A question for progressives who will not vote for Kerry.

[Onlooker]

I am a gay man, I liberal, to the left of Kerry. I oppose the Iraq war and favor high taxes to fund social programs. I will vote for John Kerry because Bush is threat to gay people, to Arab people, to black people, to women, and to poor people. A Bush reelection could mean a constitutional ban on gay marriage, increased arrests and detainment of Arab citizens, further erosion of affirmative action, the elimination of a women's right to choose, and the further reduction of government programs that help poor families eat and get health care.

Are any of you who won't vote for Kerry members of group that is likely to suffer more under Bush than under Kerry? If so, which group, and what do you think about the risks of another Bush term?

If you're not a member of a group discriminated against, then what do you say to those who believe a Bush re-election will dangerously jeopardize their quality of life?

[freetobegay]

1. We will have Kerry basher right up to the convention

Then they will dissappear! I can't wait!

[soleft]

2. They'll be here after the convention

Don't want to burst your bubble, they'll be here after his election.

[freetobegay]

5. Correct me if I am wrong

But per DU rules state, after the convention there WILL BE NO BASHING OF THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE! Is this not correct?

[ulysses]

22. define "bashing" then.

From the rules:

Constructive criticism and even outright disappointment with the candidate may be expressed, but partisan negative attacks will not be welcome.

Emphasis added.

[freetobegay]

32. "SPECIAL GUIDELINES RELATING TO THE 2004 ELECTION"

"Perhaps the most critical question currently facing progressives is who should receive the Democratic nomination for president in 2004. In order to encourage a robust and thoughtful debate on this topic, we are instituting a few simple guidelines.

Negative attacks are an unavoidable part of any political campaign, and therefore they are permitted against any Democratic presidential candidate. However, once the Democratic party officially nominates its candidate for president, then the time for fighting is over and the negative attacks against candidates must stop. The administrators of this website do not wish for our message board to be used as a platform to attack and tear down the only progressive on the planet with any hope of defeating George W. Bush. Constructive criticism and even outright disappointment with the candidate may be expressed, but partisan negative attacks will not be welcome. If you wish to contribute to the defeat of the Democratic candidate for president, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website. As the election season draws closer, we may expand this rule to include Democratic candidates for other political offices.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political organizing activity by supporters of any political party other than the Democratic party. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate.

Your may not use your signature line to attack any Democrat."

Snip

I think it's pretty much self explanatory.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. They will?

Are you sure?

[BayCityProgressive]

3. Yes

I am a gay man, and a college student. College tuition has continued to rise and government aid has continued to fall in this area. Also I have obvious problems with Bush because I am gay. I probably won't vote for Kerry. I am not sure yet who I will vote for, probably a socialist. I think the only difference between having a second Bush term is that it would speed up inequality. Under Kerry it would just be slower in coming. Kerry is hiring all of the same foreign policy makers that Bush has, He opposes gay marriage, transgender rights, he is proposing a budget spending limit...with how far in deficit we are I am sure that will include cutting social programs further. He supported the Iraq War, he is not giving any plan to really help unions. I really just don't think in the great scheme of things it really matters all that much. The two party system is not democracy and it is not representitive of the people.

[ramapo]

12. Use your local elections to send a message

I agree with what you say but the fact remains that a vote not cast for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

No doubt the country has moved in large part to the Right. Indeed, Richard Nixon can be viewed as almost a Liberal given some of today's standards.

I'm not sure what Kerry actually believes in regards to issues such as gay marriage. It is clear that there is a political reality that prevents Kerry from coming out in favor of gay marriage. The same is true on a number of social and "liberal" issues.

Kerry can be looked upon as the lesser of two evils or our last best hope. Both views are correct.

The only way that true political change will take place in this country is from the bottom up. We've seen third-party candidates come and go. Some have had significant impact on the result of the election as far as which of the two-party candidate wins (Wallace, Perot, Nader). None have had any lasting impact beyond the election.

I tend to vote third party in my Congressional and state races. For the most part, these votes get lost as easily as a third-party vote for President does.

The country will likely survive another four years of Bush if Kerry is unable to motivate people to vote for him/against Bush. But that will be four more years moving in the completely wrong direction. Kerry offers some hope, albeit limited, and that is much better than none.

[ACK]

4. My take

Yes, its a repost of things I have said before.

Kerry is right of Kuicinch and Nader and this is true.

However, he is to the left of Lieberbush and Clinton.

At least we got a yankee with a liberal voting record for goodness sakes.

At least he wants to modify NAFTA and is not going to endorse the FTAA.

At least he has a good voting record on the environment.

At least he wants to come up with a national service plan that helps to put kids through college without them having to carry guns.

At least he wants to repeal the tax giveaways to the rich.

At least he wants to repeal the bill that gives tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas.

At least he wants to return the US to community of nations.

At least he is pro-choice through and through.

At least he has a healthcare plan.

What real choice has anyone else got?

+

[BayCityProgressive]

7. I notice with everyone

when saying why they vote for Kery say: "well at least he doesnt do this" or "at least he is a little better on this"..and every election year the dialogue moves further right and people keep using the same line..at this rate Bush will be a liberal in 10 or 12 years.

[Az]

9. Kerry is simply ABB

He is not going to stand up and change things. The train is heading for a cliff. The repukes want to speed it up. The DNC/DLC wants to slow it down. Its still heading for the cliff. Yes Kerry is different from Bush. Dems are different from Repukes. But things have to change more than is being championed by the dominant voices in the Democratic party.

[Gman]

10. You have to slow down before you can make a turn

Making the country lurch to the left will accomplish nothing except to guarantee GOP victories for the next 20 years.

[Az]

14. Agreed, but

First off, I am voting Kerry. As my sig pic suggests I would be more comfortable voting for someone else. But the problem here is one of systems.

The DLC champions a tactic of selecting candidates that appeal to the center to win over the moderates and undecideds. This is a good idea in the short term but disasterous over time. As more and more centerist candidates clog the Democratic party the voices of those who would make real change become drowned out. Where once there were leftist candidates simply addressing themself to moderates we now have a crop of moderates to conservatives determining our path. Long term use of this "We gotta win" tactic just turns us into repuke lite.

Yes the train has to slow down before it changes direction. But the engineers need to know where they are taking the train when they can turn it. No one is speaking about the troubles or the cliff ahead. We need leaders with a clear vision of what is wrong. A leader is not someone that follows the people. A leader is someone that gets the people to follow them.

[Gman]

21. I agree with you on just about everything you say.

I've never said the party is far left friendly. I think it does need to move further left. But there's another even bigger cliff just up ahead that we've got to avoid right now.

The things that need to change in the party and the country can be changed but it must be done very slowly and incrementally. Getting Kerry in the WH can start that process. Change a few things from 2005 - 2008. Kerry gets reelected. Change even more at a little quicker pace from 08 - 12. Elect another Dem and you have a bonified mandate for 12 years of a Democrat in the WH and the ok to move faster.

Change is slow.

[sangha]

33. "Real change" sounds like propoganda to me

What is "real change"? If it's feeding thousands more children a day, and providing them with health care, is that "real change"? I sure think so, and I'm just as sure that Kerry will bring "real change"

Is "real change" making the tax structure more progressive by increasing taxes on the wealthy, while cutting taxes for the rest because if it is, Kerry is going to bring on "real change"

Is "real change" making the fuel efficiency of the avg motor vehicle go up instead of down? Would reducing the amount of oil we need to import, thereby reducing one of the main justifications for our overwhelmingly large military be considered "real change"?

Is making college available to EVERY SINGLE CHILD in the US "real change"?

Or is "real change" = socialism. In that case, Kerry isn't a "real change"

[camero]

24. When you're being steered off the road

hard corrective action is required to get back on the road. A hard right is not followed by a short steer left but a hard one.

[paulk]

30. Actually,

If you're driving a car and start to run off the road, the worst thing you can do is turn sharply in the opposite direction. You are almost sure to lose control. This is a fundamental taught in driving school.

In politics the same is true. As an example, look to Bill Clinton's first turn. He tried to take the country toward the left - gays in the military, universal health care - and his reward was losing both the House and the Senate to the Republican party in the midterm election.

[camero]

31. You steer and countersteer

Clinton forgot to countersteer. I think we have another election between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Neo-liberal vs. Neo-conservative.

Both will still lead us over the cliff.

[sangha]

35. The countersteer is not a hard turn

And it doesn't come immediately after the initial hard turn.

And the tree that doesn't sway, breaks.

[camero]

39. bad analogy maybe

But you still don't fix something by going the same way.

[sangha]

41. Some professional warriors disagree

Many Asian self-defense techniques make a habit of using one's opponents force against them. It often involves actions like letting someone push you over, so you can pull them with you. While you are only affected by the force he applies to you, he is feeling his own force PLUS the force you add in grabbing him and pulling him down, which you use to throw him past you.

How's that for an appropriate analogy?

[camero]

42. I don't care about analogies

You want to save the patient fine. If you don't that's fine too. As for myself I think I should just get out while I can.

Your way is not saving the patient.

[sangha]

50. Thanks for the laugh

"I don't care about analogies" followed by "You want to save the patient fine", all of which was preceded by your use of a poor analogy.

That's just too rich

[camero]

54. And you actually have a point?

Oh now I see. Let's just keep kissing the corp's asses. Great strategy Napoleon. :eyes:

[camero]

48. actually

That's only a defense mechanism. Sooner or later you have to get the upper hand. Now just when might that be?

[sangha]

51. Actually, you're wrong

After pulling the opponent down on top of you, you put your legs under him and throw him, using the momentum created by his initial attempt to knowck you down.

It's both offense and defense. Lots of the throws are based on using your opponents momentum against him

[camero]

53. IOW

By throwing him you get the upper hand. Thanks for making my point. :)

[ACK]

11. Wrong

Kerry is a small tiny step in the right direction.

At least he is more liberal than Clinton or how the DLC ran Gore last time.

At least we are actually talking about a healthcare plan again.

At least the idea of Fair trade instead of just Free trade in changing NAFTA and the rejection of the FTAA has come back into our political voice again.

+

[Sinistrous]

17. But, but, but, but....

Kerry hasn't even begun to rent the busses to get our troops out of Iraq so he can leave the Kurds and the religious factions to their inevitable civil war. I mean, why doesn' Kerry just pretend that there is a viable civil infrastructure in Iraq just chomping at the bit to take over when the US bails out?

</sarcasm>

[Warpy]

8. Childlike thinking

...states a candidate must be perfect in every perfect way, to be all things to all people.

It aint gonna happen, folks, and this is one socialist who will hold her nose and vote for Kerry because another 4 years of Bush is unthinkable.

Kerry bashers are trying to make themselves larger than life by running someone else down, or they're spoiled brats who demand perfection, or they're RNC types who are posting on these boards in the hope of discouraging Democrats from voting.

Ignore them.

Yes, there are legitimate criticisms of some of Kerry's policies. Yes, he will probably continue much of the same disastrous foreign policy the State Department and NSA have been handing presidents for the past 60 years. No, he aint perfect.

He's not Bush, either. He won't go off and start wars that a bunch of policy wonks in the Pentagon agitate for, based on lies and crackpot ideology. He's fought in one of thouse, and he's going to be stuck cleaning up after another one.

One thing we have to remember is that government tends to be reasctive. They like to think they're leaders, but nothing changes unless we change it. When people feel they have a stake in abolishing the NSA, reining in the Pentagon, changing the tax code to favor the people who work to keep this country going, and provide for the general welfare like the constitution says, then we will have that change.

People who want Prince Charming to rescue them will just have to wait.

[Malva Zebrina]

15. no, I don't like Kerry and resent being forced to vote for him to get rid

of an evil man.

Kerry DID vote for the war. He knew what he was doing. I cannot help but think he will be a go along to get along and I agree, we are a ship lost at sea in the middle of the perfect storm with no captain capable of changing course.

I have no Prince Charming. That is a derogatory statement

Those of us who can see through Kerry, simply want the country to get back on course. We do not think Kerry will do it. We will vote for him

It is not a question of a Prince Charming

It is a question of feeling uncomfortable accepting someone whose policies we do not like or do not have much confidence in, and for me, the top item is the war in Iraq and the way Kerry is proposing to handle it, although that is still somewhat vague. I still cannot forgetr Kerry saying we should get over the stolen election and should move on. That was my first turn off to him.

Some of us do not just accept any old thing and some of us do not join in with groups who are so rah rah they cannot see the forest for the trees in their adoration of a candidate or a personality. Some of us just are not that inclined, and tend to examine and think, although we are unfortunatly being forced to vote for a candidate that is not of our choice.

[Trajan]

18. I agree with that poster ...

There is no perfect candidate, and there will never be one ...

There is a time to DEMAND a complete upheaval of the status quo: and there is a time to just take out the trash ...

It is now time to take out the trash, and Kerry will be the one (along with our help) to take out the bag of rubbish that IS GOP governance ... and toss it into the dustbin of history ....

Its great you have grander ideas and higher motives, but that journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step ...

I respect pragmatism AND idealism: but each in due measure ...

Kerry MUST win ..... He must .....

[blm]

20. You turned on him based on an internet MYTH?

What Kerry said was taken out of context. His followup statement (which was ommited by the detractors) was that Democrats need to not just get mad but get even by working harder to get Bush out.

He received a standing ovation from the Dem activists who actually heard him speak that night. I doubt they would have done so if the subsequent internet reports had been accurate.

[Malva Zebrina]

25. Look, don't worry I am not working against a Kerry win

I MUST vote for him and that is the rub.

I don't like his policies but there is NO choice. I am FORCED to vote for him but I do not adore him or see him in my dreams.

[malachibk]

27. Do you really not believe that people can change?

I don't love Kerry (was for Kucinich, myself) but he's getting all this flak for political "flip flopping" (from both repubs and progressives alike). Kerry's "a little better than bush" or "see through".

Do people not grow or change at all? Maybe Kerry was "for the war" when he (and almost everyone else in the country save those here at DU) thought that Iraq was a real, pressing threat and now he's "against the war" as it's played out under the fuckup in the WH.

Why is it then inconsistent for him to say something like "Well, we all thought a war-stance was a viable position when we thought were were in danger, but now that we know we weren't, and in light of the way bush is bungling things and costing American lives, I can now see this is the wrong war to be fighting. That said, now that we have destroyed an entire country, we have a duty to stay as long as it takes to make it viable, in a way the Iraqis want, before we cut out."

Is Kerry that nefarious that he's just making all that up? Kerry is VERY different from bush and it boggles my mind when people say he's not.

[Malva Zebrina]

28. I will vote for him

but at the same time regret that it boils down to that forced choice.


A woman I met todayin the supermarket, said that she cannot vote for Bush, but cannot also vote for Kerry, so she is going to vote for Nader. She was sincere.

Heh==this is a state that prides itself on being independant.

[Euphen]

49. Regarding Kerry's Position on the War

"Do people not grow or change at all? Maybe Kerry was "for the war" when he (and almost everyone else in the country save those here at DU) thought that Iraq was a real, pressing threat and now he's "against the war" as it's played out under the fuckup in the WH."

First of all, I should hope that our leaders, especially one who is supposedly among the most liberal in the senate, are not that easily mislead. Hundreds of millions of people around the world, including tens of millions in the United States, were able to see through the Bush Administration's lies with access to far less information than Kerry had. If indeed he is that easily mislead, which I find hard to believe, then maybe he shouldn't be running for president.

Second of all, Kerry is not "'against the war' as it's played out under the fuckup in the WH." In a recent speech he said "No matter what disagreements over how to approach the policy in Iraq—and we have some—we’re all united as a nation in supporting our troops and ultimately in our goal of a stable Iraq." Any disagreements Kerry does have are only tactical, and his occupation will differ in no significant way from Bush's.

"Why is it then inconsistent for him to say something like 'Well, we all thought a war-stance was a viable position when we thought were were in danger, but now that we know we weren't, and in light of the way bush is bungling things and costing American lives, I can now see this is the wrong war to be fighting. That said, now that we have destroyed an entire country, we have a duty to stay as long as it takes to make it viable, in a way the Iraqis want, before we cut out.'"

What good does it do anyone to admit a mistake - which, by the way, Kerry can't even bring himself to do - and continue down the same road; to say that a war shouldn't be fought and continue to fight it? As for the second part of the paragraph - that we have to "finish the job" - how is this different from Bush's position? Its clear what the Iraqis want is for the Americans to leave, not to "stay as long as it takes to make it viable."

[sangha]

34. self deleted

.

[riverwalker]

13. read his anti-war writings

I've read the things he wrote back in the 70's and they could have written by any progressive today. He HATED war, despised everything about war, saw through all the idiotic reasons for it, and saw it for what it was, murderous insanity. A part of me believes that part of him is still there and will influence him as a leader. I know people grow and change and adapt as they age, but that intensity and passion was not a youthful "phase" it was a core belief. I have to believe that, it's my only hope.

[Vladimir]

16. As someone who

is both extreme-left and ABB, I agree with you entirely. I have every sympathy with those who won't vote for Kerry, because I understand how they feel, but I think they are wrong in practice. A Bush re-election will cause massive practical and psychological damage to the progressive cause, in a way that a Kerry re-election simply will not. If Bush can be re-elected after the last 4 years, then anything goes.

V

[Euphen]

52. The first goal of progressives

should be to raise the level of political consciousness so that someone like Bush doesn't come to power in the first place. The Bush Administration is only part of a long going lurch to the right by both political parties, which will no doubt continue under Kerry. In this perspective, ABB will cause "massive practical and psychological damage to the progressive cause" by disorienting voters. The 2004 election isn't the end of the world, after all. Our problems won't go away when Bush is gone, but by being scared into supporting the "lesser of two evils" we will be less equipped to deal with them.

[leodem]

19. Why can't Kerry do what Bush did

Campaign as a moderate to get elected then run the country to the left or right? Fight fire with fire.

[JohnKleeb]

23. thats what hes doing, campaigning as a moderate and people are freaking ou

I like the way you think, that would be cool if he did that, went extremely left as president and you know it could happen but many Kerry critics are damned if he does, damned if doesnt. Give the man a chance first then cast judgement IMO.

[raysr]

40. He can

look at Bush. The main thing is to get elected.

[noiretextatique]

26. i will probably vote for kerry

because the alternative is so much worse. however, i think what's happened with bush is what happened with reagan...the country took 100 steps backward, and maybe 30 forward under clinton. the net is still negative, and unfortunately, the negative adversely impacts the most vulnerable groups.
after we get rid of bush, we still have a lot of work to do to reverse the trend.

[corporatewhore]

29. as a bi sexual latina who wont vote for kerry

i wont vote for kerry because he voted yes on giving authorization to Herr bush to use for force (ie my father) my father will go back to iraq next year under bush or kerry why would i want to help the person who backstabbed the military and the families
Kerry has a hardcore freetrade voting record. I used to live in the rio grande valley I saw a fruit of the loom plant move across the border.I have seen the devestation that nafta has brought to mexico and here
One of my dearest friends and mento is a palestinian American who has lost her right of return do i even need to mention the screw job kerry has in mind for the palestinians
i am a texan and i wont vote for kerry if i lived in a swing state i probably would and then take ten showers

[raysr]

38. Almost all

of them voted for the war because Bush lied to all of them, did you miss that somewhere along the way?

[corporatewhore]

43. did you believe bush ? Kerry must be easily mislead not a good sign of

leadership in my mind.Kucinich wasnt mislead hell even a couple of republicans knew this war was bullshit and voted no.IMHO kerry was too spineless or too stupid

[bvar22]

36. Hey!

Everybody knows that Pepsi is better than Coke, and anyone who points out that Pepsi is full of sugar and will rot your teeth WILL BE BANNED!!!

I am voting for Kerry, but I'm saving up for dentures.

[raysr]

37. How does anyone

know how Kerry will perform as president? Look at what we have now, who knew he would fuck up this bad? I believe Kerry would(will) be a great president. Give the guy a chance. Remember when you're not voting for Kerry, you're voting for Rummy, Powell, Cheney, Wolf and all the other corksoakers!

[camero]

45. One may taste better than the other

Both seem to make you sick doesn't it.

[TrueD]

44. My first post

The problem is I don't see a difference. If I'm going to vote "* light" for a defensive posture, I'd rather stay home. I'm proud to go in and pull the handle for Nader. Or Kucinich. But not Kerry. It's like voting for Zell Miller.

[corporatewhore]

47. welcome!! voting for DK feels so good i did it last month

ps you might find it frustrating to post here with all these radical moderate/centeristsrunning around who have an obsession for hating one of americas most dedicated crusaders against big corporations

[tedzbear]

46. The Supreme Court would be the ONLY reason I might vote Kerry...

The thought of Bush packing the Supreme Court makes me cringe. Still, I voted for Kucinich in the CA primary and I am still a Kucinich man.
Kerry is definitely Bush Lite and therefore unacceptable to me. God only knows why most of our Democratic voters chose him. Either they believe his war hero resume makes him the best candidate to beat pretend-soldier Bush, or else they really are social conservatives who are only an inch to the left of the Republicans.

:kick:

[Onlooker]

55. I still don't get it

Here's how I look at the political landscape.

10% of the people are politically right wing
20% are politically Republican for various reasons
40% are in the middle
20% are politically Democratic for various reasons
10% are politically progressive

Of the 40% in the middle, many of them vote but pay little attention to political issues. They are largely persuaded by peer pressure and political ads, as well as things that might affect them personally, e.g., gas prices and neighborhood crime.

Whoever becomes President is going to represent roughly half the people and will have relatively little opportunity to persuade many of the voters to vote one way or another. Like Reagan and Bush did, Kerry will adapt a moderate viewpoint until he's in the White House, then we'll find out what kind of person he is.

If Kerry loses, there are groups in the U.S. (gays, Arabs, women, atheists, people of color, seniors, poor people, people with disabilities, French people) who will suffer to various degrees if not through Bush's policies, than through an ever-more-right-wing Supreme Court. For example, a women's right to choose will end if Bush is reelected. (I can't see Justice Stevens lasting another four years.)