Kerry and '08

[frustrated_lefty]

2008.

Several threads have started of late, throwing Kerry’s name into the fire for the ’08 bid. Occasionally, it is suggested that we should worry about ’06 first; the presidency is a long way away. There’s some sense to that. Quite a few congressional seats are up for grabs, and I, personally, would love to see Rick Santorum tossed back into the shadows where he belongs. A significant change in the legislative branch opens up a lot of new possibilities between now and ’08.

But, I think the republican and democratic playbooks require substantial revision between now and then to really address the needs of the citizens of this nation. Instead of arguing over the false choices we argue over now, we really need to be thinking about our priorities. What do I mean by false choices? Gay vs. moral, patriotic vs. ethical, to throw just a quiet, or a loud bitch-fit when an offensive flag is displayed.

These things are not unimportant. The right to sexual freedom is likely to be one of the most relevant issues defining our constitution in our lifetimes. Do we, as a people, support the rights of individuals to pursue life, liberty and happiness or not? It is important. What exactly is the relation between patriotism and protest? Another important issue.

These are not the issues we should run upon. Strike first tactics, preventive warfare, right or wrong (our answer is clear). A parent’s right to choose the best option for their potential offspring, right or wrong. Treachery, right or wrong. Deceit, right or wrong. If you insist upon being dragged into black and white debates, stick to those points, and be right.

As to Kerry, I applaud his proponents. You love your guy, and that is a good thing. In fairness, though, he is weak in the South when the Democratic party should have a balls up hero leading the way.

There are several bills he has his name attached to. Where is the benefit, who has it ultimately assisted? You can say “Kerry is fighting for your rights” all you want, but, when the day is done, what is accomplished? A new 9,000 homeless in Houston alone? FEMA dismantled? What?

The man gives pretty speeches. Even if you insist Kerry can win past these issues, explain how we reconcile Kerry discarding the South while the chairman insists on running a 50 state campaign?

[andino]

1. I'm sorry

But in a lot of peoples minds he is already labeled. I know that that isn't an excuse but these are the same people that don't have open minds and once something is one way it can never change.

I think Kerry is a great guy. I voted for him in the primary and the election because I believed in him. I still believe in the guy but I think we need new blood. Same with Gore. Love the guy but to voters it's just a rehash of the same ol same ol...

Then again, it might be the beer talking....

[Tanyah]

4. it's not the beer

I know that alot of right wingers who voted for Bush and still feel good about their vote because Kerry would be worse. They HATE Kerry. He WILL NEVER win over the right wingers. We do not need to rehash the same issues. And there is no way that the GOP could possibly put up a worse candidate than Bush, so Kerry would not have it so easy next time.

Besides the GOP there are alot of true democrats that do not believe in his centrist positions, and many progressives are angry at his allowing the election to be stolen last time and not using the millions he collected even days before the election to fight the fraud. He wouldn't even give some of his money over for recounts in New Mexico etc. The Green Party was the only ones fighting and they had to drop alot of the recounts due to lack of funds.

Kerry is a divider, not a uniter.

[ginnyinWI]

2. What we need is an overhaul of the party's vision

I'm psyched up by this article I've just spend a few hours reading, re-reading and marking up with a highlighter (I have the magazine subscription):

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11400

Tomasky talks about how we need to do more than stand for rights and diversity, our legacy from the 60s, and go back to FDR's idea that we need to stand for the principle of promoting things for the sake of the common good of the nation. That added to what we have now will make for a dynamic and enduring vision that people will accept.

Then, any candidate can win over a majority. As for Kerry, if he wants to run then the people will decide.

[Tanyah]

5. "As for Kerry, if he wants to run then the people will decide"

This is why I can't stand the thought of Kerry running again!

Did the people really decide last time?

but I agree that the party needs vision. We need to return to the roots of what it means to be liberal and be PROUD of it, like JFK. I think we need Dennis Kucinich.

[saracat]

6. Yes, they did. And Kerry is the most liberal Senator of all.

He beats Kennedy in liberal ranking. But whatever.And Kucinich is having a heck of a time being reelected as congressman let alone Prez. And I like what he represents. Just saying.

[bananas]

9. This is why Republicans will win again in '08

The liberal media proclaimed Kerry the most liberal senator,
and idiot voters believed it.
The media is still owned by conservatives,
most of the business deals have already been made,
the liberal media will follow it's script in '08,
whoever runs will be the most liberal flip-flopper traitor ever.
See http://www.factcheck.org/article284.html

[bigtree]

3. he has no independent power, he's in the minority

I suspect that's why he ran for president, to have more control to make a difference.

He is the ranking member of the Small Business Committee and has fought since Katrina hit to get a fair shake for small businesses there along with the Senators from the ravaged areas.


if you actually give a damn:
http://www.returningsoldiers.us/whatskerrydoing.htm

[frustrated_lefty]

7. How does he run a 50 state campaign?

[Lexingtonian]

8. none of those things really cuts to the core, f_l

I for one don't want a candidate beholden to the South. We've had 30-some years of Southerners controlling the show in Washington, it's time for some successful Reconstruction. Democrats on the state and local levels are certainly free to manage things as best they can there.

I don't know why you think the Culture War and such will carry on much longer. I don't want to be much ahead of the game, but the faux "family values" crap is losing ground and in decline. There's a dead ender 24% that will champion anything of the Past that is obsolete, be it the guillotine or drawing and quartering or bloodletting via leeches, but outside that set the motivation to keep on fighting against legal equal rights and fairness for women, gay people, non-'Christians', and non-white people is definitely flagging.

As it is, this present Republican run is wrenching their centrists/moderates out of their coalition. It's looking something like the Dixiecrat defection of 1965-68 that ended the reign of the FDR coalition of the Democrats then.

As for Kerry and bills, in the Massachusetts delegation to Congress Ted Kennedy has been the bill-writer and backroom coalition-builder. Kerry got his stripes doing the Iran-Contra and S&L investigations/hearings and the like- in oversight, in media pronouncements, appointee vetting. Let's just say that the past 11 years were rather futile, given the Republican incivility, and before that there were always large enough numbers of Quisling conservative Democrats that hampered the Party from getting much done for a number of years.

The only a few ways to be a relevant Congressman in Washington, most of them bad, but claiming to be about to run for President does achieve a certain amount of media coverage that otherwise wouldn't happen.

The Republican prospects in '08 are pretty bad- McCain with a broken Party behind him, or Allen with a damaged one, pretending to be able to clean up after their own. Democrats have no particularly ideal candidate, just a few seemingly adequate ones and a bunch of irrelevant ones stuck in the Eighties or Nineties. The Democratic candidate will have to put in a lot of work to fit defected moderate Republicans into the Party as a wing. There are a couple of measures no one loves that will have to be gotten through Congress- cleaning Republican misappointees out of the federal government, rescinding of tax cuts on the upper classes, repealing DoMA and mandating ex-felon vote reenfranchisement, handing Iraq over to the UN, just for starters. The '08 Presidential race will be about cleaning up the Bush mess. No Republican can credibly do that, and only a decent liberal Democrat would fully expend himself/herself politically to do it as comprehensively as is needed. Iraq will be off the table anyway. I just don't see how a centrist or moderate or Left (i.e. union) sort wins the nomination- there won't be money to do much new, there's lots of wonky stuff to deal with to clean up healthcare and energy economics and management, a lot has to be done in the way of investigating/purging to revamp the federal government, and a pile of social issue problems have to be settled by creating new law.

I think Kerry sees himself as a backup to Clinton at this point. A great of Hillary's fortunes, and Kerry's, turn on what the November election result is. If it's a Democratic sweep, as it should be, that favors Hillary. Kerry wouldn't mind a job cleaning up the federal government of Bush detritus and rot, I think.