How the Democratic Candidates Voted on Key Issues

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

http://www.adaction.org/regime/Take_Action/take_action.html

As usual, Gephardt and Kucinich voted for working families consistently, Gephardt only letting us down on the WTO and GATT. Gephardt gets 6 out of 7, Kucinich 5 out of 5. Braun gets her two votes right on, 2 out of 2, against NAFTA and GATT.

Edwards 3 out of 5, and Graham is more right-wing than Lieberman or Kerry with 1 out of 7, to Lieberman's 2 out of 6, and Kerry's 2 out of 7.

Judging by Dean's statements, he would have probably voted 2 out of 7, putting him well on the right wing with Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham. Edwards seems to be the closet to a "centrist".

I won't be supporting the anti-worker pro-corporate GOP-Lite wing, Lieberman, Graham, Kerry, and Dean.

"Americans for Democratic Action is the nation's oldest independent liberal political organization, dedicated to individual liberty and building economic and social justice at home and abroad. Since 1947, we have led public opinion and coalitions by taking early, principled stands on a broad range of domestic, foreign, economic, military, social and environmental issues. "

http://www.adaction.org/

[robbedvoter]

1. Don't look! Your "left wingers" are running from the NAACP!

This is an argument for making one's choice based on a multitude of criteria, not just one. For instance, working women might resent Kuchinich extreme anti choice positions (votes) and those who care about civil rights might be bothered about the burning flag amendment vote.
Then again, peace and war, loss of lives (based on lies) - is quite important for some of us too - and that splits the field quite differently. In light of all this, your post is silly.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

3. This is a comparison of how they voted

Are you disappointed that your candidate is a right-winger on jobs? The voting records speak for themselves. I make my decisions based on issues that affect me. I'm not suggesting anyone supports a candidate based on one issue alone.

Of course, economics and jobs aren't just "one issue" - this is about living standards in the US, and that affects everything else, like health, education, retirement, and Social Security.

Why is this "silly"? I'm not supposed to judge politicians by their votes?

[welshTerrier2]

7. Approaches to Voting

I make my decisions based on issues that affect me.

This is very interesting ... it probably reflects the process most voters use when they decide how to vote ...

I've always thought, perhaps naively, that one should vote based on what one believes is "the right thing to do" and on what is best for society ...

For example, I vote for higher taxes on high wage earners although this means I would pay more taxes ... I vote to increase local tax rates to support the school system although I have no kids ... I support affirmative action programs although I do not benefit from them ...

I don't want to sound like some kind of martyr or saint ... i'm not ... but I grew up in very idealistic times (the 60's) and I can't see how we'll ever make the world a better place if everyone votes their own interests ...

On edit:

btw, thanks for starting this thread ... i wish we could all get past the "candidate hype" and start looking more deeply at the issues !!!

[robbedvoter]

22. Don't have a candidate. It's silly to put labels (RV-progressive)

based on one single issue - relevant as it is. I am actually still in the process of deciding who is my candidate. Your info is useful, your conclusions are extremely silly (had I had a candidate I may have used a word like "offensive)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

32. You think my conclusions are silly, I think your premise is silly

It's not one single issue, did you even read the article? We are talking about a wide range of issues that affect the vast majority of Americans.

Sure, it's silly to put labels, I'm sure you never do that, right? Guess what, I'm still in the process of deciding who is my candidate too - will it be Kucinich, who I really like, or Gephardt, who is more electable? Or will Clark support my side of the issues?

I know who I'm not voting for, though, Lieberman and the rest of the pro-corporate Dems.

[tjdee]

5. Who's running from the NAACP?

Kerry and Edwards are going to be there, and Kucinich wants to be in Washington for a vote. Unlike some candidates, they have current jobs and try to work all of their responsibilities in.

[VoteClark]

2. Don't agree but not silly, good post

I think that you are incorrect about Kerry. Somebody on here posted something about Kerry's record that showed he was pretty liberal. The rest I pretty much argee with. I like Clark. He is the furthest left you can go without losing the election in November against Bush. Lieberman is the most conservative, I agree. Dean is really liberal on some issues and really conservative on others. Edwards is a good guy who is probably the most honest of the bunch, pretty sad considering he is a trial lawyer hehe.
I encourage you to check out Clark. You will find him a viable option. Clark has gained considerable ground in the last four weeks. When polls ask if people would support him, he usually ranks 2 or 3. I think that is good considering that he has not even formally entered the race and only invest a few thousand dollars. Dean and the others have spent millions and been in the race much longer.

J4Clark

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. Dean, Liberman, Kerry, and Graham are the same on these issues

When it comes to jobs and the economy there's not much difference between those candidates.

I was an early supporter of the "Draft Clark" team, and if he decides to run he could very well get my vote, as long as he comes out against letting corporations fire American workers and send those jobs overseas. He does that, he's got my vote.

[SteveG]

27. Kerry's overall ADA rating for 2002

can be found here http://www.adaction.org/SenateVR2002.htm


Overall ADA Rating
In the Senate
Kerry is 85%,
Grahm is 75%
Leiberman is 85%
Edwards is 75%

in the House
Gephart is 95%
Kucinich is 90%

just a note,
Jim Jeffords ADA rating is 95%, Hillary Clinton's is 95% and Ted Kennedy is 100%

[sangh0]

6. Misleading subject line

It's not "key issues" - It's "key INT'L TRADE issues"

I agree that trade is a "key" issue, but it's just one of several key issues, and the subject line, while not untrue, is misleading in that it suggests that the info represents their votes on a number of key issues.

[MarianJack]

8. Very Good!

Let's sow the seeds of division that will only lead to another 1968, 1972 & 1980. That way we won't have to deal with any notion as banal as winning! Maybe we should keep our eye on the fact that ANY of the 9 announced or 2 rumored candidates is vastly superior to bush jr. Nah! That would be too much like making sense!

[Allah Akbar]

9. There is such a thing as winning the battle and losing the war

If a Dem is elected and we continue on down the path to making this country a 3rd world hell hole where everyone is flipping burgers or digging ditches for minimum wage and our children can't even go to school because there is no money, what in the hell would we have won I ask you?

[sangh0]

10. Clinton supported Fast-Track, NAFTA, GATT, etc

and under his administration, poverty decreased, and the living standards of the bottom percentiles increased.

Some people would rather lose the battle and the war.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

13. What did Clinton say about NAFTA then?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Economics/ThreeYears_NAFTA.html

On July 10, 1997, Bill Clinton released his Administration's report on three years of the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA).
By law, Clinton was required to release the report by July 1. But he missed the deadline-no doubt to ensure that the report would vindicate NAFTA, which has been under constant scrutiny and criticism since well before its ratification. As InterPress Service (IPS) reported on July 3, 'The delay appears reminiscent of the Administration's handling of a recent investigation of plant closings and labor practices under NAFTA, observers say. Release of that report was delayed for months, during which time the Administration repeatedly disputed allegations it was seeking to suppress and sanitize the document."

And what did the Clinton Administration conclude?
NAFTA had a modest positive effect," says the report's executive summary, i'on U.S. net exports, income, investment and jobs supported by exports."
...

Clinton and the Republican then decided to stop publishing the statistics about job losses under NAFTA, since they clearly showed we lost more jobs than we gained, and it had little positive effect on living standards and wages.

What Clinton DID do that helped the economy was roll back Reagan's tax cuts for the rich and cut the deficit, which had a lot to do with the growing economy under his terms.

[sangh0]

15. Which just goes to show

That you can win one battle, lose another, and still win the war. That's why using the votes on one issue to conclude that "we won the battle, but lost the war" is a useless endeavor.

I opposed NAFTA, but that doesn't mean that voting for a "free trade" Democrat is a prediction of a "lost war".

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

11. So why is Kerry being so divisive then?

Why is Kerry pushing a pro-corporate, anti-worker, anti-jobs "free trade" platform that hurts the majority of Americans? Why can't Kerry and the other pro-corporate candidates stop being divisive and re-join the center/left Democratic party?

You're supporting Kerry? I'm support Gephardt or Kucinich. Why am I being divisive and you aren't?

[sangh0]

16. Kerry isn't divisive

but you sure are.

You're supporting Kerry? I'm support Gephardt or Kucinich. Why am I being divisive and you aren't?

Because you're the one attacking on the basis of untruths.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

24. Kerry is pro-NAFTA and pro-GATT - that's the truth

His record is clear. That's not my opinion, that's HIS opinion. If he changes his position, then we'll talk. Right now I'm not voting for him.

[sangh0]

25. That's pretty cowardly

You said a lot more besides "Kerry is pro-NAFTA and pro-GATT ", but I don't blame you for trying to hide from that. You also said that Kerry was "pro-corporate", "anti-jobs", and "divisive". You also claimed that your link was to how the candidates voted on key "issues" (not the plural) when it really only addressed one issue.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

28. You're being deceptive

Pro-NAFTA and Pro-GATT IS pro-corporate. NAFTA and GATT ARE anti-jobs, at least anti-American jobs. YOU said I was being divisive, for saying that I support the center/left wing of the party, instead of your favorite candidate, who is a member of the right wing of the party.

The vote score card that I linked to was on SEVEN issues, not just one. They happen to be very important issues that affect the majority of Americans, their paychecks, their retirement, their health care, and their living standards.

If Kerry wants my support, he can start voting my way. Otherwise, I'm voting for Gephardt or Kucinich.

[sangh0]

29. You're being deceptive

by saying that my "favorite candidate", Al Sharpton, is "a member of the right wing of the party."

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

30. If you're voting for Al Sharpton

Then I apologize. I thought you were the Kerry supporter. I stand by what I said in this thread, and I backed up my statements with the candidate's records.

Some people on DU want to keep the corporate/jobs issue as quiet as possible, and pretend certain Democrat's anti-worker voting record is irrelevant. It is quite relevant.

Since all the big money in the campaign has been for the pro-corporate candidates, it's obvious why.

[sangh0]

26. That's pretty cowardly

You said a lot more besides "Kerry is pro-NAFTA and pro-GATT ", but I don't blame you for trying to hide from that. You also said that Kerry was "pro-corporate", "anti-jobs", and "divisive". You also claimed that your link was to how the candidates voted on key "issues" (not the plural) when it really only addressed one issue.

[MaverickX]

12. trade protectionism isn't necessarily helpful to working families

After all tariffs are regressive taxes that hit the goods bought by working families. Also it's funny that some major industries also supports protectionism to shield them from foreign competition. I wouldn't judge a politician by their views on trade, otherwise Pat Buchanan would look progressive.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. who said anything about trade protectionism?

I support free and fair trade. If a Mexcian company wants to sell the cars they make in the US, that's a-okay with me. I wouldn't even necessarily want to put a tariff on them.

I don't support letting US corporations fire American workers and send the jobs overseas just so they can pay us less, or import workers from overseas temporarily to drive wages down, then send them packing.

That's not free trade at all.

[MaverickX]

17. oh please..

Gephardt and Kucinich support slapping tariffs on foreign imports. How in the heck can you prevent U.S. companies from going overseas?

[w13rd0]

19. Not only that...

...but let's catch a really big tiger by the tail and toss it into the mix. US subsidies to farmers and various other industries, as well as European countries in a like manner, have made it IMPOSSIBLE for Africa to compete in the world market despite having a rich resevoir of natural resources. How do we support the small farmer and small businessman, while not crippling the ability of developing nations to improve living conditions for all their people? Should we care? If we don't, and impoverishment and unemployment put them in positions where being a rebel or a terrorist seems like a step up, who do we blame?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

21. give me a break!

I don't necessarily support tariffs, but I don't have a knee-jerk reaction against them either. Should we just exempt corporations from taxes altogether like the Republicans want?

Of course we can stop US companies from going overseas - they are subject to the law like everyone else. If they want to move overseas, we'll revoke their corporate charter, and the CEOs can move to China, become Chinese citizens, and start a business over there.

If a corporation doesn't like the US, why should they have the benefit of our corporate charters?

[sangh0]

18. You said something about protectionism

You mentioned the "free trade" agreements, and those issues include protectionism and tariffs. In fact, the removal of tariffs are the largest, and most contentious, parts of these agreements.

It's a wonder that someone who makes such a big fuss over this issue has so little knowledge about it. I find it very hard to believe that someone who truly cares about this issue would not understand what protectionism has to do with it.

[Cocoa]

20. trade is a perfectly valid basis to judge a candidate on

unless you're obsessed with putting people on a left-right continuum, that is. For me, the left-right thing is of limited use.

You could just as easily lump the pro-NAFTA people in with Newt Gingrich as lumping Gephardt in with Buchanan.

Most of all those lost jobs we keep hearing about are manufacturing jobs, by the way.

[gully]

23. I am afraid...

you need to change the good/bad category a bit...

Kerry actually has a more liberal voting record then Kucinich does. His over all 'liberal quotent' rating from global stewards is 93% vs Kucinich at 90%.

See here for more information.

http://www.globalstewards.org/democrats.htm#lib

Kerry has been stronger then DK on civil rights, the enviroment, he's almost even with him on animal rights.

BTW, Im a Dean supporter...

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

31. All the Democrats are socially liberal, but some are right-wing on jobs

The Democratic party is in no danger of becoming anti-choice or anti-gay. The Democrats are in no danger of becoming anti-civil rights. The Democratic party is not going to become anti-environment.

The Democrats ARE becoming anti-worker, anti-union, and pro-corporate. That's what I fear. That's why I'm supporting Gephardt or Kucinich - they are pro-choice, pro-LGBT, pro-civil rights, AND pro-worker and anti-corporate, which you cannot say about Kerry, Dean, Lieberman, or Graham.