Kerry a Liberal Who Will Win

[JHS]

We must beat Bush, its vital to our communities, our country, and our world. John Kerry is a true liberal who will win. Winning is what matters here. Dean will not beat Bush. In order to retake the White House, we must win at least some southern states. To meet that goal, we must pull in moderate voters and work to turn out African-Americans, who feel disenfranchised and not empowered. Kerry has the record and the policies to appeal to a broad spectrum of Democrats and just enough liberal Republicans, who are also sick of Bush. Former Georgia Senator Max Cleland supports him. According to the Boston Globe, even John McCain thinks Kerry is a good candidate! John Kerry is a decorated veteran, but ended up opposing the Vietnam War when he saw it for what it was. He believes in budget discipline, ending wasteful government spending, and targeted tax cuts to create jobs. At the same time, he has a very strong record on civil rights, gay rights, women’s issues, children’s issues, education, labor, and the environment! Earlier in his career, he was tough on crime as a prosecutor in Massachusetts. Yet, he opposes the death penalty in most instances, because he understands that innocent people are sometimes wrongly convicted. John Kerry is an internationalist, who will work to build coalitions of allies around the world to keep the world secure and at peace. Perhaps even more important, John Kerry is a strong supporter of human rights around the world and sees human rights as central to foreign policy! If you really care about liberal causes, if you want real action, support somebody who can win and actually make a difference for our country and our world. Support John Kerry if you truly want Bush out of the White House. Otherwise, you are wasting your time and our chance to really protect world peace, civil liberties, human rights, better jobs, a clean environment, and all the other things you claim to care about.

[XanaDUer]

1. Welcome JHS!

Kerry fan here!

[JHS]

2. We need to rally Kerry Supporters

We need to get people to really think. If they truly support liberal causes, they should be for Kerry. Kerry will win. John Kerry is going send the Shrub back to Texas, not make sure Bush stays in DC until all the rest of us Americans are unemployed, at war with the rest of the world, and poisoned with toxic water and air!

[revcarol]

3. Sorry. Voted for Patriot Act(not liberal), voted for tax cuts(not liberal)

voted for war powers to stupid(insanely naive to think * would be sane.) Great past, but in the present, which is what we are facing now, no.

[JHS]

7. Kerry Opposes Bush Tax Cuts!

Kerry does not support the Bush tax cuts he opposes them. Just read his economics speech. SEE: http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer?pagename=spc_2002_1203.

He is also a big advocate of protecting civil liberties. Don't you get that the White House tried to trap Kerry and the others with these votes. Rove wanted to make sure they were damned if they voted for those bills and damned with the majority of American voters if they did not. And thus, Rove made sure he screwed the Democrats!

[Nicholas_J]

37. Voted against them

in both 2000 and 2002...

Another Dean technique. One candidate may have voted for the cuts in 2000, but Dean lumps all of the other candidates together and says they voted for the Bush cuts, becasue one of the group did.

Another example of Deans attack campaign continually mis-representing the candidates.

[mdmc]

4. Welcome to DU!

:hippie:
Dean supporter -no beef with Kerry. Well, the war.

[Octafish]

5. Kerry is Bush's biggest nightmare

There are more than a million reasons why Kerry would make an outstanding President. Just to add to your excellent listing, JHS:

John Kerry would tie BCCI, Iraq-gate, and Iran-contra cocaine to the Bush Organized Crime Family. As a Senator, Kerry investigated the BCCI bank and Iran-contra affairs. In the process he exposed the Octopus of corruption and its tentacles from the Military-Industrial Complex, the Mafia, CIA renegades, CIA Nazis, neo-fascists, oligarchs and frustrated despots.

As President, Kerry would appoint an honest Attorney General and the jig would be up for the crooks now in government. Those who don't believe me may want to read what the Federation of American Scientists have to say about Senator Kerry and the investigation of BCCI. Please note how the CIA and President Poppy Doc Bush did everything possible to stonewall Kerry and buy time to shred away. Sounds familiar.


BCCI, THE CIA AND FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE

Introduction

EXCERPT...

On May 14, 1991, Senator Kerry wrote CIA Director Webster to again request the briefing paper on BCCI prepared by the CIA, as well as information on the CIA's own use of the bank. No reply was received in response to this letter from the CIA for over two months, during which BCCI was closed globally following its seizure in the United Kingdom by the Bank of England on July 5, 1991.

In the meantime, cleared staff requested a formal briefing from CIA staff concerning the CIA's knowledge of BCCI's activities. The CIA provided an oral briefing at its offices in June, 1991 at the "secret" level, consisting of very general information concerning BCCI's use by drug traffickers, material which was by then already largely a matter of public record. The briefer provided by the CIA to Congressional staff was unfamiliar with other basic information about BCCI, such as the names of BCCI's shareholders, including former Saudi intelligence chief Kamal Adham, the key figure in BCCI's secret takeover of First American, and the CIA's former principal contact in the Arab Middle East. Further, the briefer also appeared to be ignorant of the principal analytic documents concerning BCCI previously prepared by the CIA and disseminated to Executive Branch agencies, which contained this and other more important information about BCCI.(4)

On July 23, 1991, CIA director Webster replied to Senator Kerry's May 14 request by letter, admitting to the existence of two documents concerning BCCI, which were described as "extremely sensitive" and therefore restricted to being held by the Senate intelligence committee.(5) On reviewing these memoranda, Senator Kerry recognized that the earlier of the two documents, created in early 1986, contained startling information -- that the First American Bank in Washington was secretly owned by BCCI. The distribution list attached to the memorandum indicated that the CIA had communicated this information at the time to the Treasury Department. These was no indication that either Treasury or the CIA had ever advised the Federal Reserve, the primary regulator of First American, of this critical information.

Senator Kerry asked Judge Webster to declassify immediately the fact that the CIA had known as of 1986 that BCCI owned First American, and to begin the process of declassifying the entirety of both memoranda. On July 31, 1991, the CIA advised Senator Kerry that he could reveal the information concerning BCCI's secret ownership of First American, but no other information from the memos. The CIA had not yet acknowledged its own use of BCCI to the Subcommittee, or provided access to any other materials prepared by the CIA concerning BCCI.

CONTINUED...

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/11intel.htm

PS: A hearty welcome to DU, JHS! Thanks for stating the case so well and for helping rally supporters of Kerry for President.

[madmax]

6. And he takes NO PAC money

Kerry 2004!

:kick:

[Mechatanketra]

9. Uh, sure.

Kerry was my pick of the litter until the war vote. That flop hit me like a sucker punch, and destroyed my support -- not because I expect a candidate to agree with me on every issue (Dean, my current favorite, holds some disappointingly shallow views, like supporting the death penalty), but because I realized he's never going to be the "fighting candidate" people still keep selling him as.

It's like this: war for any reason but self-defense is (at least on paper) illegal. If you voted in favor of invading Iraq, then you either (a) believed Iraq to be an imminent military threat to the American people, (b) believed the whole "war is a crime" doctrine established after WWII was a mistake that needs to be corrected, or (c) believed it wasn't worth the trouble to oppose the issue and risk Republicans calling you bad names. Since the ostensible case made by the administration that Iraq was a threat requiring immediate action was a complete farce, this basically means either the Republicans can dupe you into approving atrocities, that they can bribe you into approving atrocities, or that they can scare you into approving atrocities. Any of those options make it exceedingly unlikely you'll do a damn thing to fix the damage they've caused this nation.

And for John Kerry, especially of all people, the Iraq issue was a softball pitch. IIRC, Kerry was facing reelection unopposed by a Republican candidate, and the Libertarian opponent was also anti-war, so taking an anti-war stance would not have driven voters to the other guy.

So hearing Kerry talk now about how outraged he is that Bush might have lied to him and to us doesn't really make me more enthusiastic. He should have known better. He chose to listen to Bush instead of crowds of openly Democratic dissenters -- and he ought to know, Bush ain't going to be voting for him or any of his fellow Democrats.

I have similar issues with the "get over it" sentiment. Again, it's not just a matter of disagreeing with an issue, it's about Kerry apparently not grasping that things mean stuff. The Florida mess doesn't bug the people it bugs because (or just because) it's a potential scandal they can tar the Republicans with -- they're bugged by the possibility that it can happen again. If you don't chase the crooks, you don't catch the crooks, and they stay at large to commit more crimes. I can understand the sentiment that no one's going to get Bush's presidency "annulled" at this point, but that doesn't mean the issue is entirely moot unless we're reasonably sure it can't happen again. And to the best of my knowledge, nobody running has any right to claim that, because nobody bothered looking -- practically the day after the SCOTUS decision, the 'official' Democrats (guys who get to talk to the media) were out to prove they weren't whiners.

I guess what I'm saying is, for someone who's supposed to be so ready to throw the book at the bad guys, he seems too damn willing to take their word about stuff, even if it means siding against people who might have voted for him. I want to vote for somebody who at least appears to understand -- really understand -- that the GOP are the bad guys.

[CWebster]

14. Right

He is clueless.

[molly]

43. NO he's not - he's pro-choice!!

[bearfan454]

27. Damn right Kerry is he worst nightmare for Bush.

Kerry better not fly in any small planes.

[KFC]

8. My choice absolutely

Dean is looking strong, but my choice right now is Kerry. The deciding factor - war hero.

I kind of doubt we will see a Dean/Kerry or Kerry/Dean ticket, though.

[IndianaGreen]

10. And how is Kerry going to lure the antiwar people

to vote for him?

He won't, he can't, he'll lose!

[JHS]

11. Why Kerry will Win

Kerry will win over his critics on a wide variety of issues from women's issues, gay rights, human rights, protecting the environment, children's issues, civil rights, protecting civil liberties, supporting veterans and working Americans, ideas on job creation, etc. WE MUST ALL LOOK BEYOND SINGLE ISSUES, EVEN THOUGH KERRY IS PRO-PEACE AND YOU SHOULD SUPPORT HIM THERE TOO (SEE BELOW).

John Kerry can put together a coalition of liberals, moderate Dems, and liberal Republicans that will win! On the war, look at his position more carefully! He wanted to get rid of Saddam, he did vote for the resolution, but he is against preemption and wanted the United Nations involved and the United States working with all of its allies to solve the problem. I will post at link to his speech at Georgetown in January 2003 that spells it out. I will post a link later today. You have to look at the position beyond the vote or else you don't get the whole picture. The situation with Iraq was not black and white, like Shrub would have us believe. I admit many people do not understand Kerry's position and that is really, really unfortunate. He has seen war and is definitely not and never will be PRO-WAR! KERRY IS PRO-PEACE AND PRO-HUMAN RIGHTS, BUT IF PEOPLE DO NOT SUPPORT HIM AND GET HIM ELECTED WE WILL BE STUCK WITH MORE BUSH AND MORE PREEMPTION AROUND THE WORLD!

[molly]

13. Thankyou for your post and welcome to DU!!!

we need people like you!

Within the next few months, Kerry will take the lead. As we get closer to the primary, he will rally the people. He's smart not to put all of his cards on the table now. He's got a great wife and a fighting staff. And, he interviews well.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Orwellian logic

"Kerry is pro-peace....and will never be pro-war."

Which is why he voted FOR the war.
Which is why he has NOT spoken out against it.

"He wanted UN involvement."

Which is why he voted FOR the war without UN involvement.

"I admit many people do not understand Kerry's position and that is really, really unfortunate."

What's unfortunate for Kerry is that many people DO understand his position on the war. He voted FOR it. And, there are many of us who will not vote for someone with blood on his hands and who betrayed the liberals in the Democratic party for his own selfish political gain.

But, keep trying to sell us this conciousless opportunist as a "liberal".

[Nicholas_J]

35. He did not vote fo the war

Which is another misrepresentation spread about by Dean in his attacks on other candidates. As a matter of fact, the Iraq Act of 2002, closely followed all international conventions involving going to war.

First exhaust all diplmatic methods to resolve the situation.

Second, if dimplmatic means are exhausted or have been found to fail gain international support for a military action.

Finally, if the two prior conditions fail, and there is evidence that the regime in question presents a clear and present danger to the United States, its strategic interests, or its citizens inside or outside of the U.S, , the Congress will support the use of force by the president, upon presentation of cogent evidence of this threat.

The act offers nothing more or less than getting the interantional community to examine and commit to removing a threat to the international community, ot a regime that has failed to keep its critical agreements with that community.

Or asserts a nations right to defend itself from and imminent threat, if there is clear proof of that threat.

You can only think TWO things about this act, according to its wording.

That Bush did meet all of the terms of the act, completetly, and then went to war because he made a valid case...

Then the act was a vote for the war.

Or that Bush did not meet the terms set by the act he signed, and went to war anyway...

In which case, this act was a vote against the war.

This act was not an act for the war...

If it was, war would have started immediately, on October 3rd. the day after it was signed...

No going to the U.N., no Unmovic and IAEE inspectors,just launch the cruise missiles and drop the MOAB's and JDAMS.

The act was conditional...

Now the only question is, since you call it a vote for war, do you beleive that Bush met the terms set for him by the act?

[IndianaGreen]

47. I don't see Kerry calling for Bush's impeachment...

Now the only question is, since you call it a vote for war, do you beleive that Bush met the terms set for him by the act?

Kerry was among those members of Congress that disregarded the millions of people that marched against the war. We could do no less, but to disregard supporting him for President. Kerry has shown no evidence that his policies regarding Iraq would be any different from Bush's, on the contrary, Kerry supports escalating the war by sending more troops to Iraq.

[ilpostino]

21. Jesus!

Are antiwar people really going to have to be LURED to vote for Kerry? A reasonable person would think that the alternative in the showdown election would be enough motivation for anyone to overcome any qualms about the war vote. I say fight for your antiwar candidate as hard as you can leading up to the nomination. But if it goes to someone like Kerry or Lieberman and a mass number of progressives decide to punish either one for that vote, the punishment will be self-inflicted and puritanical progressives will be guilty of the misery they will have helped inflict on this country. Again!

[onecitizen]

23. I, for one, will vote for any Dem that wins the Primary............

but up until then, I will fight like hell for my guy. THEN I will fight like hell for our candidate, whoever it is.

[phillybri]

12. Kudos on a great post.....

Kerry gives Bush nightmares! Check my sig for the ultimate "can't miss" ticket....

[bearfartinthewoods]

15. thank you for putting Kerry's name first in the thread title

it makes it so easy to find all the candidate threads by sorting by "discussion topic"

thanks again!

[flpoljunkie]

16. Regime Change Begins at Home. Vote JOHN KERRY.

JHS, admire your passion and conviction; you make a great case for John Kerry. He is the one who can bring Americans together to beat Bush!

[poskonig]

17. Kerry will defeat the Republicans by *boring* them to sleep.

:)

Dean '04

[molly]

24. Have you ever seen him in person? I have and he is a vibrant

charismatic very intelligent man. I happen to think Dean is stiff and not a crowd pleaser.

[CWebster]

18. Kerry can't even win a poll at a Democratic website

The only thing he has going for him is he is not Bush. Because--"most of the Democratic presidential contenders who might raise the issue on the campaign trail tied their hands in October when they backed the congressional resolution granting Mr Bush sweeping war powers" he is powerless to confront Bush on the enormous blunder. What good is his idiotic war hero status in challenging this criminal use of military power? Personally, I don't want a handicapped candidate, who is content to sweep the truth under the carpet. Ultimately, it is the country that suffers from what is still seething beneath the surface, leaving less hope for a more honest, open foot foward into the future.

[molly]

25. Who gives a * about polls? Kerry is far from "idiotic"

he is brilliant.

[CTLawGuy]

19. We dont need to win...

...a single Southern State to win. Just the states Gore won plus NV, NH, WV OR plus Florida

[molly]

26. Forget NV and NH

[placton]

28. I disagree on NV

it's a swing state, and Bush really pissed them off on the nuclear (or nook-you-lur) waste disposal issue.

[ButterflyBlood]

38. I don't see why NH isn't winnable either

since it was the closest state that went to Bush (REALLY went to Bush, unlike Florida). Polls there also show Bush's popularity is about equal to that of the nation on whole.

[blm]

45. Kerry will win both NV and NH.

Kerry opposed Yucca Mt. and Bush LIED about it in 2000. McCain already signalled to independent voters in NH that he thinks Kerry will be a fine president. That may not mean much here at DU, but, McCain was the most popular candidate in NH during election 2000 when he SOUNDLY defeated Bush. There are also ALOT of veterans there. Bush also lost alot of conservative support when he sabotaged Bob Smith's senate run. His longtime supporters hate Rove.

[chookie]

49. Will FL be immune to election fraud this time?

I've got to admire your optimism.

Jeb was re-elected. There was absolutely no accountability about what dirty tricks and crimes were pulled during Election 2000, and not only is the Bush Crime Family Machine firmly in place, but are now even more firmly entrenched.

I think we can write off El Floridor this time around, unless you can convince Jimmy Carter to come in and monitor the elections.

[DrGonzoLives]

20. I love attacks on supporters of other candidates

Otherwise, you are wasting your time and our chance to really protect world peace, civil liberties, human rights, better jobs, a clean environment, and all the other things you claim to care about.

Well, I guess since Kerry isn't #1 on my list at the moment, then I don't *care* about those things, do I? That's the way to get people on your side - tell them that they're not *real* liberals and berate them for not agreeing with you. Utterly fucking brilliant, really. :eyes:

[GOPBasher]

22. Definately my choice so far.

Kerry is my number 1 choice at the moment. That can still change. If Wesley Clark comes into the race, that may change. Maybe a Kerry/Clark ticket? That would make KKKarl Rove shit his pants.

[CMT]

29. Iraq is going to be an issue but not the way you may think

There is a growing percentage of Americans who feel that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq--a recent poll has it at 42%. The country is in chaos and there is almost daily sniper shooting which is slowly killing more of our troops. Bush has acknowledged that we may be "occupying" Iraq for quite some time. Troops who expected to come home will be staying longer. There still are no WMD found to back up the administration.

In the end, an anti-Iraqi war democrat such as Howard Dean could make a stronger case against the war than a candidate who voted for the war--no matter if that candidate may have reservations now--after the fact.

[northernsoul]

30. Welcome aboard JHS

:hi:

Kerry is not my top pick right now, but good on you for putting up a positive post for your guy and not taking shots at fellow Dems.

May the best Dem win the nomination, and then we must stand together shoulder to shoulder to DUMP BUSH in 2004

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Liberals are pro-war??

It's time to take the language back.

Kerry forfeited his claim to be a liberal when he voted for the slaughter in Iraq.

There are a few liberals running that we can vote for. Kerry doesn't qualify as one.

[Andy_Stephenson]

32. Um...it's all been said so I will state again...

for the record...I will never vote for Kerry...EVER!

[molly]

33. What is your plan when he wins the nomination?

[Andy_Stephenson]

36. I guess I won't be voting for President

Besides...Dean is going to win the nomination!

[Nicholas_J]

39. Dean cannot win the nomination

AS candidates drop out, the candidates that they choose to support will rise and rise in support. One of the most historically accurate things about drop outs i8n a campaign, is that their supporters will always begin to support the candidate that their original choice chooses to follow.

If Sharpton drops, those votes will go to either Kerry or Kucinich, the candidate who voices the most opposition to the death penalty and for tougher gun laws, as these issues are among the uppermost in concern to blacks, who have gotten behind Sharpton in such large numbers that national polls show him at higher levels than Dean, Graham, and tied with Edwards. No candidate is going to be given the nod who even slightly supports the death penalty for criminal cases, no matter how nuanced. So Dean has lost the black and latino vbote, no matter how nuanced his reasoning. They do not care about nuance, they care about the fact that more of their own are being fried, gassed, hanged, shot, injected, whatever, right now, not in some philosophical debate. Thats the one thing about minorities, they have to live with their heads in the real world, and not in the clouds.

Dean has no magic that will convince these people. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they are not baffled by B.S.

It just will not happen. They will not suddenly get to know Dean. They will look at his stance on guns, death penalty, the drug war, methadone clinics and the nighborhoods they are in, and so on.

Perhaps I am wrong. They may suddenly get to know Dean. And decide that they don't like him or his platform. This is most likely.

Dean may have worked for a while in the South Bronx. But he ran to white bread Vermont before the ink was dry on his medical degree.

Vermont, with three thousand Black citizens, out of over 600,000.

Yes, they do know which side of their bread is buttered. And a Dean bumper sticker is not plastered to that side of the bread.

Buts odds are, he will not win.

[Andy_Stephenson]

40. Then the Democratic Party will loose my vote

Because I am not going to have a DLCer crammed down my throat. Kerry is a criminal by way of his war vote. I don't vote for criminals.

[blm]

46. Biden-Lugar still meant Bush would go to war.

But, you don't seem to mind that, heh?

[indigo32]

44. Kerry has an almost equal stand on the Death Penalty

which I disagree with personally. I'm completely against the death penalty.
Dean also has objections to urban areas establishing stricter gun laws.
I think this is a completely false premise. Do you have a link to where Sharpton says he's gonna throw his support to Kerry? Kerry is surely as white bread as Dean, any day], and Kucinich has a ways to go before he becomes a factor, I'm sorry to say.

I would like to mention though... that I will support ANY Dem that gets the nomination.

[molly]

41. What your take on the diff between Kerry and Dean?

[Andy_Stephenson]

42. there are over 200 reasons

in this video

http://www.ourownmedia.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=259

as to why I cannot stomach Kerry...he is a criminal and will never get my vote.

[revcarol]

48. Did you hear his statement on Bush "admission?"

Mealy mouthed mush - just broadcast on Malloy

Here's your fighter to lead the party and the nation -NOT!!Malloy creamed him ....