean
Married Kerry
Found Kerry in bed with Bush
Ran off with Nader

[wyldwolf]

48. As I explained before..

Your bashing technique is a tried and true method of propaganda. You already know how you feel about the issues. You know there are people here who do not like Kerry and those who do. Your sole purpose to set up an extended flamefest thread so the issues can be hashed out ONE MORE FUCKING TIME until someone else like you decides to do it again next week.

[CTLawGuy]

55. I hope I already know how I feel...

if kerry people want progressive to vote for him, they need to do more than say "vote for us, or you'll be sorry" I am airing their concerns and giving you a chance to respond in a constructive way.

[wyldwolf]

68. once again, you're misusing the label "progressive."

Kerry is a progressive. The democratic party is progressive. We'll vote for him.

As for your memme that you're "airing (the far left's) concerns and giving you a chance to respond in a constructive way," no thanks. Already done that. Many times. Sorry you missed it.

[CTLawGuy]

73. opposing IWR is far left????

wanting to fully fund social programs and balance the budget is far left????

wanting gays to have fully equal status is far left????

now I know the true nature of the country i live in.

[wyldwolf]

78. This is the predicted next phase of your propaganda technique

Since not too many people have taken your bait, you'll now try to define the terms, then you take a large leap (one more time) about "the true nature of the country you live in" based on an internet discussion forum.

[blm]

36. Sorry, buster, but my response is MY response.

You can take your cut and paste reply and apply it somewhere else.

Don't pretend like you want to learn about Kerry....I already laughed at that one.

[CTLawGuy]

41. Im not trying to learn about kerry

did you read the questions?

These questions...

What is kerrys position on taxes?
What is kerrys position on the war in Iraq?
What is Kerrys position on trade?

ARE NOT IN THE ORIGINAL POST!

Im asking about what we think about these questions.

[blm]

49. Some of us think YOUR questions are purposely leading - disruptively so -

and not honest questions about Kerry or the direction of the party.

Your intent is clear.

[CTLawGuy]

60. yes, they are leading

because they reflect concerns of progressives about Kerry.

they give you a chance to consrtuctively persuade us. look at WillyBrandt's answers. They are very good. and I responded to anything I had an issue with.

We don't want kerry to vote for the next IWR, the next Patriot Act, the next irresponsible tax cut.

[blm]

66. Sure. You never read anything you liked in Kerry's record

on civil liberties but you found plenty to support in Dean's? Surely you jest. You supported Dean even though he had the worst record in regard to civil liberties of all the candidates and NOW you want to express concern that Kerry won't measure up?

BTW...Kerry never voted for Bush's taxcut in 2001 OR 2003. Whoever told you he did LIED to you.

[CTLawGuy]

75. Dean risked his political life to pass civil unions

to the point of needing to wear a bullet proof vest on the campaign trail. Kerry wouldnt do anything like that in a million years.

So kerry voted against the middle class tax cuts but now supports them, that is concerning...

[leyton]

2. 11. Is there a reason for you to phrase these as questions?

Obviously, you've made up your mind already.

I'm referring specifically to questions like 3A, 3B, 3C, 1C, 7A, 8A, etc.

[CTLawGuy]

3. yes

so I can get answers to them... Perhaps voting for the patriot act WAS acceptable. I want to know why though.



Also, I am voting for Kerry in Nov. just for the record.

[plurality]

4. Answers from the left

1. A. Is supporting the IWR a progressive action (I'm talking about the RESOLUTION, not the WAR itself)?
B. Were Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone wrong to vote against it?
C. Does the Congress have no responsibility to restrain the President from taking harmful and misguided actions with our military?

1-No
b-No
c-Absolutely

2. A. Are admittedly small tax cuts better for the middle class than spending on social programs such as education, health care, homeland security etc.?
B. Is that not the longtime position of the Republican Party?
C. Should it be the concern of those looking out for the middle class that lack of federal funding due to tax cuts forces states to raise their taxes on the middle class?

2-no, because they stifle the growing of the middle class by removing resouces that allow people to prosper form hard work.
b-Yes it is the longtime position of the Republican party.
c-Yes it should, but deep thinking isn't smiled upon in modern politics.

3. A. Was voting for the Patriot Act without fully understanding it excusable?
B. Isn't a crisis situation when we need our leaders in Congress to have the most level heads and the most calm emotions?
C. Was Russ Feingold wrong to vote against the Patriot Act?

3-Absolutely not, we pay these people close to $200,000 a year plus a hefty pension for life to read these bills and do what's best for the country. ANY member of Congress who voted for ANY bill without reading it should be thrown on his/her ass. Asking for a promotion afterwards, don't make me laugh.
b-Yes it is, that's why 9/11 is proof our government is ajoke, all those fucks could do was sing 'God Bless America', BADLY!
c-No, he was the only true patriot that day.

4. A. What do our leaders hope to accomplish by opposing gay marriage?
B. Will even one religious fundamentalist vote Democratic because we do not support gay marriage?
C. Why should homosexuals support a party that will not stand up for their rights?

4-They hope to keep the 'NASCAR Dads' happy and thus avoid losing an election, all at the expense of the Constitution and the rights of the American people.
b-No, because the Democratic party is pro-choice and the Republicans locked up that constiuancy long ago by pretending they would outlaw abortion.
c-They shouldn't, but welcome to America.

5. A. Should elected party members who endorse Bush be allowed to stay in their respective caucuses?
B. By allowing them to stay, does it give the message that the party is weak?
C. Is this message a bad thing?
D. Is having as large a caucus as possible more important?

5-Yes, people should be free to endorse who they want, regardless of party.
b-The party gives that message already. Somewhere along the line the Democratic Party was supposed to be the party for the 'little guy' so anyone expecting or wanting these guys to be strong and manly is in the wrong party.
c-Nope
d-As long as we use the Janus method of politics I guess so, not that it really matters either way, since the little guy is fucked regardless.

6. A. Why is the Republican Party the majority party?
B. Did the Contract with America have something to do with it?
C. Is it because the Republicans appeal to their base, or to swing voters?

6-Because they've mastered the art of bullshit, and in a country where most people think Iraq is somewhere near France a strong mastery of bullshit is the key to success. But have no fear the Democratic Party catches up quick.
b-Yes, they came up with a vision and sold it to the people.
c-They appealed to both, you see, it's called coming up with new ideas and convincing people that those are good ideas, something the Democrats haven't done in 40 years.

7. A. If a man gives millions of dollars to charity, opens hundreds of orphanages, and discovers the cure for cancer, but then 5 years later murders a cop, is he not a murderer?
B. Would you give that man a lesser sentence because of his good deeds five years ago?
C. Would you hold it against anyone who gave him the same sentence as any other cop killer?

7-Yes, he is a murderer
b-nope, in fact I would treat him worse than someone who grew up poor, had parents that beat them and sleeps in the street.
c-no

8. A. Is it a good thing that in 2002, Bush won the states that both our House and Senate leaders reside in (MO and SD)?
B. Does that fact affect their performances as leaders, esp. in an election year?
C. Would it be plausible for the Repubs to make Chris Shays (CT) and Susan Collins (ME) their leaders?

8-No, it shows that our 'leaders' are craven and inept.
b-Duh.
c-If they were fools, but say one thing about the Republicans (not voters) they certainly aren't stupid.

9. How important are each of the criteria with which to choose a vice-president?
A. Ideological balance (Moderate, Progressive)?
B. Regional Balance (Northeast, South/West/Midwest)?
C. Personality balance (articulate/reserved, passionate/insipring)?
D. Constituency balance (white, minority/female/young/)?

9-a,b,c,d- I could give a shit about VP and the same goes for most of America.

10. A. Is being the anti-Bush candidate enough to win the election?
B. Do swing voters particularly dislike Bush?
C. What is the best way to bring potential Nader voters into our camp?
D. Is Nader that big a deal?
E. How do the two major parties differ in how they treat their respective bases?
F. What are three reasons to vote FOR Kerry, not AGAINST Bush?

10-no
b-to some degree i'm sure
c-not insult them and take up some of their issues
d-no, he's a syptom of our very sick system
e-the Republicans at least acknowledge they have one
f-i can't think of one.

[TheFarseer]

5. Good post

I think the most important question is 10F. Alot of people are begging for a reason to vote against Bush and to them Kerry is not it. I talk to alot of pople from Texas and Nebraska and they dont want to vote Kerry but they dont want to vote Bush. I know we dont have a chance in those states but those are the same type of people that are in Iowa, Missouri, Indiana etc I'm afraid they will end up voting republican out of habit.

[CTLawGuy]

7. kick

Id like to hear from both Kerry supporters and Kerry critics.

[TheFarseer]

9. I'm voting for Kerry, but

I feel the two choices for president are some of the poorest we've ever had as a country, which is too bad because I feel the dems have ALOT of good presidential candidates that could have really gotten everyday people and our base excited. The Kerry flip-flopping is a Major issue. And some of his votes are just plain hard to defend. The three major Iraq votes to me are completely wrong. He voted against the first gulf war, when our ally was unprovokedly invaded and we had a multinational coalition and everyone in the world supporting us. Then he voted for the second gulf war that he now criticizes. Then he voted against the 87 billion dollars. Which I know part of it was a corporate giveaway but some of it was also for body armor for our troops and other things for our troops. How can we be showing support for our troops when we are not giving them everything we can to help them? To me, the top reason I'm voting Kerry is because he's not Bush.

[WillyBrandt]

8. OK, I'll try going point by point

1. A. Is supporting the IWR a progressive action (I'm talking about the RESOLUTION, not the WAR itself)?

It was a progressive action if the President who used it could be trusted to use it to pressure Saddam without war. Kerry was very wrong to trust the President.

B. Were Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone wrong to vote against it?

No. They were right. (Incidentally, they were wrong to vote for the Patriot Act.)

C. Does the Congress have no responsibility to restrain the President from taking harmful and misguided actions with our military?

It does. Kerry has done this in the past (Vietnam, Iran-Contra), but his IWR vote was a gross miscalculation. He didn't sufficiently realize Bush's mendacity. In fairness to Kerry, nothing he would have done would have made a different.

2. A. Are admittedly small tax cuts better for the middle class than spending on social programs such as education, health care, homeland security etc.?

This is a misleading phrasing of the question. If you lower taxes on the working and poor, and raise taxes on the rich, you are making the tax system more progressive and providing funding for social programs.

B. Is that not the longtime position of the Republican Party?

Exactly the opposite. See 2a

C. Should it be the concern of those looking out for the middle class that lack of federal funding due to tax cuts forces states to raise their taxes on the middle class?

Again, see 2a.

3. A. Was voting for the Patriot Act without fully understanding it excusable?

No, and I criticize Wellstone for it. Moreover, Kerry voted for the Act that had a sunset provision built within it. And, incidentally, no legislator fully understands every piece of legislation. It's a sad but true fact.

Also, you understand that no honest legislator agrees with EVERYTHING within a given complex piece of legislation, right?

More generally, I wish Kerry had been prescient enough to understand on 9/11 the full depth of mendacity that the Administration would reach. But he didn't; very few did.


B. Isn't a crisis situation when we need our leaders in Congress to have the most level heads and the most calm emotions?

I think you are really confusing the nature of government. A crisis situation demands calm heads in the Executive. Historically, I can't really think of any time where calm heads in the legislature reigned in a crazed Administration in a crisis period.

C. Was Russ Feingold wrong to vote against the Patriot Act?

No. I wish others, like Ted Kennedy and Wellstone would have joined him.

4. A. What do our leaders hope to accomplish by opposing gay marriage?

Different things. I hope my leader doesn't let himself get defined by a wedge issue, and let's progressive change happen from the ground up when that is how the dynamic will play out.

B. Will even one religious fundamentalist vote Democratic because we do not support gay marriage?

Gay marriage is not popular. To say that we're looking for wingnut religious votes is deeply dishonest. Most people have ambivalent emotions about gay marriage, and people. Civil unions are more popular as they have now become the "moderate" position as the center has moved left.

Kerry has been progressive on this front for a LONG time. He supports Federal employee recognition of gay unions, and is pro civil union generally.

Contrary to those smearing Kerry, he'd support an amendment in MASS (not Federal) that allows civil unions but disallows gay marriage.

It's also important to understand the way this movement is working. It's going from the ground up, and requires politicians basically to be open to the idea of greater tolerance, not much more.

C. Why should homosexuals support a party that will not stand up for their rights?

Again, a deep misreading of history. The Democratic Party has done great things for civil rights. But not uniformly so, and in fits and starts. But MLK was a strong, strong supporter of the Democratic Party because he understood political reality, and righteousness is no excuse for self-defeating martyrdom. I think the analogy maps to the present day.

5. A. Should elected party members who endorse Bush be allowed to stay in their respective caucuses?
B. By allowing them to stay, does it give the message that the party is weak?
C. Is this message a bad thing?
D. Is having as large a caucus as possible more important?

I don't understand what you're getting at with five. It sounds like screwing with abstractions for an obscure point.

6. A. Why is the Republican Party the majority party?

A great number of reasons, but if you're seriously asking this on a message board, you are asking for too much. I recommend Up From Conservatism to understand the electoral and political dynamics at play.

B. Did the Contract with America have something to do with it?

No. It backfired, especially when it became entwined with Gingrich's personality

C. Is it because the Republicans appeal to their base, or to swing voters?

They do both. They appeal to their base by their policies, and appeal to swing voters by theatrics. (And sometimes vice-versa.) If you are seriously proposing that Dems appeal to their base, and do nothing else, then you are simply securing power for forces of reaction. It's not merely the GOP itself, it's the background of conservative organizations that help move this country rightwards. We are only starting to develop this on the left.

To throw the party overboard now just as it is being placed into a progressive appartus is ridiculous.

7. A. If a man gives millions of dollars to charity, opens hundreds of orphanages, and discovers the cure for cancer, but then 5 years later murders a cop, is he not a murderer?
B. Would you give that man a lesser sentence because of his good deeds five years ago?
C. Would you hold it against anyone who gave him the same sentence as any other cop killer?

Yawn....

8. A. Is it a good thing that in 2002, Bush won the states that both our House and Senate leaders reside in (MO and SD)?
B. Does that fact affect their performances as leaders, esp. in an election year?
C. Would it be plausible for the Repubs to make Chris Shays (CT) and Susan Collins (ME) their leaders?

You're right. It's total folly that our Congressional leaders are not from safe seats. Pelosi is a good first step.

9. How important are each of the criteria with which to choose a vice-president?
A. Ideological balance (Moderate, Progressive)?
B. Regional Balance (Northeast, South/West/Midwest)?
C. Personality balance (articulate/reserved, passionate/insipring)?
D. Constituency balance (white, minority/female/young/)?

Wrong way to frame the question--again, screwing around with abstractions. You have to look at the political dynamic that each PARTICULAR running mate would engender.

10. A. Is being the anti-Bush candidate enough to win the election?

No.

B. Do swing voters particularly dislike Bush?

They are becoming disenchanted, but they do not hate him. Look at emergingdemocraticmajority.com for details.

C. What is the best way to bring potential Nader voters into our camp?

Keep fighting and show them an energetic Democratic party that has some progressive ideas out there. I think what's vital is not that Nader voters have a Democratic party that AGREES with them, but one that they're not simply bored with.

Also, attack Nader if the threat from him look at all real. Attack his crooked dealings, his crakpot history, and the GOP that loves him.

D. Is Nader that big a deal?

It's not clear. I suspect not, but can't rely on thick margins of victory.

E. How do the two major parties differ in how they treat their respective bases?

The GOP appeals to the extreme of its base at the national level; the Democrats had basically center-left positions. It's only recently rediscovered that it had a base, and is moving left-wards, is fighting the right better, and is becoming more energetic.

F. What are three reasons to vote FOR Kerry, not AGAINST Bush?

1. He knows the seriousness of the situation we are in internationally and fiscally
2. He knows personally what is asked of soldiers, and the horrors of war; and I trust he will do a good a job as possible of straightening out the mess in Iraq
3. He will push forward on a health care plan that will PASS and that can seriously HELP tens of millions of Americans.

[CTLawGuy]

10. thank you!

that was an interesting and thoughtful response!

Now my response to you.

"2. A. Are admittedly small tax cuts better for the middle class than spending on social programs such as education, health care, homeland security etc.?

This is a misleading phrasing of the question. If you lower taxes on the working and poor, and raise taxes on the rich, you are making the tax system more progressive and providing funding for social programs."

there are millions upon millions of middle class people, but only a tiny number of rich people. The rich alone cannot pay for social programs even if you tax them to death. I'm not even mentioning the fact that the budget is way out of balance.

and, yes this is the position of the Republican party. Ask any repub that question and I guarantee you that they will say giving the middle class their own money to spend is much better.


"B. Isn't a crisis situation when we need our leaders in Congress to have the most level heads and the most calm emotions?

I think you are really confusing the nature of government. A crisis situation demands calm heads in the Executive. Historically, I can't really think of any time where calm heads in the legislature reigned in a crazed Administration in a crisis period."

Touche, however, that does not give them license to enable the crazy executive branch. The legislature is a coequal branch of government. My opinion is they need to start acting like it


"4. A. What do our leaders hope to accomplish by opposing gay marriage?

Different things. I hope my leader doesn't let himself get defined by a wedge issue, and let's progressive change happen from the ground up when that is how the dynamic will play out."

was slavery a wedge issue? How about voting rights for women and african americans



Lastly, the point of question 5 is to find out what we should do with people like Zell Miller, and whether having Zell millers in Congress hurts our party.

[WillyBrandt]

11. I'll briefly say that you're really wrong about tax policy

The income skew in this country is such that a LOT can be taken from the rich.... But I've got to go to work this weekend.

Earning my fortune and all that :)

[CTLawGuy]

14. the US government has a 500 billion dollar deficit

the rich don't have THAT much money. Also, they would all flee to europe before paying that much. Also, you don't address state tax increases resulting from cuts in federal funding.

[WillyBrandt]

17. The state tax issue

Is not a different issue. It's a direct function of aggregate federal revenues. The debate is over whether the rich could fill in the gap; the source of the revenues per se is immaterial to whether states can do their programs.

Dude, look at tables from tax skews. The cost of the Bush tax cuts was only very partly from the modest middle class portion; income inequality is HUGE in this country. The rich really could fill in the gap.

[CTLawGuy]

21. there are 200 million people who need services

and only 2 million rich people. It's not that I wouldn't like it if it were possible to only tax the rich, but thats not realistic.

[WillyBrandt]

23. No, No, No!

The numbers simply do not support you.

The great majority of the cost in the Bush tax cuts comes from aiding the top 2% (and the top 0.1% in particular).

To go back to the status quo pro ante plus middle class tax cuts really can be done entirely by re-raising taxes on the rich to slightly higher than Clintonian levels.

[CTLawGuy]

28. do you have any sources for this?

thanks!

[tameszu]

19. Don't buy into strict deficit reduction hawkery

The progressive way to get rid of the deficit is to encourage economic growth and stimulus so that we can increase overall tax receipts, and the way to do that is by increasing targeted social spending AND tax cuts. Running a deficit during a recession or depression is a smart thing, as long as the money you're spending is aimed at the right place--i.e. spending to put people back to work and to improve human capital (in less managerial terms, helping people, which always means helping them help themselves), and efficiently targeted tax stimulus. This is as opposed to handouts for your rich friends and huge bills for stupid wars.

Cutting taxes on the middle and working class while increasing or maintaining taxes on the wealthy is just another form of progressive redistributive transfer--the main difference between tax cuts and social spending is that in the form case, you are letting markets do some of the work. Now, I'm no market fetishist, and I think progressives have a good reason to prefer targeted central control programs for directing redistributions, but I think most of us recognize that the market, when suitably constrained, can provide efficiency gains as well. As such, if we're going to use it at all, then there's no good reason not to put it to use to progressive ends.

[CTLawGuy]

25. that sounds

"The progressive way to get rid of the deficit is to encourage economic growth and stimulus so that we can increase overall tax receipts, and the way to do that is by increasing targeted social spending AND tax cuts. "


like you believe in the Laffer Curve, a staple of Reaganomics.

The laffer curve says that if you lower taxes, your tax revenue will increase, both because of economic growth and fewer incentives to cheat on taxes. The only problem is, tax cuts have to actually grow the economy, which 2 major tax cuts to date have not done. The middle class has few opportunities to cheat on taxes, so that is moot for this discussion.

Tax cuts are nice, but you have to give something up for them. You give up federal funding to states, which causes them to raise taxes since they must balance the budget, which puts the middle class back at square one, or you lose social programs. (which would you rather have, a good school, a safe homeland, univeral health care,or 300 dollars?), or you have to borrow even more money, which jacks up interest rates and makes growth harder.

[WillyBrandt]

13. As for slavery...

Think about how flimflammy and weak Lincoln's response to slavery in the Emancipation Proclamation was.

But he did the politically possible, which then opened the floodgates to total emancipation, and the Civil War amendments.

What if he went the whole way at once? It would have been a total disaster, and hurt the abolitionst cause more than it helped.

The analogy is not perfect, but just think about it. Ideals are motivators, but actions must be focused upon the REAL change they have in the REAL world.

[WillyBrandt]

15. More on taxes

No, No, No! The GOP does NOT want tax cuts for the middle class. This is wrong.

The strategy is to lower taxes on the rich, and raise them on the middle class and poor. The theory is this makes the great masses hate the government, which makes them vote against taxes, which brings down the welfare state.

WHo do you think added middle class help and rebates to the "Bush" tax cuts? Democrats. The GOP didn't want them!

[CTLawGuy]

26. weren't they across the board rate cuts?

across the board rate cuts do favor the rich while seeming "fair", thats why repubs like them.

the dems came up with the immediate 300 dollars. though I wish they had made a stand to pay down debt instead.

[tameszu]

24. Eh, sadly, no longer

"The legislature is a coequal branch of government. My opinion is they need to start acting like it."

For better or worse, the Executive has become the dominant playa in American government. The reasons for this are mixed and have as much to do with militaristic conservatives like Reagan as it has to do with the progressives' push for the welfare state and to regulate commerce and environmental issues properly. This probably doesn't bother me as much as lots of other people, but at least since the actions FDR took to beat the Great Depression and win WWII, the Executive has overshadowed Congress in a big way. Two pretty big moves toward greater Executive power were the creation of the FDA and the EPA, two agencies I'm glad are around...

[tameszu]

16. Bravo!

Great substantive answers.

[kiahzero]

12. Leading questions are fun, aren't they?

1. A. Is supporting the IWR a progressive action (I'm talking about the RESOLUTION, not the WAR itself)?
B. Were Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone wrong to vote against it?
C. Does the Congress have no responsibility to restrain the President from taking harmful and misguided actions with our military?

The resolution did put limits on the President, if I recall correctly - it prevented him from going into Iraq without a UN resolution, and prevented him from sending troops to other countries without additional authorization. Without that, under the War Powers Act, he could send troops elsewhere for up to 30 days before Congress could do a thing about it.

2. A. Are admittedly small tax cuts better for the middle class than spending on social programs such as education, health care, homeland security etc.?
B. Is that not the longtime position of the Republican Party?
C. Should it be the concern of those looking out for the middle class that lack of federal funding due to tax cuts forces states to raise their taxes on the middle class?

False dichtomy - you can have both, if you stop giving large tax cuts to those making over 200,000 at every opportunity.

3. A. Was voting for the Patriot Act without fully understanding it excusable?
B. Isn't a crisis situation when we need our leaders in Congress to have the most level heads and the most calm emotions?
C. Was Russ Feingold wrong to vote against the Patriot Act?

Given that Wellstone also drank the Kool-Aid and voted for the Patriot Act, I'm hesitant to instantly disqulify anyone who voted for it.

4. A. What do our leaders hope to accomplish by opposing gay marriage?
B. Will even one religious fundamentalist vote Democratic because we do not support gay marriage?
C. Why should homosexuals support a party that will not stand up for their rights?

Given that almost 70% of the country is against "gay marriage", the Democratic Party hopes to avoid only getting between 30-40% of the vote. The Fundamentalists aren't the ones to worry about - it's the moderates that might defect to Bush.

Homosexuals, like every one else, should support the party that has the best chance of having the greatest positive impact. For homosexuals, this party right now is the Democratic party. Kerry may not be for "gay marriage", but he's for every state and federal right associated with marriage to be available for homosexuals.

5. A. Should elected party members who endorse Bush be allowed to stay in their respective caucuses?
B. By allowing them to stay, does it give the message that the party is weak?
C. Is this message a bad thing?
D. Is having as large a caucus as possible more important?

No, I don't think they should stay, but I'm not for their forced removal from the party. Kicking them out gives the message that we're "hiding from the truth."

6. A. Why is the Republican Party the majority party?
B. Did the Contract with America have something to do with it?
C. Is it because the Republicans appeal to their base, or to swing voters?

The Republican Party is the majority party right now because they are, as it is termed in political science, a "catch all party." Unlike the Democratic Party, the base of the Republican party does not generally (with a few notable exceptions) get pissed off with the party when it tries to capture moderates. The anti-tax activists didn't throw a shitfit when Bush started talking about "compassionate conservatism," because they knew he'd be better for them than anyone else in the race.

[CTLawGuy]

18. thanks!

I have to respond to this though.

"6. A. Why is the Republican Party the majority party?
B. Did the Contract with America have something to do with it?
C. Is it because the Republicans appeal to their base, or to swing voters?

The Republican Party is the majority party right now because they are, as it is termed in political science, a "catch all party." Unlike the Democratic Party, the base of the Republican party does not generally (with a few notable exceptions) get pissed off with the party when it tries to capture moderates. The anti-tax activists didn't throw a shitfit when Bush started talking about "compassionate conservatism," because they knew he'd be better for them than anyone else in the race."

The Republicans go after moderates without taking positions that anger the base. In 2000, Bush didn't back away from tax cuts, he just tried to tell moderates how they would benefit. It seems that the dems try to hide their liberal base and try to measure where the middle is and take that. They hope that the base will be scared into not wavering from the party.

[WillyBrandt]

20. Read these two books

They will deepen your understanding of the Right's power

The Emerging democratic majority
Up From conservatism

And if you can find it

The Rise of the CounterEstablishment by SIdney Blumenthal

[kiahzero]

22. Taken on face value "compassionate conservatism"

should have angered the conservative base - most are against social spending, and in the context that it was brought up, Bush made it sound like he was for welfare programs and such.

The base just picked up that Bush was talking about a different definition of "compassion" than most would use (read Big Lies by Conason to see what I mean), and read into it accordingly.

[CTLawGuy]

27. compassionate conservatism

is conservative policies sugar coated. They are not moderate positions. Their base understood that.

[kiahzero]

39. It's not even sugar-coated

But it sounds much nicer. I wish I had Big Lies with me, so I could explain more, but it's home right now. Maybe another post will help out?

[zulchzulu]

29. Answers to your "questions"

1. A. It's not a "progressive action", although I understand Kerry's position.
B. No
C. No

2. A. Silly loaded question but of course money is needed for education, health care... and money doesn't grow on trees.
B. Not sure and it's kind of vague what you're implying
C. Programs are needed and money doesn't grow on trees. States will have to raise taxes, but should not be "forced" to.

3. A. The Patriot Act was pushed through by BushCo during the 911 post-paranoia period. Ashcroft and others took advantage of the Act to exploit portions of the bill. Kerry is for letting the Patriot Act sunset on 1/1/05, thus making this a moot point.
B. Yes, but politics and pressure to keep the constituency happy can overweigh outcomes
C. No

4. A. Gay marriage is a wedge issue that needs to be addressed by the states. Kerry's plans for civil unions is a realistic first step.
B. Maybe
C. Loaded, inaccurate question. Kerry's GLBT record is very good and as President, it would be considerably the best thing to happen for the GLBT community.


5. A. Yes
B. No
C. No
D. Who cares

6. A. Because Democrats don't vote as much as Republicans do
B. Not necessarily
C. See 6. A.

7. A. Yes, he is a murderer
B. No
C. No

8. A. No
B. No, it's due to voters getting out and voting
C. Not sure


9. How important are each of the criteria with which to choose a vice-president?
A. Important
B. Important
C. Important
D. Important


10. A. It helps.
B. Hopefully
C. Tell them that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush
D. Not really, perhaps it's his ego that is the problem
E. That's a book answer...Dems and Repugs go through different stages with appealing to their bases, based on the race dynamics, etc.
F. Kerry is progressive on many issues, he is running against Bush and is the best candidate and having Kerry as president would be a better choice with the impending SCOTUS openings.

What question needs to be asked is more like a reality game show scenario.

Pick a door:

Door #1: George Bush (and four more years of his policies)
Door #2: John Kerry (new president with liberal/progressive agenda)
Door #3: Ralph Nader (Four more years of Bush and his policies)

[CTLawGuy]

34. such flippancy

is not a winning electoral strategy. Do not treat those who disagree with you as if they were idiots.


"What question needs to be asked is more like a reality game show scenario.

Pick a door:

Door #1: George Bush (and four more years of his policies)
Door #2: John Kerry (new president with liberal/progressive agenda)
Door #3: Ralph Nader (Four more years of Bush and his policies)"

[zulchzulu]

37. It's called "reality"

I'm not saying anyone is an "idiot". It's called a reality check.

Door #1: George Bush (four more years of his policies)
Door #2: John Kerry (new president with liberal/progressive agenda)
Door #3: Ralph Nader (four more years of Bush and his policies)

Which door would you pick?

[CTLawGuy]

43. number 2 of course

but putting it that way says "if you're progressive or if you have problems with Kerry, tough! We don't care, line up and shut up! and stop embarassing Kerry in front of the swing voters."

[zulchzulu]

47. You're reading into that a little too much...

I didn't say anything about "not caring", "get in line and shut up" or whatever.

The choice is simple. Either you want Kerry and a Democrat in the White House or you don't.

It will be easier to get more progressive policies and strategies on Kerry's Oval office desk to sign or consider than it would with Bush.

It's not a religious affirmation where you believe in Kerry or you're doomed to Hell. Kerry is not God.

I don't agree with every policy or every statement Kerry has made over his nearly 20 years of service in the Senate. I do however believe he would be a great president and I'll be the first to protest if he veers right.

Open dialogue and discussion is great. Asking leading questions is not productive though.

[CTLawGuy]

51. asking leading questions

forces people to respond to legitimate concerns. Even to admit that Kerry or the party has been wrong.


If I ask whether IWR was progressive, either you have to say why it was, or you have to reconcile that with voting for him.


A lot of progressive, including me are worried about permanent disenfranchisment from the party if kerry wins. A kerry win will imply that only people who voted for IWR the patriot act and supports tax cuts are ELECTABLE and it will validate the DLC. many of us need to know that Kerry and crew recognize that we think the party should move left. If they understand that IWR was wrong, then Im less worried about IWR happening again. Maybe they can provide rationales that tax cuts are better than social spending. In fact many posters today said that the rich can pay for any loss in social programs. Im waiting for cites, but if this is true than thats a good thing. Personally, when I heard that kerry wanted to keep bush's middle class tax cuts, I thought "thats what Republicans would say". It freaks me out as a progressive. I want to know that Kerry is really on the same page as us.

[zulchzulu]

74. On that IWR vote...

I personally was on the streets protesting Bush's unilateral war. I personally was against ANSWER's tone that all war is bad and that Israel is the devil or whatever...

I understand Kerry's vote and the best explanation I've seen is when Kerry was talking about the issue with Paula Zahn on CNN last September. It explains his position pretty concisely:

ZAHN: Is there a contradiction with your support of allowing the troops to go over to Iraq and now being so highly critical of this post-war...

KERRY: No, none whatsoever. There's no contradiction at all.

I am absolutely convinced I voted for the security of the United States of the America with the assurance of the president that he was going to go to the United Nations and build a international coalition, that he was going to make a plan to win the peace, that he would do the preparations, he would respect the U.N. process and that he would go to war as a last resort.

The president set the date for the start of this war. Not us. And he did not go as a last resort. He broke his word to the American people. He broke his word to the Congress and through us, the American people themselves. And he rushed to war. He doesn't have a plan. We need to go to the United Nations, Paula. We need to get the sense of American occupation off the table. We need to strengthen America by taking the target off our troops and bring the world to the table to help us.

---

Whether it's not "progressive" or not is not my main concern. I understand by his answer that he would not be going into wars unilaterally. Brand that any way you want.

[CTLawGuy]

76. I guess that's acceptable

I believe him when he says hes not a unilateralist. What I think he should have done and what i hope he will do in the future, is pass a resolution after all the pieces (coaliton, real justification etc.) are already in place.

[zulchzulu]

80. Agreed

You can bet Kerry would have a lot to answer to if he tried to be a unilateralist. I'd be on my way to DC to protest on the White House lawn. But I have faith he is a man of his word.

[wyldwolf]

38. such leading questions is worthy of Karl Rove

and is a winning electoral strategy for his side.

[CTLawGuy]

45. so, Im a tool of Rove now

thats cute. are you going to have me burned at the stake now?

[wyldwolf]

50. Extreme leap you just took...

I don't really need to point out that I never said you were a tool of Karl Rove, but I will say again that your technique is common to him and his ilk. Very similar to push polling.

[CTLawGuy]

52. its not a push poll!!

these are hard questions that the left would like answered. Yes they are HARD questions. Kerry DID vote for IWR, which turned off a lot of progressives. What will kerry do next time an IWR comes up?

[wyldwolf]

56. the far left has already had them answered again and again...

...they just don't like the answers so they want to continue whining about them. This time, as many times before, you've chosen the innocent questions-push polling technique.

[CTLawGuy]

57. well, why dont you rehash them for me

for old times sake ;)


All I seem to hear from kerryites is "vote for Kerry, or you'll be sorry" I want some more constructive persuasion.



How about this, if all these questions have been answered, find me links to discussions about them.

[wyldwolf]

59. hey, how about using the DU search feature

For example, inputting "Kerry IWR" nets about 65 active threads (not archived yet.)

[CTLawGuy]

61. do they talk about progressivity?

also, it is the nature of message boards that people sometimes miss discussions and discussions overlap. This is probably one of those instances.

[wyldwolf]

63. Yes, the far left hijacked terms "progressive" and "liberal" are used...

...extensively.

And no, I'm not buying that you missed ALL of the discussions. Sorry.

[madeuplikebowie]

44. Agreed

I choose Door #2.

Like it or not, John Kerry is our best hope for our liberal/progessive agenda to get through.

With Bush, we're getting the opposite of what we believe. With Kerry, we may oppose him on some issues, but guess what, no candidate is perfect. We have to make the best of what we have, and as good of a guy as Nader is, we have to be realistic. Voting for Nader will be taking votes away from Kerry. Thats just reality. We have to give alittle to gain alittle. With Bush we will gain nothing. I'd rather take alittle and work on improving it than receiving nothing.

The republicans are filled with glee that there is so much opposition to Kerry. I've seen what this administration has done, and its too scary to live with for another 4 years. It comes down to, in a choice of Kerry or Bush, who would you rather have? You only have 2 options, not kucinich, not dean, not clark. Kerry or Bush. I'd rather have Kerry, hands down.

[Hippo_Tron]

53. Dupe

[Hippo_Tron]

My answers...

1)
A. I'm not sure how you define progressive. Is it a pacifist action, no.
B. No, Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone voted for what they felt was best in a situation where it was very difficult to know what was the right way to go. Turns out they were right.
C. Absolutely

2)
A. That's very questionable. I think that in an ideal world we'd be better off with well funded social programs like Western European countries have but with the realities of getting things passed congress, especially a Republican congress, I think we are better off with middle class tax cuts than having to resort to passing crap like the medicare bill that gives money to the drug companies.
B. I'm not sure on this one. All I know is that lately they have been giving tax cuts to rich people and defending it.
C. I think we'd be much better off if we fixed problems on the state level. Unfortunately, state politicans are often more corrupt than those in Washington, making it much harder to solve problems on the state level. But I think states like Vermont are a good example of how good people on the state level can really make a difference.

3)
A. No
B. Yes
C. No, see 1B

4)
A. Hardcore conservative Republicans will stay home and Kerry will get swing votes.
B. Yes, I think many will. Others will stay home and not vote for Bush.
C. These things take time. The fact is that you have somebody running for president who supports gay marriage but can't do so in public so he supports civil unions. I call that HUGE progress over a president who wants a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage. Eventually gay marriage will become legal, and homosexuality will become completely socially acceptable. It will just take some time.

5)
A. Yes. I'll admit that Zell Miller is really starting to piss me off but think of it this way. If there were 50 democrats (not counting Zell) and 49 Republicans (Chenney being VP) and Zell was deciding which party to join, why would we be better off if he were with the Republicans. Having him voting democratic for organizational reasons means that we can hold up Bush's judicial nominees in committee and take other similar steps to prevent his legislation from getting through.
B. No
C. Yes
D. So long as you don't compromise your ideals completely. If a majority of senate democrats were Zell Millers then we would have a problem.

6)
A. I think congress ultimately became Republican because Clinton was not very well liked come 1994. In the house, I think it had a bit to do with Gerrymandering.
B. Maybe a little. I think in the end Newt Gingrich was more of a turn-off to most people.
C. Both parties appeal to their base and to swing voters.

7)
A. He is
B. I'm not a judge so I don't think I can answer this.
C. No, the judge did what he felt was best.

8)
A. No
B. No
C. No. But I wouldn't consider Tom Daschle a centrist. He's just a partisan democrat who faces tough re-elections. He needs to give up leadership to somebody who can support more liberal positions.

9)
A. Not very important, VP supports the president's agenda.
B. Very important, people will be more likely to vote for somebody that represents their region.
C. Somewhat important
D. Minority/female would be nice but we get most of those votes already.

10)
A. I don't think so but if Bush's approval ratings start dropping even more, it may be.
B. I think they are definately starting to.
C. Show them the damage that Bush has done over the past 3 years and what he could do with another term, especially with judicial nominees.
D. I hope not. I think he will be much less of a big deal this time around than last time.
E. It's all about how you look at it. Both parties are always accused by the opposition to appealing too much to their bases which are considered the most extremes of their parties. In the end I think both parties do it and do so in much the same manner.
F. 1) He will not implement the draft
2) He will fully fund primary/secondary education and has a service program to pay for college
3) He wants all Americans to have healthcare.

[CTLawGuy]

64. thanks!

Re: IWR

progressives tend to support military force only as a last resort and only if absolutely necessary and they eschew unilateralism except to defend ones own interests from imminent danger.

Re: Gay marriage

I dont agree that hardcore repubs would stay home, they would still vote for Bush for other reasons. The worry is Kerry would not get gay repubs and dems. To be honest, maybe this isnt a real problem.


Re: taxes

dems need to show more force in Congress, though you are right about social spending and the republican congress. I think Deans position is better, Bush's tax cuts are a fraud, however. The problem is, most people know repubs are the tax cut party, so if they like that, they will vote repub. So it does kerry little good to support tax cuts. Furthermore, it makes him look wishywashy. And you risk angering dems who would rather we fight for more social spending.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. 2nd responses

IWR - I think that the time it could have been questionably a progressive action. Knowing what we know, that it was a blank check for Bush to invade Iraq, I don't think it is progressive.

Gay Marriage - Hardcore Republicans are pissed at Bush for borrowing and spending so many of them might be staying home on election day if he doesn't appeal. In addition, I don't think Americans (many of which are swing voters) are quite ready for gay marriage to be legalized. It's just not something that can be done overnight. However, I do think that electing John Kerry would be a great step in the right direction.

Taxes - Showing force in congress can be good politics but in the end it doesn't get things done. Clinton stood up to Gingrich and co and as a result he made homself and the democrats more popular. But the GOP still managed to kill his agenda for the most part and the only really huge thing we got out of it all was a balanced budget.

[CTLawGuy]

77. it got him reelected

"Taxes - Showing force in congress can be good politics but in the end it doesn't get things done. Clinton stood up to Gingrich and co and as a result he made homself and the democrats more popular. But the GOP still managed to kill his agenda for the most part and the only really huge thing we got out of it all was a balanced budget."



and a balanced budget is nothing to sneeze at.

[Hippo_Tron]

81. Not saying it's a bad thing that Clinton got re-elected...

I think it was the ultimate victory that not only was Clinton re-elected, his impeachment trial turned out to be a joke, and Gingrich was humilliated and had to resign. But, we didn't fix healthcare or social security like Clinton wanted to. I'm not saying that standing up to congress is a bad thing but I'm saying that it is not the answer to getting our social programs passed.

[Hippo_Tron]

54. Arrgh another dupe

[JPJones]

58. 10 questions about Bush's second term

1. Is going to war in Iraq, Syria, Iran, and North Korea a progressive action?

2. Are obscene tax cuts for the super wealthy better for the middle class than spending on social programs such as education, health care, homeland security etc.?

3. Is expanding the Patriot Act excusable?

4. What do our leaders hope to accomplish by passing an anti-gay marriage amendment?

5. Should elected officials who don't endorse Bush be allowed to stay in their respective offices?

6. Why is the Republican Party the only party in office? Is it because their idealists realize that they must be unified to win?

7. What brand of cat food will senior citizens choose to eat after SS and Medicare are gutted?

8. What other union will Bushco call a terrorist organization in his second term? Will they then use the Patriot Act against unions?

9. Will there be a middle class in 2008?

10. What will our country look like after Roe v. Wade is repealed?

[wyldwolf]

62. but.... but... the "progressives" demand that we answer their ...

...Kerry questions over and over until they get the answers they want or they'll withhold their votes (and don't you dare accuse them of enabling Bush by doing that!)

[blm]

67. They are NOT progressives. They are contrarians who are TOO vain

to admit their yearlong hatred of Kerry is misplaced.

They value their vanity over real progress.

[wyldwolf]

70. blm, I've begun calling them for what they are and have done...

..they have tried to hijack the terms "progressives" and "liberals" to make them only apply to those on the left fringe of the party or out of the party (Greens, socialists, etc) Everyone on DU is a progressive/liberal.

My distaste for these types of DU'ers is getting almost as bitter as that of the far right.

[CTLawGuy]

71. I love you guys :)

now you know what it was like to be dean supporter for 6 MONTHS last year.

[wyldwolf]

79. typical of the wounded Dean supporter...

..who never saw a problem dishing it out then when it came to Clark and Kerry, but sure hated taking it.

[gate of the sun]

84. I don't think it's actually about withholding votes

at least not for me.....I wouldn't give my vote to bush and nadar either but the fact remains....I think we want people to admit that Kerry isn't any prize and the whole situation stinks. That's what I want. I want people to quit defending the B.S. and say it like it is. Don't expect too much change for the better with Kerry. We have to do better next time. Too much is at stake and without some real changes nothing will change. We are going to be faced with many upsets once Kerry is in office. I believe his allegiances aren't what people here are counting on. For instance NAFTA and the outsourcing of jobs will not change much. I don't believe Kerry will withdraw us from Iraq real soon either and may have to install a draft. These and many more crucial issues will remain. That's my concern.

[wyldwolf]

88. If what you want its..

...people to admit that Kerry isn't any prize and the whole situation stinks, you and "yours" will be waiting a loooong time.

The political utopia and ideal candidate yours stive for is impossible and really just a dream - because pleasing your group to the extent that appears to be demanded will alienated other larger groups.

Kerry is light years better than Bush. He is a solid liberal with the credentials to back it up. If you disagree with any of his votes in the Senate I can guarantee you won't find any politian who you will agree with 100%.

And I suspect it is only a few issues you've differed with Kerry on. I'm certain they are near and dear to your heart. However, not everyone feels that way as the primaries showed.

[Hippo_Tron]

65. Hell, I would've voted for Al Sharpton had he been the nominee...

So that this crap wouldn't happen. It's just a slight plus for me that I got my first choice.

[CTLawGuy]

69. 10 answers

I can play too!


1. Is going to war in Iraq, Syria, Iran, and North Korea a progressive action?

Apparently, since the dems seemed to think so when they approved the IWR.

2. Are obscene tax cuts for the super wealthy better for the middle class than spending on social programs such as education, health care, homeland security etc.?


no, thats why I am against the Bush tax cuts. I was then and am now. Kerry appears to be for at least some of them. But keeping even a part of them is a revenue loss for social programs, which is a concern.


3. Is expanding the Patriot Act excusable?

No, but 95% of the democratic caucus didnt seem to agree with me when they passed it the first time.

4. What do our leaders hope to accomplish by passing an anti-gay marriage amendment?

I dont think they want to. But its not constructive to cave into prejudice and fear. We should lead on this issue.

5. Should elected officials who don't endorse Bush be allowed to stay in their respective offices?

C'mon, can't you think of a better parody question than that? Geez ;)

6. Why is the Republican Party the only party in office? Is it because their idealists realize that they must be unified to win?

No, its because the repubs support things like american imperialism, major tax cuts, bans on abortion, ie, things their base likes! They listen to their base and don't run away from it.
they are unified because they want to be. George HW realized the cost of pissing off the base in 1992....


7. What brand of cat food will senior citizens choose to eat after SS and Medicare are gutted?

Whiskas


8. What other union will Bushco call a terrorist organization in his second term? Will they then use the Patriot Act against unions?

probably all of them, which is why I'm voting for Kerry to make sure he doesnt do that. Kerry didnt seem to have a problem with the patriot act when he voted for it, so i guess it can't be that bad.

9. Will there be a middle class in 2008?

I think so, but whether we are so in debt that the govenrment cannot function is more of a concern to me. Tax cuts i guess are more important to kerry than getting out of debt.


10. What will our country look like after Roe v. Wade is repealed?

Lots of illegal abortions. Another reason I am voting for Kerry though I have many problems with him.


Thanks!

[arewethereyet]

82. 10 answers

1. A. Is supporting the IWR a progressive action (I'm talking about the RESOLUTION, not the WAR itself)?
Its neither progrtessive nor not progressive, its security which is above that
B. Were Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone wrong to vote against it?
Yes.
C. Does the Congress have no responsibility to restrain the President from taking harmful and misguided actions with our military?
Of course it does.

2. A. Are admittedly small tax cuts better for the middle class than spending on social programs such as education, health care, homeland security etc.?
Of course.
B. Is that not the longtime position of the Republican Party?
Yes.
C. Should it be the concern of those looking out for the middle class that lack of federal funding due to tax cuts forces states to raise their taxes on the middle class?
No. Theis is not a universal cause and effect situation.

3. A. Was voting for the Patriot Act without fully understanding it excusable?
Certainly.
B. Isn't a crisis situation when we need our leaders in Congress to have the most level heads and the most calm emotions?
Sure.
C. Was Russ Feingold wrong to vote against the Patriot Act?
Yes.

4. A. What do our leaders hope to accomplish by opposing gay marriage?
Perservation of the nistitution.
B. Will even one religious fundamentalist vote Democratic because we do not support gay marriage?
Yes.
C. Why should homosexuals support a party that will not stand up for their rights?
The question really is whether its a right.

5. A. Should elected party members who endorse Bush be allowed to stay in their respective caucuses?
Because it takes all kinds and it is a free country.
B. By allowing them to stay, does it give the message that the party is weak?
No.
C. Is this message a bad thing?
No.
D. Is having as large a caucus as possible more important?
Having the most seats is important.

6. A. Why is the Republican Party the majority party?
They better represent the will of the people.
B. Did the Contract with America have something to do with it?
Yes.
C. Is it because the Republicans appeal to their base, or to swing voters?
Both.

7. A. If a man gives millions of dollars to charity, opens hundreds of orphanages, and discovers the cure for cancer, but then 5 years later murders a cop, is he not a murderer?
Murderer.
B. Would you give that man a lesser sentence because of his good deeds five years ago?
No. Capital punishment.
C. Would you hold it against anyone who gave him the same sentence as any other cop killer?
No.

8. A. Is it a good thing that in 2002, Bush won the states that both our House and Senate leaders reside in (MO and SD)?
Its an embarrassment.
B. Does that fact affect their performances as leaders, esp. in an election year?
You bet.
C. Would it be plausible for the Repubs to make Chris Shays (CT) and Susan Collins (ME) their leaders?
Don't know.

9. How important are each of the criteria with which to choose a vice-president?
A. Ideological balance (Moderate, Progressive)?
minor
B. Regional Balance (Northeast, South/West/Midwest)?
huge
C. Personality balance (articulate/reserved, passionate/insipring)?
nonexistant
D. Constituency balance (white, minority/female/young/)?
minor

10. A. Is being the anti-Bush candidate enough to win the election?
Hell no.
B. Do swing voters particularly dislike Bush?
No.
C. What is the best way to bring potential Nader voters into our camp?
Offer realistic hope that our guy will win.
D. Is Nader that big a deal?
No
E. How do the two major parties differ in how they treat their respective bases?
Little.
F. What are three reasons to vote FOR Kerry, not AGAINST Bush?
Sad to say but, you got me...

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

83. Oh some of these questions are loaded with misleading

premise and supposition, not to mention suppostion as to what our Democratic leaders have in the past and do now support.

I hate questions like this. They take too long to straighten out.

[lams712]

85. I thought it was a good post...

...that raised alot of fair questions that should be answered. Paraphrasing Bill Maher a lot of Kerry love is actually Bush hate. I don't think it's enough to win an election.

[DemPoliticalJunkie]

86. Hate of Bush can go a long way

Hate of Clinton went a long way in defeating Gore.

[CoupdEtat2000]

87. propaganda if i ever saw it. The way you phrased your questions shows

your bias right off the bat. you have answered your position before the proper question was ever posed, and have your misleading propaganda out there upfront to boot.

very good, but not even clever.

[molly]

89. You made me spew my coffee all over my keyboard

"so much resistance to Kerry on the left. It would be nice to discuss the implications....."

Kerry won by a LANDSLIDE

:party: