My problem with a lot of the criticism of Kerry from the dilletante left

[jpgray]

It does not recognize a spectrum of good and bad positions on an issue. There is a right position, and a wrong position. If you do not perfectly espouse the right position, you have the wrong position. There is no better or worse, there is only good and bad. Let me explain what I mean.

Kerry is for raising the federal minumum wage to $7 an hour. While it is true that this is only a small step in the right direction, it is superior to not raising the FMW at all.

In leftist critiques, however, this is used as evidence of Kerry's corporate pandering--sort of a 'too little too late' feel--and therefore he is a corporate panderer like Bush, and they are no different.

Kerry's foreign policy has a lot of similarities with that of Bush. However, Kerry has declared he wants to keep the 'war on terror' focused on law enforcement more than military actions, and wants to open political control of Iraq (and control of reconstruction) to the UN--this again is vastly superior to the position of Bush and his doctrine of using military invasion and occupation to 'fight terror'. Kerry also declared that if there isn't a substantial reduction in troops in Iraq during his term, he will have been a failure. This is superior to the position of Bush, who plans to maintain fourteen military bases in Iraq as a means to launch further wars in the region.

In leftist critiques, this is read as both Kerry and Bush wanting to maintain US troops on Iraqi soil, and both being 'committed to the war on terror', so they are the same. They are both imperialist warmongers and there is no difference between their positions. If I were a child in Syria or a young man or woman in the National Guard, I think I would see a difference there worth noting, but if you don't accept anything short of perfection and view the issues in black and white, you can easily pass them off as 'the same' and not think twice about it.

The difficulty is that I agree with most leftist characterizations of what is the 'right' position, being far left myself. However, I see the differences between Bush and Kerry to be significant enough to vote on, and it seems many of these critiques from the left do not. It seems the IWR vote is what really unbalances people--they can forgive a candidate for anything if he fought against that resolution, and they can excoriate a candidate for anything if he voted for it under any circumstances. Take Robert Byrd--on the cloture vote for the FMA, he did not vote on the side of equal rights, yet people are forgiving and understanding on this forum. If Kerry had done the same, people would be calling for his head.

Chomsky says that the insignificant differences between Kerry and Bush are significant when magnified by the power of the presidency. That's true, but I say they are significant without that magnification, so long as you don't accept black and white thinking, and prefer better over worse. Being savagely beaten is better than being crippled or killed, though both are bad. A Kerry administration will likely continue the beating the country has taken for decades from administrations of both parties, but the Bush group is unique because I believe it has the capacity to cripple or kill the democracy we have.

[Kanary]

1. Good job at splintering the Party.

Congrats.

Kanary

[jpgray]

2. Which part splinters the party, specifically?

[Kanary]

4. Your incidiary, flame-baiting subject line --as I'm sure you're aware

[jpgray]

8. Please read more than the subject line

I don't think you'll find much of anything in there that splits the party. I don't believe I know anyone at DU who fits the title of 'leftist dilletante'. (Unless it's me.)

[Kanary]

13. Your title was enough. You want to use that language, then deal with the

results.

Isn't there enough attacks and splintering coming from the right? Is it really necessary to attack our own?

What in the world do you *really* hope to gain by name-calling those in your own (presumed) Party?

I have said this politely, and refrained from incendiary language. Knowing DU, you will probably see this as an invite to flame. Just keep in mind what it is doing to the party as a whole, and all the "let's work together to get rid of the * regime" efforts. You are resonsible for your words. Do you really believe division is going to win the day?

Kanary

[jpgray]

23. What language? The word 'dilletante'?

How else to describe one who sees no difference between two obviously different candidates? It's telling that all you have are accusations about me splitting the party--you have nothing to say about the points I make in my post. How my subject line is so powerful as to singlehandedly split the party with one word is something I will never understand.

[Kanary]

28. I'm sure you're able to figure it out

If you don't understand, then maybe you think the RW is right in using splitting tactics.

Same/same

Kanary

[jpgray]

32. I can't

I don't see where I'm using splitting tactics. If you mean that I'm splitting the party by criticizing those who think Kerry and Bush are the same, then I'm sorry but I don't see that as splitting the party. Anyone who declares them to be the same deserves to receive no small share of criticism, because the facts don't seem to support that allegation.

[Jim Sagle]

35. That's right. Anyone who sees w and Kerry as the same has already split.

[Redleg]

76. Bingo.

People here who criticize Kerry because he doesn't seem liberal enough are not being realistic. Kerry will have to be more pragmatist in this sharply divided country, especially if the Congress is still controlled by Rethugs. He will not be able to forward the liberals' dream policies without cooperation from the right.

[Kanary]

37. Then go ahead and continue calling fellow Dems names and anything else

you care to throw at 'em.

I would think it would be obvious that while we're constantly angry at the Reich wing for using these splitting tactics and pitting us against ourselves that we would want to be careful not to do the same in our own party. I don't believe for one moment that you're dense enough to think it's just hunky dory to call people names who are in your own party.

But, have at it. Obviously it brings you joy and jollies to divide rather than to find ways to mend some of the rifts, and thereby strengthen the party. Find those weak links, and go after them, and see where they break. I'm sure that's a lot of fun.

Remember the "uniter" and "divider" issues about the Reich wing? Hmmmmmmm?

Which one do *YOU* aspire to?

Kanary

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Kanary]

46. Oh good........ that old "You must be a Repuke"..... line

I guess you weren't reading........... I addressed the issue of calling FELLOW DEMS names.

But, then, I've seen you find that just fine.

Since there are so many attacks on DEMs in this way, I decided a while back to keep as many of these threads as I happen to see. Then, when it all comes to a head, and there is one huge schism in the party, and many leave, it will be clear from these threads why that happened.

So, have at it...... attack me, run me (and others) off, and be rid of us.

Then cry in your beer that the Party has atrophied.

Sounds logical to me.

:crazy:

Kanary

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[Kanary]

52. First I'm too "liberal" to be a Dem, then I'm a Repuke

Such logic.

:crazy:

NOT.

Take the "confused" label to a mirror....

bye now......:hi:

Kanary

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

48. Dilettante:an amateur engaging in an activity without serious intention

Dil`et`tan´te
Noun 1. dilettante - an amateur who engages in an activity without serious intentions and who pretends to have knowledge
dabbler, sciolist
amateur - someone who pursues a study or sport as a pastime
Adj. 1. dilettante - showing frivolous or superficial interest; amateurish; "his dilettantish efforts at painting"
dilettanteish, dilettantish, sciolistic
superficial - being or affecting or concerned with a surface; not deep or penetrating emotionally or intellectually; "superficial similarities"; "a superficial mind"; "his thinking was superficial and fuzzy"; "superficial knowledge"; "the superficial report didn't give the true picture"; "only superficial differences"

[jpgray]

49. Again, how better to describe those that equate Bush and Kerry?

Still waiting for an answer.

[Beam Me Up]

51. No, the point is "dilettante" is provacative, inflamatory and divisive.

Is that how you want to educate voters--by disenfranchising them? Really not a very smart move.

[jpgray]

54. This is one powerful word. Now it disenfranchises voters?

Dilettante describes these people perfectly--if one is so disconnected that one equates Bush and Kerry where they are not equal, then indeed that person DOES have a superficial and amateurish grasp of politics. The word is perfect to describe such folks, and therefore I am fine with using it.

(But not able to spell it apparently, sorry about that. :dunce:)

[Beam Me Up]

62. In a word YES

If your point is to EDUCATE POTENTIAL VOTERS (that is, educate those who may be seriously considering NOT voting -- and I swear, some Kerry supporters are pushing ME closer to that outrage!) about the SIGNIFICANT virtues of Kerry over Bush, then I HIGHLY SUGGEST YOU NOT START OFF BY INSULTING THEM.

OK? Or are you trully SO OPAQUE that you can not grasp the point at all?

[jpgray]

63. My point is to criticize faulty critiques of Kerry

To me, the mark of a dilettante leftist is an amateurish or superficial interpretation of the facts. Equating Bush and Kerry when they are not equal is exactly that, so I used the word. Describing those who critique this way does not describe all leftists (I am one), it does not describe all those who criticize Kerry, and it does not describe those who think Kerry is too much like Bush. It only applies to the critiques I describe in my post, but people are anxious, it seems, to apply it to many other groups of people and to themselves.

[Beam Me Up]

65. I understand your point -- I still say insulting someone is no way

to educate them -- that is, get them to listen to an alternative perspective. That is MY point.

[jpgray]

69. Well, now that I know how people react to it, I will no longer use it

You're right--if people feel insulted, all the points I'm trying to make will fall on deaf ears.

[Beam Me Up]

71. Thank you for not taking offense.

Or merely reacting. :thumbsup:

How to reach voters who are considering NOT voting (because they are fed up with 'the system') or thinking of voting for Nader, is a very real issue and, I think, quite germane to the points you are making.

You are quite right. Kerry is a principled, intelligent man; Bush is an illiterate moron being run by neofascist criminals. No contest. Except in the minds of those who are angry and confused.

BMU

[Kanary]

55. Yup, we're supposed to get lost.........

then take the blame for the Dems losing.

See how well that works?

Good strategery, eh?

:hi:

Kanary

[jpgray]

56. Again, where do I tell anyone to 'get lost'?

No one has an answer for these questions, and none of those who are offended have any answer to my arguments, only claims that I am being divisive.

[Kanary]

61. Yup, divisive.

Mend a few fences first.

You're deciding your own agenda.

Uniter. Or. Divider.

You choose.......

Kanary

[QC]

64. It's also the truth.

There's no better description for those who view politics as nothing more than an occasion for preening themselves on their high principle and moral purity.

[Beam Me Up]

66. Insults, however true they may be, don't educate or win votes. n/t

[QC]

68. And hijacking threads with pointless diversions onto irrelevant side

issues is no way to get respect for one's opinions.

It is undeniably true that many people do take a "make the perfect the enemy of the good" approach to politics. They are less interested in practical action than in declaring their own wondrous virtue. We see it all around us, including at DU. Pointing this out is about as startling or insulting as pointing out that water is wet.

And frankly, the last time I saw this many martyrs was at the auto da fé. All this tearful melodrama about poor, suffering angels being brutally silenced is just silly.

[MoonRiver]

72. Lol!

So many princes and princesses tormented by their peas!

[sendero]

127. Thank you....

... I was going to say something, but you said it better.

jpgray - I agree 100% with your post. I don't want anyone to get lost, but I'd like people to GET REAL. It is politics - nobody gets everything they want, NOBODY.

[noiretextatique]

97. a great message for republicans

too bad they aren't listening...

[WoodrowFan]

67. agreed

a perfect term for the folks you describe. I prefer "an Infantile Disorder" but hey, whatever works..

[TeacherCreature]

91. they are dead serious

so your word was poorly chosen

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

99. Yeah...you've really made a sincere effort at unity...no?

[belle]

3. zzzzz

[Beam Me Up]

53. Wake up belle--dismissing sincere expressions of opinion

completely out of hand will not help you win an election. Quite the opposite, I assure you.

[Beloved Citizen]

94. More Hostage Taking

Here's the rules for proper hostage taking:

1) If someone knocks Kerry, it is done because the critic recognizes that the Democratic Party has lost its progressive voice and needs to be put back in touch with its real values.

2) If someone defends Kerry, it is splintering the party and driving its base into the arms of Ralph Nader.

[Literate Tar Heel]

5. I agree with you, for what it's worth ... n/t

[lanparty]

6. I think Kerry is wrong on many issues ...

But he's still a LOT more correct than Bush. And I think that Kerry, unlike Bush has the ability to learn and make modifications as we go along.

The true power lies in the House and Senate. Retaking these houses and forcing a shift to the left (and OUT of NAFTA/WTO) will do a lot to help our nation.

[FreedomReload]

7. Don't You Think It's A Good Idea To Hold Kerry's Feet To The Fire????

Otherwise, he'll never learn.

[jpgray]

10. Yes! That is absolutely necessary

Especially on such issues as Israel and Venezuela, he needs some education. But that can be done without saying 'he's the same as Bush' when he isn't.

[wuushew]

22. His position on Israel stinks

Since it is to the right of Bill Clinton does that mean that Big Dawg "master of triangulation" Clinton was in reality a naive leftist idealist?

[emulatorloo]

24. Bush beats him 10 to 1 on stinky positions

I will be happy to tell President Kerry how his positions stink once he is elected.

We are screwed if Bush gets in again, of that I have no doubt.

[jpgray]

26. Clinton is nowhere close to the left on Israel

I don't want to get too far into this because the thread will be locked, but if dealing fairly with Israel is the goal, Clinton's positions may be marginally better than Kerry's, but they certainly wuldn't be described as any leftist's ideal. Again, you're engaging in black and white thinking--Clinton is better than Kerry on x, therefore Clinton has the leftist's ideal position on x. By the logic of some leftists, Clinton is the same as Kerry is the same as Bush on Israel, because they all fail to meet the standard.

[wuushew]

29. But the I/P is played out in court of world opinion

If Kerry was the true pragmatist that you claim him he would not be supporting the current "peace fence" which the world community is uniformly against. How much pandering is required to win in November? From an electoral standpoint a even handed approach would play well in Michigan and Florida against some losses in the North East. Why is his position smart from a political standpoint?

[jpgray]

30. I don't argue Kerry is a 'pragmatist'

I just argue that calling him the same as Bush is dishonest and inaccurate.

[wuushew]

33. Sure you did in your minimum wage analogy

Kerry sympathizes with the calls for higher minimum wage requirements, but being a politician realizes that his goals can only be achieved through setting a lower goal.

In international affairs I can only hope he seeks an end to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The compromise there is formed between all the relevant participants not Republican jack boots in the Congress. Since his position does not seem to be one or compromise or one great differentiation from Bush 43 I can only assume he is acting out of his own ideological motivations.

[jpgray]

36. OK

I did say that I prefer that small step to the 'no-step-at-all' approach of the Bush administration, so maybe that makes ME a pragmatist, but I don't mean to imply that I explain away Kerry's problems as his being 'pragmatic'. I disagree with a lot more of Kerry than can be waved off with 'oh, he's just being pragmatic'. How much of his campaign is pandering to the center (and the corporate media) and how much is his own views can't be determined very exactly, but I'm going to assume the worst and hope for the best. Even assuming the worst, I think he matches up nicely vs. Bush. I do remember Bush ca. 2000, with his promises to remove US troops from countries where they aren't wanted, not meddling in other countries' affairs, and keeping the military out of nation-building, so campaigning can be pretty deceitful. But there are always clues in there to figure out what will really happen when the candidate governs. If Kerry doesn't govern to the left as Bush has governed to the right, he deserves to lose in 2008.

As for Israel, there are many posts here regarding the nature of his foreign policy team, and there are people there that take a very pro-Israel position on the I/P conflict.

[NMDemDist2]

14. not until he's elected for heavens sake

i expect him to run to the middle in the campaign, anything else is political suicide IMHO

[Malva Zebrina]

15. it is a good idea to question everything

right or left in these times when, apparently, the line between them is blurred.

Much was made of questioning Bush as a duty when we were accused of being un patriotic

and I say, the duty to question does not stop at Bush., It is our duty to question them all.

As for Kerry learning anything--when he admits that his vote to give Bush a blank check was a mistake, then I will have some faith. AS it is, he is compounding and supporting that illegal invasion by not being straight with us.

This is ridiculous and I resent it.

[greenbriar]

17. let him get friggin elected first

yes he needs to be accountable, but we MUST get him there first

[blm]

18. Not when he and Bush are the only ones standing on the tightrope

for the next four months.

Either you trust him now based on his entire record of positions over the last 30+ years, pitch in and help OR you help to depress voter turnout on the left with the constant carping and put Bush back in office.

That's the bottom line to this whole issue.

[greenbriar]

21. excellent post

and WELL said

[Old and In the Way]

44. Don't You Think It's a Good Idea to Elect Kerry First????

Please enlighten us with what John Kerry needs to learn? His Democratic credentials are well known.....I suspect that there's no a whole hell of a lot that Kerry needs to learn from an anonymous posting site.

[rumguy]

9. I totally agree...

Minor tweaks in policy can have HUGE impacts on people and on the environment....

[Pastiche423]

11. Hey, keep it up!

After all, kerry doesn't need our votes that bad, right?

[jpgray]

12. What part of my post do you take issue with? (nt)

[Pastiche423]

34. All of it

[jpgray]

38. OK, please counter each point then--show me where I go wrong. (nt)

[Kanary]

16. That's right........ they're so cocksure they're right

they've dismissed the rest of us, and told us to get lost.

Yet, they then exhort us all to work our buns off for the election.

:crazy:

Kanary

[jpgray]

47. Where do I dismiss anyone, or tell anyone to get lost?

I think you are arguing with someone else, not me. All I have to say is that I disagree with equating Kerry and Bush on issues where they are not equal.

[Kanary]

57. I'm sure you can figure it out....... many clues here from many people...

If you're willing to be open to the ideas of others, rather than preaching your own bias.

Or not.

Uniter. Or. Divider.

You choose.

Kanary

[jpgray]

60. I haven't said these things anywhere

Nowhere do I speak of limiting the criticism of anyone, and nowhere do I say 'get lost'. All I have to say is, if you equate Kerry and Bush where they are not equal, you are worthy of criticism.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

113. Your choice is obvious...pretend we are dividing while you make posts

with no substance whatsoever

[Redleg]

77. Then don't vote for him.

If you are going to be swayed by what one DUer says you shouldn't be voting anyway.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[QC]

82. I was wondering the same thing. n/t

[mitchum]

131. Please call him/her on this bullshit every time that you see it posted

thanks,
mitchum

[Pastiche423]

86. Temper, temper!

I've not asked a soul to "cater to my petty ego". I simply want it known to anyone reading this site that kerry does not have every left vote, nor is he entitled to "our" votes.

This thread was started by someone voicing her opinion. Until voicing one's opinion is no longer accepted here, I will voice mine as well.

I won't be fooled again.

[jpgray]

87. I'm a he, but yes, this is my opinion

And your opinion is perfectly welcome here and acceptable to me, however much I may end up disagreeing with it.

[Beearewhyain]

19. I Agree

In my estimation, it is all about what direction the administration will take us, not necessarily how fast. We all know the direction of the current admin and all agree that it is completely wrong. While Kerry might not do everything we would like, he will be much more likely to listen and address our concerns. I don't see any possibility of that with *.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. My problem is with the dishonesty.

The blatant mischaracterizations of Kerry's positions, or when someone tells you 'how bad things will be' when Kerry is President, as if their silly doom-and-gloom negativity and predictions are fact.

[JI7]

25. those of us who supported Kerry

worked hard to get support and votes for him and we saw how hard he worked also. i didn't work directly for the kerry campaign but did things on my own to help him. and many others did also. with the internet we would be able to contact each other on how things were going in different parts of the country. we were glad when we saw progressives like ourselves had helped to get another progressive like kerry to win many of the primary elections. we are now working to do the same on the national level.

[Walt Starr]

27. Kerry is better than Bush

That sure as hell isn't saying much.

It's 2004 and I am ABB.

Based on what I've seen, come 2008 I'll be ABK.

[emulatorloo]

31. Maybe you should wait until Kerry is actually president

to decide how you will vote in 2008.

I'm just sayin' . . .

[Walt Starr]

75. If he doesn't win

I'll be undecided in 2008.

[rman]

39. "don't critisise the leader", where did i hear that before?

It's not a matter of black-and-white thinking

First of, you seem to equate critisism of Kerry with not voting for Kerry. While in fact many people who critisise Kerry will vote for him.
Also this critisism means it is not a matter of good vesus bad, rather it means Kerry is considered a lesser evil then Bush. That's not black-and-white thinking.

- it isn't that Kerry is *not* pandering to corporate interests
- Kerry will have the military stay in Iraq, no matter his preference for law-enforcement to fight terror
- If you know Chomsky's work you know democracy has been long dead, and that Kerry isn't going to change that

There's a spectrum of good and bad positions allright, it's just that it expands far beyond what the accepted frame allows for, especially towards the left. In fact you seem to recognise this.
Not allowing for critisism of the leader (to be) isn't going to help in breaking down the framing of the spectrum of ideas about politics.

[jpgray]

42. 'Don't equate two things that aren't equal' means 'don't criticize one'?

Can you point out in my post where I say:

-Criticism of Kerry should not exist
-Criticism of Kerry means not voting for him

You're reading a lot into what I posted that isn't there. My problem with leftist critiques of Kerry as described in this post begins and ends with equating him with Bush where that equation is inaccurate. That's it.

[kiahzero]

59. Logic doesn't work on those who insist on being irrational

Reading this thread is straw man after straw man after straw man, with a few red herrings thrown in for flavor.

I may not agree with you on what the "right answers" are, but your logic above is sound - it starts from a valid premise and makes valid inferences.

[quaker bill]

40. I am no dilletante, but I do not always agree with Kerry

I understand and agree generally your critique of the Kerry = Bush crowd.

That Bush administration has made it quite clear that they feel entirely unconstrained by national or international law, treaties, agreements or even historic precedent. Kyoto - out the window, Geneva Conventions - not applicable to us, ABM treaty in the "dustbin of history".

There is absolutely no evidence that Kerry feels or would govern the same.

However, I do not agree with Kerry's proposal to grow the military. We should re-allocate existing resources. There is no longer any threat of an invasion of Europe by the USSR, as the USSR no longer exists. We should be able to massively demobilize from Europe and allocate these resources elsewhere if needed.

I am convinced that minimum wage workers would rather be paid $7.00 an hour. While this is hardly a living wage in most places, it would be quite an improvement. Most Neo-Cons oppose the minimum wage law as an undue restriction on business. While I would prefer a living wage law, Kerry's policy is substantially better.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

125. Thanks QB....reasonable exchange is always appreciated

[jpgray]

126. I want that defense budget gutted

We spend more on 'defense' than all our nearest competitors combined. Kucinich was my hero when he advocated this in the debates--Dean also had some balls saying that 'we won't always have the strongest military.' Kerry and the rest were more savvy politically--no way the press or the public want to hear these sorts of things--but DK (and to some extent Dean) gets my respect for his comments in that sphere.

[Zomby Woof]

41. as your avatar once said

"Right wing, left wing, chicken wing, same thing."

When ideology trumps common sense, reason is subjugated to the polarization of absolutes - the very thing which we decry in Bush for example - and "purity", which like perfection in the species, is impossible to attain, is wielded about clumsily, clubbing our heads to agree, or be cast out as an infidel.

Great post, jp. Fantastic understanding of the nuances of politics and effective leadership.

[madrchsod]

45. i`m not at all happy with Kerry

no realist plan for the economy and for jobs.the states are broke or have over taxed the people,the gas prices have increased inflation that no one wants to talk about, his stance on Israel,Cuba,and Venezuela have really no basis in reality. although the Iraq solution is difficult but to maintain troops there is going to be a huge drain on the economy..there are no easy solutions and i hope he is honest enough to the American people to tell them it`s not going to be an easy to get out of our disaster...
at least Kerry does understand what has happened ,it`s whether he has the balls to fix it..hopefully we will find out, because for more years of bush is something i can not contemplate.....

[MoonRiver]

73. It's not a matter of Kerry having "balls".

First, he has to get elected. Second, he has to have at least one body of Congress on his side. Fortunately, it's looking good for Dems taking back the Senate and possibly House this year.

[MoonRiver]

70. Anyone who seriously equates * and Kerry is daft or a Repuke, imho.

That is such an insane and/or subversive position it simply needs to be immediately dismissed. The trouble is many determined to undermine Kerry and the Democratic Party are posting here on DU. It is disturbing, but I don't make the rules so we have to live with them. I'm always thrilled to see posts like yours, calling it like it is though!

:yourock:

[greatauntoftriplets]

117. Talk about black and white thinking....

n/t

[debsianben]

74. Unrecognizable

This is an unrecognizable caricature of the critique of Kerry by the anti-war/anti-corporate left.

We don't call Kerry a corporate panderer because he supports only a minor raise in the minimum wage, we do it because he is a life long supporter of anti-democratic "free trade" agreements who voted for/enthusiastically supported NAFTA, GATT, the FTAA, etc., etc., etc., because he takes in millions in corporate bribe money and because he voted for and supports the murderous corporate plundering of Iraq.

On the Iraq subject, if I were in the National Guard, for instance, I would be at least as afraid of Kerry as of Bush, because he has repeatedly said he would consider sending many more troops to help enforce the rape of Iraq. As many Bush supporters have acknowledged, it takes teams of lawyers and diplomats to differentiate Kerry and Bush's detailed proposals on Iraq. Both support an increased UN role for reasons of political cover, both support the despicable charade of "sovereignty" under occupation, both support violent counter-insurgency measures.

It is ridiculous beyond measure to say that Kerry has a legal rather than military approach to the war on terror, considering that he voted for and supported the bombing of Afghanistan.

In France, when the second round of their election a few years ago narrowed down to the mainline conservative Chirac versus the fascist Le Pen, many French leftists showed up to the polling places with rubber gloves on and their noses literally held with wooden clips to perform what they considered the disgusting but necessary task of electing Chirac. If the ABBers were treating the pro-war multi-millionare Bonesman they're voting for the same way, it would be a lot easier to take. Instead, there's all this ridiculous self-deception and pretending that Kerry is some sort of closet progressive. Ugh.

[jpgray]

85. Where are you getting this from my post?

All I say is that attempting to equate Bush and Kerry where they are not equal is at best disingenuous, and at worst lazy and dishonest thinking. I gave two examples where Bush and Kerry are not equal but are claimed to be. That's all I have done. You seem to be reading into that some vision of Kerry as a covert leftist genie who will grant all our wishes once in office. I don't believe that, and I am confused that I have to explain that to people when there is no such implication anywhere in my above post. In fact, my last paragraph deals with the overwhelming probability that Kerry will lead the same type of administration we've seen from both parties for many years.

This is what I have a problem with:

"On the Iraq subject, if I were in the National Guard, for instance, I would be at least as afraid of Kerry as of Bush."

Who is more likely to invade and occupy another nation, Kerry or Bush? Based on their statements and previous political history, the obvious choice is Bush. There is no way to make the case that Kerry is as imperialistic as Bush and his administration are. There are similarities, and you point out a few, but to make your statement true you would have to exhaust all instances of comparison, and in doing so you will find too many differences to state they are the same.

"It is ridiculous beyond measure to say that Kerry has a legal rather than military approach to the war on terror."

I never said I agreed with Kerry's statement, or evaluated it to be true--you are arguing with yourself at this point.

"Instead, there's all this ridiculous self-deception and pretending that Kerry is some sort of closet progressive."

Where do I pretend that Kerry is a closet progressive? All I have to say is that calling him equivalent to Bush is often grossly inaccurate, and no one seems to be willing or able to argue that point. Say they are only superficially different, say they are virtually the same, but do not tell me they are the same when you and I both know they are not.

[Redleg]

78. That needed to be said.

Watch out for the flames. It seems most of the responders want to create Kerry in their own image. Anything else is flawed.

[Pepperbelly]

79. It is amusing to watch those so ready to cast stones at the Democrats ...

whining with such fervor when called on their own bullshit.

This is EXACTLY the problem I have had with the dilletante left since the 60s. So willing to sacrifice good on the alter of perfect, so black and white, so sanctimonious. The harsh truth is that the far left has never able to get its shit together enough to accomplish anything. The primary reason is that it is not possible to work together when anyone who steps slightly away from the preferred position suddenly becomes the enemy and are taken after like something from Lord of the Flies.

The outraged howling on this thread alone is enough to entertain for hours.

[Swamp Rat]

81. We have only four months until the election, so all I got to say is:

Geaux Kerry!!!

[maxanne]

83. in other words

If we don't agree with YOU, we're all lazy, sloppy thinkers.

I sure hope all this right wing pandering Kerry is doing pays off in terms of swing and Repuke voters - because the left wing of the party is quite clearly being dismissed.

If we allow the right wing to determine our positions, and dictate our agenda - we aren't winning anything.

[jpgray]

84. Where do I say you must agree with me?

I only provide a critique of those who say Kerry is equivalent to Bush when he clearly is not. That's all. This is about the fifth time I've had to explain this. Can someone point out my secret message where I insult all leftists and diabolically conspire to cast Kerry as a genius progressive pragmatist who all must bow down before or be destroyed? It must be pretty powerful, but I didn't intend to put it in, and it doesn't come easily from a literal reading of my post.

[REP]

88. I Sure Didn't See It

Then again, I don't have my Secret Decoder Ring that allows me to see all messages as directed against me personally. If I eat a few more bars of soap, I should have enough wrappers to get one...

[maxanne]

105. perhaps it's the way

you rail against black and white thinking while promoting the view that Kerry = GOOD and left wing questioners = BAD.

[jpgray]

109. 'Don't equate two unequal things' now means 'Kerry is good'?

Where are you getting this from my post? I make no judgment above on the quality of Kerry, I only point out that equating him with Bush in two instances is inaccurate. I don't make any criticism of left wing questioners, I only criticize equating Kerry with Bush when they are not equal. Please point out, if you would, where you get those conclusions from my post.

[ronabop]

89. The foundation of your argument...

... about black and white thinking, is what is in error.

To say that Kerry has a 96% reprehensible postion, and * has a 97% reprehensible position, recognizes a wide spectrum on an issue. It's just that both candidates are still pretty horrid on a great number of important issues.

This is what the lock-step party faithful seems to bristle about when us "dilletantes" complain, and point out that Kerry isn't exactly a wonderful candidate.... that intelligent, well reasoned thinkers can actually point out quite a few areas where we are being virtually forced to vote (if we vote at all) for the latest incarnation of Bush-lite, because the real thing is 1-2% worse on the spectrum.

It's not about black and white, it's about many differences being so minor that an entire election cycle is now being wasted on getting someone only a tad less horrid than what we already have.

-Bop

[emulatorloo]

92. if you see a 1% diff between GWB and Kerry on abortion, environment,

unions, women's issues, gblt issues, education, etc etc etc then you might want to do a little more research. They may use some of the same words, but that is the price we all pay by speaking English. Just my humble opinion.

[ronabop]

93. Fair enough.

Unions:
Which one allows the simple step of union campaigns in the workplace:
Neither. Both score poorly.

Women's Issues:
Which one does not believe that "life begins at conception":
Neither. Both score poorly.

GLBT issues:
Which one believes that GLBT should be allowed basic civil rights to marriage:
Neither. Both score poorly.

Education:
Which one believes that private schools are bad, and undeserving of federal dollars:
Neither. Both score poorly.

I'll vote for the lesser republican, but not because I believe in him, and not because I think there is one "right" answer. Both of them are far-right, to varying degrees.

-Bop

[emulatorloo]

95. OK lets take GLBT and Women's Issues - you stop at the surface

Both are against 'gay marriage'

But Kerry is for full partnership and family rights under Civil Unions
George Bush is not.
Gay Marriage is a short hop skip and a jump from Kerry's position. Gay marriage is a trillion miles away from GWB's position and anti-gay rhetoric/agenda.

Both believe 'life begins at conception'

But Kerry supports a women's right to choose, and does not believe he should impose his personal beliefs.
Bush is ***all about*** imposing his personal beliefs and the beliefs of the religious right on the citizens of the US.

Kerry can believe the moon is made out of green cheese as far as I am concerned as long as it does not impact the law.

If you stick with the surface, then you can confuse them. But dig a little deeper, Just because AP reports they are the same doesnt mean they are.

ON edit grammar

[maxanne]

104. good point

Kerry voted in favor of confirming Antonin Scalia to SCOTUS - but he voted against Clarence Thomas. Digging deeper makes all the difference.

[emulatorloo]

115. it is easy to cherry pick but Bush is still a Reactionary and Kerry is not

and JK has acgknowledged that Scalia was a mistake.

with gwb you do not have to cherry pick. He is a reactionary.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

108. Typical far left lying propaganda

Unions:
Which one allows the simple step of union campaigns in the workplace:
Neither. Both score poorly.

Which one has acted to destroy unions especially federal employees...BUSH...which one voted to protect them: Kerry

Women's Issues:
Which one does not believe that "life begins at conception":
Neither. Both score poorly.

Which one has promoted and gotten legislation passed to limit a woman's right to choose: BUSH..which one voted AGAINST limiting a woman's right every single time he has placed a vote on the matter: Kerry


GLBT issues:
Which one believes that GLBT should be allowed basic civil rights to marriage:
Neither. Both score poorly.

Which one promoted a constitutional amendment to BAN gay rights: Bush
Which one was one of the first to write an anti-discriination bill: Kerry...your opinions are NOT EVEN consisitent with Human Rights Campaign positions.

BTW, Kerry's statements were to the effect that as an equal opportunity matter, gays should have the rights even if it ISN'T called marriage.

Education:
Which one believes that private schools are bad, and undeserving of federal dollars:
Neither. Both score poorly.

Again ..nice shot across the bow....some private schools ARE good and ARE appropriate....

Kerry is not far right by any definition...your post is RIPE with propagandistic generalizations and outright lies and recontextualizations.... Kerry is free to believe life begins whenever he thinks it does...he has NEVER used his vote to ENFORCE that belief.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

129. Good examples of the dishonesty I was talking about.

This post is chock full of falsehoods, mischaracterizations, and outright lies.

[jpgray]

110. Just don't call them 'the same' when they are not

That's all I'm advocating. Criticize and question Kerry all you want, but don't equate him with Bush in instances where the two are not equal.

[MadHound]

90. Your caricature of the left is just that

A cartoon, a talking point, a position that is taken by those whose own political view is set in concrete, and is impossible to change.

You bash the left for supposedly whining all the time, and yet you claim that you are part of the far left. Well friend, I think that if you were truly on the far left, you would realize what is going on, ie that the left is once again being taken for granted in this election, and yet is getting no reward from it.

The center, the right, big business and the soccer moms and the NASCAR dads all have their issues addressed. In fact this pandering to the right and center has gone on for so long, in such great quantity that the Democratic party has moved significantly to the right.

Yet the left is supposed to shut up and take it, for after all "where else ya gonna go sonny boy, the 'Pugs?" So yes, we out here on the left are a little pissed, and we're making noise about it. We're not asking for the world, we're just asking for what everybody else in this big tent gets, a little attention, and a couple of pet issues thrown into the platform and pushed through. And yet it has been over thirty years since a Democratic nominee has given anything to the left, and when McGovern did dare to recogninze and throw a couple of bones our way, he was beaten down and excorciated by members of his own party, who left him to dangle and twist in the wind, while they went on to plan for the next election cycle.

And yes, we out here are appalled at the direction the party has taken, how close it has come to the Republicans, both on issues and attitude. Remember the '00 debates, when the moderators had to keep asking Gore and Bush, "so, what IS the difference between you two"? And they couldn't answer. The same phenomenon is happening today, both men are proponents of more corporate tax cuts, both are for continuing the Patriot Act, both are for more and better "free" trade and outsourcing, both are for "staying the course" in Iraq. And yet you claim that there are vast differences between the two. Sorry friend, but your third eye needs a vigorous squee-geeing.

Kerry is counting on getting most of the anti-war vote, yet thinks he can accomplish this by being hawkish on the issue, calling for more men and money to be thrown into the fray, with only a vague promise to pull out before the next presidential election. Sorry friend, but this is THE issue to those of us on the left, and yet Kerry can barely differentiate himself from the Bushco on this one. What are we on the left supposed to do, not care that both candidates are promising more bloodshed of innocents, just to get ABB in the White House? Sorry friend, I don't buy that, and neither should you.

The fact that the Democratic Party can stoop this low, and reverse position on the war, endorsing and supporting, is a big red flag on how far down the party has sunk. All of the sudden the war is no longer illegal or immoral, but somehow justifiable, and a policy that should be foolishly continued, is an abrubt about face that I'm not only seeing on these boards, but one espoused by Dems everywhere. It is amazing how people can sell their souls out, just to go ABB.

This is though, the same type of mentality that allowed the Dems under LBJ to not only drag the Vietnam war out for years, but escalate it to ungodly proportions. And yet this is the same type of course that Kerry proposes we all stay on. He wishes to throw more men in, and you know damn well the US isn't going to pull out of those new military bases either. Yet we on the left are supposed to roll over for this? Fuck that friend.

Quite frankly, the closer we get to the election, the more it becomes apparent that Kerry is going to do like Clinton, and push the party further rightward. Many of us on the left are in despair, not wishing four more years for Bush, but seeing little from Kerry that is truly different, especially on the big issues, like war and death. While Kerry will probably get most of the left's votes due to the sheer repulsivness of Bushco, it is going to cost him and Democratic party. For once again, we on the left have been sold out for political profit. Well, don't bitch when the left starts leaving and gutting the party after November. Many Dem pundits are bewailing the departure of the black vote, well, team that up with the departure of the left, and that is two big parts of your base gone. We are not going to go along with the two party/same corporate master system anymore. And yes, if Kerry wins, we will be holding his feet to the fire. If you don't like that, tough shit, deal with it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

100. OK then put up

You bash the left for supposedly whining all the time, and yet you claim that you are part of the far left. Well friend, I think that if you were truly on the far left, you would realize what is going on, ie that the left is once again being taken for granted in this election, and yet is getting no reward from it.


The left had some VERY viable candidates in the primaries - Dean (who got PLENTY of coverage and cash), Sharpton and Kucinich to name a few. They didn't get the votes. How is the left being taken for granted if they HAD several candidates they could have successfully promoted? Perhaps the left is INEFFECTIVE at communicating their message in a manner that attracts a broad enough mass of people to get elected, but attracts just enough to screw themselves by dividing the vote...is that possible?

The center, the right, big business and the soccer moms and the NASCAR dads all have their issues addressed. In fact this pandering to the right and center has gone on for so long, in such great quantity that the Democratic party has moved significantly to the right.

The COUNTRY in it's VOTING patterns moved to the right. They did so GRADUALLY over 30 years. The left seems to want instant graitification so bad that they refuse to take the SMALL gains one could achieve by working with their ideological bretheren...there are MANY things I agree with the left on: living wages, clean energy and better controls on trade in order to achieve the first two and more...again...the left needs to take a look at THEIR modus operandi and confront their ineffectual bellyaching that seems to take the place of effective action...MoveON got it...how come you didn't?

Yet the left is supposed to shut up and take it, for after all "where else ya gonna go sonny boy, the 'Pugs?" So yes, we out here on the left are a little pissed, and we're making noise about it. We're not asking for the world, we're just asking for what everybody else in this big tent gets, a little attention, and a couple of pet issues thrown into the platform and pushed through. And yet it has been over thirty years since a Democratic nominee has given anything to the left, and when McGovern did dare to recognize and throw a couple of bones our way, he was beaten down and excorciated by members of his own party, who left him to dangle and twist in the wind, while they went on to plan for the next election cycle.


I love you bringing up McGovern..this simply demonstrates the manner in which the left would rather bellyache about the past than form a coalition toward the future...please tell me how we could have a candidate as liberal as Kucinich and as progressive as Dean and STILL have people defending Nader dividing the vote...is that not a bit contradictory? The left would rather frenetically plant their anger everywhere than mobilize as a voting block in the more liberal of the TWO major parties..(you know the ones that STAND A CHANCE OF WINNING)


And yes, we out here are appalled at the direction the party has taken, how close it has come to the Republicans, both on issues and attitude. Remember the '00 debates, when the moderators had to keep asking Gore and Bush, "so, what IS the difference between you two"? And they couldn't answer. The same phenomenon is happening today, both men are proponents of more corporate tax cuts, both are for continuing the Patriot Act, both are for more and better "free" trade and outsourcing, both are for "staying the course" in Iraq. And yet you claim that there are vast differences between the two. Sorry friend, but your third eye needs a vigorous squee-geeing.

Yes GORE BLEW THAT ONE...but how often does the left idolize him NOW here everyday? Kerry is WELL to the left of Gore in past votes and issues.....for instance...since we are living in the past (at least in this post) Gore voted in 88 to restrict a woman's right to an abortion...Kerry NEVER HAS.

You completely MIS CATEGORIZED Kerry's position on the PATRIOT ACT. There are SOME PROVISIONS such as tagging explosives that ARE worth keeping.

You COMPLETELY miscatgorize Kerry's positions on tax cuts which are CONTINGENT on corporations GIVING something back i.e. JOBS to unemployed Americans versus Bush's cuts which are NOT.

BTW...I've not heard the far left mention how THEY would keep 300 million people gainfully employed without sinking the economy.

Kerry is counting on getting most of the anti-war vote, yet thinks he can accomplish this by being hawkish on the issue, calling for more men and money to be thrown into the fray, with only a vague promise to pull out before the next presidential election. Sorry friend, but this is THE issue to those of us on the left, and yet Kerry can barely differentiate himself from the Bushco on this one. What are we on the left supposed to do, not care that both candidates are promising more bloodshed of innocents, just to get ABB in the White House? Sorry friend, I don't buy that, and neither should you.

BULL FUCKING SHIT

The left seems to want us to cut and run which would only HELP the corporations left in Iraq who are hell bent on controlling that economy. Kerry has REPEATEDLY said that our transition CANNOT be one that leaves Iraqi's feeling as though we are in control of them.



As far as the rest of your post...it is SO contingent on hallucinatory thought it isn't worth addressing...one thing is for CERTAIN..we ALREADY know how Bush will be...we do NOT know how Kerry will be as president...you rely on a TON of assumptions in order to promote your own unique brand of propaganda....so vote how you wish..but again...if one is SO HIGHLY principled that they will not compromise, yet by their vote, they divide the electorate so as to FUCK OVER their own principles for years to come...how principled can they possibly REALLY be?

[maxanne]

102. so, what you are saying

seems to be that the continued shift to the right by the Democratic Party is something you are quite comfortable with.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

106. NO! I emphatically DID NOT say that

what I am saying is that we ALL share in the responsibility for that...

I didn't elect John Breaux or Mary Landrieu...did YOU?

I didn't elect to send many of the more conservative Dems to congress, did you?

The LEFT could have focussed on the ISSUES in those states that ALLOWED those Dems to go to congress and the senate but didn't. The RIGHT has planted their seeds even in progressive states or states that LEANED Dem...California, Michigan, Florida and Penn. to name a few...the LEFT does NOT do anything about these regions. Again, MOVEON gets it.

Speaking about the Dem party with a broad brush when we still DO have so many progressive members of congress is truly FAULTY reasoning.

Mobilizing our efforts at making our progressive members more popular and effective in the most conservative voting states would be an effective action....in order to succeed, we need to take some of those votes on a national level.

[sendero]

128. god dammit....

... the Dem party did not shift to the right - the electorate did and if you want to bring them back, get to work.

As of right now most Americans do not agree with a far left agenda and that is why Kucinich et al could not get arrested.

Stop blaming the positions Kerry takes on "abandoning the left". Kerry is trying to get elected, not be another fucking Dem martyr.

For crying out loud.

[maxanne]

130. horse hockey

the party shifted to the right, under the guidance of the DNC.

So, I should stop blaming Kerry for taking the positions he takes? When will I be placed in a work camp for daring to question?

I am working. I am working every single day of my life to get local and state candidates elected where I live. I'm mentoring 4 candidates, doing voter registration, doing candidate trainings, and anything else I can.

Your language really speaks to what you believe. "The far left agenda" smacks of propaganda. If the right wing chooses our candidate and our agenda, we've won nothing.

Am I safe to assume you're quite comfy with the continued shift to the right?

[sendero]

132. NO.....

....>>>Am I safe to assume you're quite comfy with the continued shift to the right?

No, that is a presumption on your part. I'm way to the left of Kerry in beliefs, but understand the simple realities of electing a president that many here seem not to.

The time for the far left to make their stand was well before Kerry was nominated. I am working on the assumption that they did their best, but look at the results. It was not even close. Kucinich, Dean, lost in a blowout. (BTW - I was a Dean supporter)

Now you can blame the "party" if you want to. I blame the voters. The voters don't want a Kuchinch at this time. If they ever will want one in significant enough numbers to matter (ie enough to WIN THE PRESIDENCY, because anything short of that is a waste of time) is an open question. But folks who, at this point, whine about not being represented really, really tick me off. Grow up. Voting for Nader or staying home is not going to get you represented. If you want representation for your agenda, you are going to have to sign up about 100 million Americans. Good luck.

[JackDragna]

107. Oh, I have a pretty good idea of how Kerry will be.

He'll be better than Bush, to be sure. At the same time, he'll do just about nothing to really help people in this country. Why? Because Democrats on the left have become complacent, caring only whether a person says the right things and appeals to a broad base and not whether the person represents any of their beliefs. That Kerry is the candidate this year is a perfect example of that. This was the year to elect someone like Dean or Edwards, someone who actually went after the president in their speeches and pointed out the flaws in the president..but instead, we get maudlin, do-nothing Kerry, mostly because Iowa voters thought he was safe.

You talk about principles and how dividing the electorate to stand up for one's principles is "unprincipled" in itself. I'd love for you and all the other Kerry apologists to answer me one question, one I've never had answered every time I bring it up: at what point do Democratic candidates become so right-wing that they're not appropriate representatives for the Democratic party? Will nothing remove the cloud from your eyes that keeps you from seeing just how much of a sellout candidates like Kerry are? The man supported the most aggressive, vicious war in recent American history, one totally predicated on a litany of jingoistic paranoia and lies. He then supported an act that gave the U.S. government invasive, sweeping powers to poke around in its citzens' private lives.

I'm sure as hell no "dilettante" left. In fact, I tend to find it's the working people, the people who work hard and expect real results from a candidate, who supported Dean, Clark and Edwards. I'm still voting for Kerry, mostly because of just how damaging Bush is, particularly with what his cronies can convince him to do. I would, however, write-in a vote or vote for Nader in a heartbeat if Bush were just a smidgen not quite so megalomaniacal, dumb or violent. Kerry is a weak candidate, both in an electoral sense and as a representative of the left.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

111. Funny, I based my vote for Kerry on the things he HAS done

such as investigating drug money used by the "Freedon Fighters" to fund themselves and investigating the BCCI scandal.

The vast majority of his votes were more left leaning..and I am sick of addressing the he voted FOR WAR statment since no one with your opinion has demonstrated that we would NOT have gone to war anyway...btw...in case you didn't notice...Edwards is on the ticket (but nevermind the contradiction inherent in your post since Edwards was more supportive of the war than Kerry) I find that inconsistency IN your post to sum up the left perfectly.

[JackDragna]

116. So it's good to just go along with the flow..

..I mean, since the war was going to happen anyway? Is this what we've come to, merely being a speedbump as the right does whatever the hell it wants?

And yes, I DID notice Edwards was on the ticket. Wow! No points for you. Nice strawman there. Edwards was still far more vocally critical of Bush than Kerry and is only on the ticket because Kerry wants the electoral boost he gets from a well-spoken, young Southern candidate. I find the logical inconsistency in your post to sum up your ilk perfectly.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

120. No logical inconsistency on my part

..I mean, since the war was going to happen anyway? Is this what we've come to, merely being a speedbump as the right does whatever the hell it wants?


Given that at the moment they control all three houses...we've sort of relegated ourselves to that.


As I have said before, the only thing I feel that vote did was make the start of the war more predictable..NO I don't think we should just go along...but I am not going to shoot myself in the foot over a war that was a foregone conclusion.

And yes, I DID notice Edwards was on the ticket. Wow! No points]
for you. Nice strawman there.

I fail to see how it is a strawman when one rereads your post.

Edwards was still far more vocally critical of Bush than Kerry and is only on the ticket because Kerry wants the electoral boost he gets from a well-spoken, young Southern candidate. I find the logical inconsistency in your post to sum up your ilk perfectly.

YOur first sentence is unproven conjecture. Your second sentence demonstrates how even when the left wins, they can frame it as a loss or as a marginalization of them....it's a true victim mentality...it can take the greatest of advances and still argue that it's not really a win...it's a symptom of one who is so wrapped up in the underdog identity that it spawns a behavior and world view consistent with that identity...it's like a sickness.

[JackDragna]

122. Strawmanm, as in..

..nothing I said indicated I didn't know Edwards was on the ticket, meaning your mentioning of it is an attempt to direct the discussion somewhere else. The very definition of a strawman.

My first sentence is hardly conjecture - I listened to both candidates on the campaign trail and Edwards' language was much more direct. And lookie here! We have you committing ad hominem, dismissing my views as a sickness and someone wrapped up in the "underdog" identity. Gee, maybe I'd just like a candidate, who, oh, I don't know, doesn't support bombing the hell out of other nations? Is that really too much to ask? Or am I supposed to be happy someone supposedly from my "side" may get elected, even if this person supported one of the most unjust, violent wars in U.S. history?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

123. Find me an article where Kerry actually promotes bombing nations.

There is nothing ad hominem about pointing out that you complained that there were more LIBERAL candidates such as Edwards when SHAZAMMM..he's on the ticket!...(again I would call that a WIN for you...you seemed to categorize it otherwise)...and in terms of the war...you may want to compare Edwards statements prewar..with Kerry's...just another place where you step all over yourself in a morass of contradiction.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

96. The IWR vote cost lives.

Your apologia for Kerry's sellout on that vote and his more recent statements in support of the doctrine of Pre-emption, not to mention his support of the Apartheid Wall in Israel, his call for more power to the "intelligence community", inferring that they are insignificant when taken in the context of the "big picture" is another replay of the "not as bad" theory of politics.

The left is supposed to lie dormant and hope that Kerry doesn't really mean what he says. That, somehow, after the election he will be magically transformed into a liberal instead of being another Clinton who will move the country to the right - but not as far right as the Republicans.

I find it amazing that so many supposed "leftists" are so willing to meekly surrender to the right. Hell, even Hubert Humphrey stood up to the DixieCrat DLC of his day.

[jpgray]

112. LOL--now 'don't equate two inequal things' means I apologize for Kerry

Where are you people getting this from my post? The left can criticize all it wants, but when it engages in equations of two things that aren't equal, its arguments are bereft of logic and deserve criticism. That's all I am saying.

[WilliamPitt]

98. Good post

[tedzbear]

101. I see the difference between the Green Party and Bush to be...

...even more significant to vote on. Calling Kerry Bush Lite is an apt description of his agenda, IMHO. Like jpgray says, Kerry is just a LITTLE bit better than Bush on most positions (as if that's good enough for me).

I am still on the fence regarding my vote in November. The addition of Edwards to the ticket is an improvement, but I'm still suspicious of Kerry's oligarchy loyalties and recent voting record in the Senate.

I think jpgray and the rest should dump Bush AND Kerry and give the Greens a chance this November!

:kick:

[GreenPartyVoter]

103. If only, but it won't happen. Gotta get that preferential voting

in place so that people who like the Green candidates feel safe voting for them.

[mitchum]

119. Maybe the Greens can pony up $$$ for their own bandwidth...

instead of pimping for votes on this site. What do you think?

[JackDragna]

114. What a blanant misrepresentation of the "left"

Those of us unhappy with Kerry on the Iraq war vote don't forgive anyone against it or automatically excoriate anyone who supported it. The question remains, however, as to whether there are issues that are so extreme that support of them by a Democratic candidate disqualifies them from being a suitable candidate. I doubt there's anyone in this room, for example, who would support a candidate for president who would openly espouse the views of the KKK. Such a candidate probably wouldn't get two votes in a primary anywhere in America.

There are those of us who see the war in Iraq, however, as the same sort of sin. We bombed the ever-loving hell out of a nation that had never attacked us, killing thousands of their citizens. We did so on completely false pretenses, accusing Iraq of having associates they never talked to and weapons they had demolished years ago. We did little to secure their cities once we established control, allowing massive power outages, rioting, looting and food shortages. We bullied and browbeated their citizens, searching their homes and torturing them in our prisons. Now we've given them a false democracy, one ruled by leaders they do not trust and enforced at the point of our guns.

You have some nerve getting after the "left" for being angry at candidates who supported such an abomination. You roll out all your cutesy phrases about us, about how we see things in black and white and don't compromise. You act, however, like compromise in the Iraq war vote is similar to compromise about a candidate's stand on abortion, gay marriage or whether he likes watermelon Bubble Yum over strawberry. If a candidate supported the war despite the obvious lies, flag-waving and pathetic excuses given for it beforehand, then that candidate is simply not a good candidate to represent the Democratic party. Ask me to bend on any other issue and I will: ask me to bend on this and I'll ask you in return how you could ignore the idiocy and rampant butchery that continues in Iraq. Those of you who are willing to willy-nilly ignore such poor judgement in a candidate ensure we'll continue to have the kinds of Democrats who do things like support the war, do group Jesus-chants when an atheist stands up for his civil rights and so on.

[jpgray]

118. Incidentally, Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK

However, this was many years ago. Unfortunately, by your standard, this would disqualify him from the party. I would assume joining the KKK would by definition be openly espousing its values. I prefer not to have such a litmus test for disqualifying candidates, because you can lose some good people. If I had a litmus test on abortion, for example, Kucinich's past stances would disqualify him, and he received my vote in the MN caucus--he's a great politician and Democrat.

Like many others in this thread, you are putting things into my post that aren't there. There's this, for example:

"You act, however, like compromise in the Iraq war vote is similar to compromise about a candidate's stand on abortion, gay marriage or whether he likes watermelon Bubble Yum over strawberry."

No, I don't act that way--I make no comparisons between such decisions, and I am not at all defending Kerry's war stance here. I have seen evidence on this board that those who voted against IWR (and especially those like Byrd, who fought eloquently against it) get more leeway compared to Kerry on other issues, and it's my opinion that the war vote is the difference. I don't think anyone can question that Kerry would have been violently attacked here if he had voted for the cloture, cutting off debate on the FMA and hamstringing the Democratic filibuster.

But again you're changing the debate--all I have to say is that I have a problem with equating Bush and Kerry where they are not equal. I described those who do this as the dilettante left, because their conclusions show a superficial and amateurish evaluation of the situation. Why so much of this forum reads this as an attack on everyone who has ever criticized Kerry from the left is a mystery to me. Why so many read this as my attempt to defend Kerry from all leftist criticism is likewise a mystery. All I intend to do is point out that he gets equated with Bush too often when the two simply aren't equal. That's all.

[JackDragna]

121. Yes, he was..

..and notice I said "..espouses the view," implying present tense. My further example, talking about a primary vote, further established present tense. Strawman, my friend: no soup for you.

As for putting words in your post, you don't directly make such comparisons (trivial decisions to more weighty ones, like the Iraq vote), but it's clearly implied in what you say. Take, for example:

"It seems the IWR vote is what really unbalances people--they can forgive a candidate for anything if he fought against that resolution, and they can excoriate a candidate for anything if he voted for it under any circumstances. Take Robert Byrd--on the cloture vote for the FMA, he did not vote on the side of equal rights, yet people are forgiving and understanding on this forum. If Kerry had done the same, people would be calling for his head."

Here's comparing the Iraq War vote to the FMA vote. You're getting after leftists for getting up in arms about the Iraq war vote while being more understanding for Mr. Byrd. The clear implication you make is that the Iraq war vote is comparable to this vote and that leftists are showing tunnel-vision.

I'll give you that you don't support Kerry's war vote and there's a difference between Bush and Kerry in how they'd handle things. Your post, however, very much has the tone of getting after leftists who are seemingly hypocritical when it comes to the Iraq vote.

[jpgray]

124. Again, where do I compare the two, exactly?

Seems to me I form a hypothesis and offer evidence for it. I never compare IWR to the FMA vote. Perhaps you could show me where exactly I do that in those sentences? My contention is that because Byrd fought the IWR, he gets more leeway on a wrongheaded FMA vote than Kerry would. I never compare the two votes.

And as for the supposed strawman, your meaning is not exactly clear. Do you mean if such espousal is in the past, then it is no longer a concern? By that rationale, Kerry's IWR vote would be forgotten and forgiven so long as he no longer currently espouses that belief, and I know that's not very reasonable. If Byrd had been a KKK member six years ago instead of 30+, would it make a difference? Kucinich changed his votes on abortion very recently, does that mean he is still tainted and therefore disqualified? This is why I have trouble with a litmus test--it begs off subjectivity for a little while, but the standards still seem very arbitrary. And no, I am not comparing abortion, IWR and the KKK. I am simply using discrete examples of the views candidates espouse changing to more clearly understand your position.

[left is right]

133. I took this posting

to be a call for party unity, to rally behind Kerry/Edwards. It offered the realization that Kerry is not perfect but he is far superior to Bush. And, now is not the time to hold out for some elusive ideal candidate--that probably doesn't exist on the first place. Did I miss your point--or did everyone else?

[jukes]

134. jpgray

you're apsitively right. politics is compromise, & all variations of gray hue.

bush is as dark as it can be. ANY lighter shade is better.

i don't think Kerry can, or is inclined to, undo all the pretender's damage. but things will be brighter than they are now, IF he wins.



TO ALL OFFENDED BY "DILETTANTE":

*grow up*!!!! he got your attention, didn't he? threads die here faster than haitian gays. a little inflammatory flare of speech gets us to look @ that particular post. get over yourself, your immature outrage, & read the solidarity in his post.