Kerry is a Risky Choice, But the "No Deals" Guy is Progressives Best Hope

[Raya]

Kerry is RISKY since he has a long public record that can be used against him. But, he is the PROGRESSIVE option who offers great hope for us Democrats. Remember that in 2002, Dean was originally positioned as the moderate candidate with practical experience implementing Health Care solutions. That is a fact of the origin of the Dean campaign before Trippi convinced him to vocally oppose the War. And Lieberman joined the race against Kerry (not against Dean) as the middle of the road DLC candidate.

Remember again, Kerry is the one who was viewed as having such a crazily liberal record (ADA 93% LCV 96% -- only Wellstone more radical in senate) that he could not be elected.

That has been why Kerry has been nixed as a Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate time and time again.

Those are the facts. The presidential campaign process seems to have turned things upside down.

Most important, John Kerry is the LEAST OBLIGATED of any candidate. No Big Union, Big Money, Big Endorsements that Kerry had to depend on or do deals with
to get where he his. He depended on his "Band of Brothers," long-time supporters, and his own back-pocket.

Won't it be great to have a President who didn't have to make back-room deals!

[IrateCitizen]

1. Am I the only progressive tired of these threads???

Kerry is another politician who sold out his principles in voting for IWR and PATRIOT Act, not to mention his support for corporate-managed trade. I'm certain he did all of those things thinking he would be able to really do good after the "big win", but I guess I'm just old fashioned in that kind of way.

Like I've said before, if nominated, I'll vote for him. But I'll also see him as what he really is -- another twist-in-the-wind, poll-driven Beltway insider who won't be willing to put forth the personal political capital necessary to affect any kind of real change.

No way in hell he's getting my primary vote. That is already pledged 100% to Dennis Kucinich.

[Mairead]

5. No, but they're potentially important.

The problem is the 'winning is everything' mentality. It's like the objections raised about the neo-anarchists (Bader-Meinhoff et al.) in the '60s: they want to tear down the system, but they see no need to think about what happens after that. The tearing-down is sufficient.

That's the problem I see with the 'electable' crowd.

[library_max]

20. Backatcha

And all the rest who want to "tear down" the Democratic Party without thinking about what happens after that.

[IrateCitizen]

35. I don't see people "tearing down" the Democratic Party

Unless you mean that by actually trying to pull the debate back toward populism and getting the Party to represent PEOPLE first, we're "tearing it down".

[library_max]

41. Okay, thought experiment.

Suppose the Democratic Party doesn't go the way you want it to go. What then? Support it, or try to wreck it in favor of the Greens or some other farther-left alternative?

What is voting against the nominee out of spite except tearing down the Democratic Party?

[IrateCitizen]

43. library_max, please review my numerous posts on this subject

I have stated time and time again that, should John Kerry receive the nomination, I will most definitely vote for him. But I will also not do so in any kind of certainty that he will be a great progressive savior (as some keep trying to portray him) -- but rather that he will most likely be a twist-in-the-wind politician and it will be the job of progressives to keep the heat on him while he's in office.

I hope I am wrong, but I see him as running a very Clintonesque Presidency. He may propose one or two progressive reforms in the beginning. Then, the right wing will start howling, and he will not be willing to risk the personal political capital necessary to stand up to them and the Beltway crowd. Instead, he'll back off and start compromising with them -- the end result being moving policy even further right in this country, if not quite as far right as under complete Republican control. Furthermore, the Democratic Party will suffer because it will be seen by many Americans as standing for tepid, pointy-headed intellectualism rather than as a Party that will stand up and fight for the middle and working classes.

Like I said, I hope I'm wrong -- but I'm more pessimistically confident I'll be right. That's why I'm voting for Kucinich in the primary.

[library_max]

50. Good for you.

And I apologize for not keeping better track of your position.

But there certainly are take-my-ball-and-go-home sentiments expressed on DU at regular intervals, by supporters of various candidates. And every post that emphasizes the negative, especially in the context of what we will do if candidate X gets nominated, encourages more to think along the lines of "sending a message" rather than voting to unseat Bush.

You've got every right to your opinion, and every right to support whoever you prefer in the primaries. But after the convention, we've all got to pull together, and it doesn't help us do that if we keep crapping all over the candidates who do not happen to be our individual favorites. If I took this opportunity to say something nasty about Kucinich, for example, wouldn't I be taking a chance on alienating your support? Given that, wouldn't it be helpful to curb our nastiness about all the candidates?

[Terwilliger]

55. no, because Kucinich is the only one I'll vote for

You'll have to change your party's name before you can declare that there isn't actually a democracy around here.

[bread_and_roses]

61. I too fear this scenario

although Kerry is my second choice, after DK. You summarized my hesitations about Kerry almost perfectly. However, ever the optimist, I have a faint hope that if he achieves the Presidency Kerry's more Progressive past will re-emerge. But for that to happen, should he be the nominee it is critical that he recieve an overwhelming victory and that he owe a goodly part of that turn-out to progressives/activists. A marginal victory is going to make him fear anything but "middle of the road" and that, these days, is rightward.

[Nicholas_J]

75. Kerry wrote

The sections of the Hyde Park Declaration on Progressive Internationalism, so the first thing he will do is turn over as much of the Iraq conflict as possible to the U.N.

SOrry he will stick to his fiscal progressive ideas as well. He always has. Which is why most of the very liberal legilation that he has written ended up going bi-partisan in order for republicans to take control over the amount of money the federal government would pay for joint state/federal programs. For example, Kerry and another junior senator I cnat even remember wrote the legislation that started the Kid Care programs. Kennedy then signed onto it and the bill became Kennedy/Kerry. But that bill had the federal government picking up 75 percdnt of the tab. The Republicans freaked out as the bill was getting a lot of play in the media, and it was very popular with the public. So then Orrin Hatch supports it bi-pastisan, Kerry gets knocked off because he is the junior senator on the legislation, and Hatch and Ginrrich reduce the federal portion down to match the medicaid levels of 60/40 %.

Kerry always starts legislation based on high levels of federal share of the money. He always starts legislation hesays he is going to start. He has stated that the first bill he will send to congress will be for universal health care. And that will be the first bill he sends. His silution to rasing many for programs. Tax the rich. WHen it has been pointed out to him that he is rich he saiys. tax me, I can afford my taxes to be raised.

AS With ANWR, which he states he would have filibustered, he will soimply make sure that the public knows which republican members of congress opposed the legislation when they come up for re-election. He will do so very clearly and publicly and on every news program he can. Kerry has the most liberal record iin congress and nothing has hu=indered him in the past from voting in this manner. When he went after Reagan and Ollie North. many of his fellow democrats in Congress started avoiding hims as they flat out stated that the Reagan administration would destroy his career:


Kerry went after Oliver North more than a year before Iran-contra broke, exposing the connection between the U.S.-supported Nicaraguan contras and drug trafficking. And when Arthur Liman, the chief counsel of the Iran-Contra Committee, agreed to a White House demand that the committee be permitted to see only edited portions of North's diaries, Kerry refused to go along with the whitewash and persuaded the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to subpoena the North diaries. This did not endear him to his colleagues, who above everything were eager to avoid impeaching Ronald Reagan.

Kerry's staff did not want him to address the explosive POW-MIA issue--nor was he eager to touch "the third rail in his life," as one friend put it. Still, as a decorated veteran he had political capital on Vietnam, which brought with it responsibility. After exhaustive and emotional hearings a Kerry-chaired special committee issued a unanimous (12-0) report that laid to rest the harrowing and commercially robust fantasy that U.S. POWs are still being held in Indochina. The report opened the door to the normalization of relations with Vietnam

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96aug/beatty/beatty.htm

Sorry, if you get the idea that Kerry is going to back down, you wont get it from his record.

YOu will find such evidence in a number of other candidates careeers.

[Raya]

80. Take a chance on the man. OK

[WiseMen]

49. Good point. I think

[Iverson]

19. not by a longshot

I suppose that putting "progressive" in all caps makes it more persuasive.
:eyes:

[Carolina]

59. no, I hear ya

"another twist-in-the-wind, poll-driven Beltway insider who won't be willing to put forth the personal political capital necessary to affect any kind of real change." So well put.

Why won't the pols and the supporters of any given candidate wait until all the primary voters have a chance to have their say.

Kerry is being foisted on us. See my post: Any Dem who trusted this fool ...

[Nicholas_J]

73. Yup, the public knows

about Kerry's extremely liberal record and Democrats are coming out in record numbers and voting for him and his extreme liberalism in record numbers. Seems that a lot of people are tired of conservatism, fiscal or otherwise. Dean has destroyed himself on the fiscal conservatism that is going to take away the middle class tax cut and nothing proved that nore than Iowa, where the two candidates who stated they were going to reperal the entire Bush tax cut were slaughtered.

Gephardt did the nation a great favor when pointing out what Denas fiscal conservatism as Governor meant, cutting social spending to balance budgets, supporting Gingrich's ideas on redusing medicare and social security spending. The negative campaigning destroyed Gephardts chanbces, but he exposed Dean and this made all of the difference in the results. The vast amount of baby boomers getting ready to retire, and those already retired do not even want to hear a hint about cutting programs that their lives are going to rely on shortly.

And they were made aware of Deans past actions and statements which count a lot more to most people than campaign promises.

[Sensitivity]

85. Just went to kerry web site. Not bad. Got to be open minded.

[library_max]

86. Good for you - especially the "open minded" part. /nt

[quinnox]

2. Kerry is risky, but it is time for a true liberal

candidate to represent the Dems. At least if he doesn't win, he will go down fighting. And he has a good chance at winning.

[WiseMen]

83. Judy on CNN just called Kerry "Liberal, by any definition of the word"

[wabeewoman]

3. Least obligated of any candidate...

Gawd, the world is really turned upside down. Black is white. Kerry hasn't taken the most special interest money of any senator. You can sell Kerry as better than bush but please don't tell me he is least obligated or doesn't make back-room deals! I suppose he was really against the war too.

[Raya]

7. That "special interest "story was bogus. That has been proven. Next?

[wabeewoman]

11. Evidence please

"Kerry, a 19-year veteran of the Senate who fought and won four expensive political campaigns, has received nearly $640,000 from lobbyists, many representing telecommunications and financial companies with business before his committee, according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. "

I know it is expensive to be elected/re-elected. My beef is claiming not to take special interest money when you clearly do. Speaks to the honesty of a candidate. Just tell the truth.

[library_max]

26. See post #9. /nt

[Snivi Yllom]

38. see my post #36 below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=274812#275194

[flpoljunkie]

9. You might want to read this earlier post re JK and "special interests"

http://www.publiccitizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1639

Feb. 3, 2004

Kerry Ranks Near Bottom in Senate on Money From PACs and Lobbyists

Statement from Nick Nyhart, Executive Director of Public Campaign Action Fund; Chellie Pingree, President of Common Cause; and Joan Claybrook, President of Public Citizen

According to a Jan. 31 Washington Post story, presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is beholden to the very special interests he says he will dismiss from the White House if elected. The Post based its erroneous conclusion on an analysis of the money Kerry has raised from lobbyists while he was a senator.

But the Post paints an inaccurate picture using an arbitrary statistic. A more accurate indicator of whether a candidate has ties to special interests is whether that candidate receives political action committee (PAC) as well as lobbyist money, and if so, how much. An analysis of PAC and lobbying contributions combined shows Kerry is near the bottom in receiving such funds when PAC money is averaged from 1993 through the present and lobbyist money is averaged from 1990 through present. Further, the lobbyist money that Kerry has taken in the presidential campaign is less than 1 percent of his total money raised.

Not only has Kerry historically refused to take PAC money, but his record shows that he been a leader for more than a decade in full reform of campaign financing, advocating for clean public money not only for presidential but also congressional campaigns.

Kerry was the lead sponsor with the late Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) on a measure that would have authorized clean money in all federal congressional elections and was a leader in pressing for congressional public financing in the 1992 and 1993 campaign finance reform bills. Although those bills passed, they were not enacted.

Other Democratic presidential candidates such as former Gov. Howard Dean and Sen. John Edwards also have endorsed campaign finance reform. Dean has endorsed public financing and reform of the presidential public funding system. Edwards played a leadership role in the effort to pass the McCain-Feingold bill and has endorsed reform of the presidential public funding system. President Bush has not endorsed either.

[WiseMen]

46. Who is Kerry Obligated to. Unions? Gore? Clinton? DLC? Wall-Street?

[corporatewhore]

4. NO HE AINT PROGRESSIVE

he voted for our jobs to go to CHILD SLAVES
he voted the theft and rape of indigenous peoples lands (like my grandmther)
Hevoted for abill of rights for corporations(while sending ours throughthe shedder)
he voted for Geneticly modified foods
He voted for public services to be privatised
When he voted forpermenant trade relations w/china NAFTA/GATT/WTO bushes fast track for the Ftaa
(he did try to get an amendment tha required human rights but it didnt work out and voted for it any way w/o it)
He gave bush permission to SEND MY FATHER TO SERVE IN AN UNJUST WAR
He handed bush the shredder he used to destroy the Bill of Rights with the PATRIOT ACT

[Raya]

14. Wellstone was part of group encouraging Kerry to run in the past.

Are we all so much more progressive that Wellstone and Kennedy

[corporatewhore]

15. I dont care about wellstone or kennedy what i care about it that kerry

gave his stamp of approval of bush sending my father to serve in an unjust war
what i care about are civil rights
what i care about is that our jobs are going to fucking SLAVES

[adamrsilva]

47. Wellstone and Kennedy voted against the war

.

[WiseMen]

53. Give the guy a break. He is our candidate.

[Iverson]

21. details, details (n/t)

(n/t)

[library_max]

24. Details are exactly what we didn't get from post #4.

What bills is CW talking about, what laws? Who else voted for them, which of the other candidates supported them? Every senator except Russ Feingold voted for the PATRIOT ACT, including Paul Wellstone. All we have here is CW's personal opinions, not any kind of voting record for Kerry.

[corporatewhore]

31. Kucinich didnt vote to shred our civil liberties

Kerry didnvote for NAFTA/GATT/WTO and the bush fast track to the FTAA (he did try to get an amendment that would require workers rights but it didnt work out and voted for it any way)

[IrateCitizen]

His vote on Fast Track is a fact

And although he should be lauded for trying to get an amendment passed that would tie specific labor and environmental protections to trade deals, when that effort failed he STILL voted for Fast Track.

In that one act, he proved that commericial interests STILL outweigh human and environmental interests. Now we are stuck with a bill under which there will be NO labor or environmental protections in future trade deals.

But then again, that's exactly how the corporate interests who write the trade deals and fast track and everything else want it. Whether he did so consciously or unwittingly is immaterial -- in the end he helped further empower corporations in the global trade game, when the US is in the unique position of actually being able to bring things back under control if they wanted to.

Also, do you dispute Kerry's vote on the IWR? I'm sure you can provide the reasons we've heard ad nauseum as to WHY he voted for it, but do you dispute the FACT that he did, indeed, vote for it?

[RichM]

6. Oh sure.Let's pretend an opportunistic pandering sellout is "progressive."

You couldn't possibly sell out more than Kerry did. I doubt I could ever bring myself to vote for him -- and if I did, it would be with my teeth clenched, & an overwhelming sense of loathing and disgust.

[Raya]

10. Progressive Groups Have Denounced WP "Special Interest" Spin as Bogus

Feb. 3, 2004

Kerry Ranks Near Bottom in Senate on Money From PACs and Lobbyists


Statement from Nick Nyhart, Executive Director of Public Campaign Action Fund; Chellie Pingree, President of Common Cause; and Joan Claybrook, President of Public Citizen

According to a Jan. 31 Washington Post story, presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is beholden to the very special interests he says he will dismiss from the White House if elected. The Post based its erroneous conclusion on an analysis of the money Kerry has raised from lobbyists while he was a senator.

But the Post paints an inaccurate picture using an arbitrary statistic. A more accurate indicator of whether a candidate has ties to special interests is whether that candidate receives political action committee (PAC) as well as lobbyist money, and if so, how much. An analysis of PAC and lobbying contributions combined shows Kerry is near the bottom in receiving such funds when PAC money is averaged from 1993 through the present and lobbyist money is averaged from 1990 through present. Further, the lobbyist money that Kerry has taken in the presidential campaign is less than 1 percent of his total money raised.

Not only has Kerry historically refused to take PAC money, but his record shows that he been a leader for more than a decade in full reform of campaign financing, advocating for clean public money not only for presidential but also congressional campaigns.

Kerry was the lead sponsor with the late Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) on a measure that would have authorized clean money in all federal congressional elections and was a leader in pressing for congressional public financing in the 1992 and 1993 campaign finance reform bills. Although those bills passed, they were not enacted.

Other Democratic presidential candidates such as former Gov. Howard Dean and Sen. John Edwards also have endorsed campaign finance reform. Dean has endorsed public financing and reform of the presidential public funding system. Edwards played a leadership role in the effort to pass the McCain-Feingold bill and has endorsed reform of the presidential public funding system. President Bush has not endorsed either.

(emphasis added)

http://www.publiccitizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1639

[Snivi Yllom]

36. oh yeah?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/PresFR4Q.asp

Employees of the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom contributed $99,800 to John Kerry last year, making them the most generous group of contributors to a Democratic presidential candidate in the 2004 campaign, according to a preliminary study of fourth-quarter campaign finance filings by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?ID=N00000245&Cycle=All
JOHN KERRY (D)
Top Contributors
Cycle: 2004 All Cycles*
Mintz, Levin et al
$225,401

Time Warner
$146,685

Skadden, Arps et al
$124,550

Harvard University
$123,450

Hill, Holliday et al
$111,300

Citigroup Inc
$111,106

Goldman Sachs
$108,100

Hale & Dorr
$106,450

Robins, Kaplan et al
$105,950

Piper Rudnick
$83,500

FleetBoston Financial
$83,300

MacAndrews & Forbes
$79,000

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
$77,800

Foley, Hoag & Eliot
$73,350

Verizon Communications
$70,418

Raytheon Co
$66,400

News Corp
$64,950

Morgan Stanley
$64,200

Akin, Gump et al
$63,400

Goulston & Storrs
$62,300


* All Cycles displays total contributions to this candidate's federal campaigns since the 1989-1990 election cycle.

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/leadpac_summ.asp?id=N00000245&cycle=All
Citizen Soldier Fund
Affiliate: JOHN KERRY (D)
Established: 12/17/01

2001-2002 SUMMARY
TOTAL*
HARD
SOFT

Receipts
$2,003,578
$1,011,494
$1,353,400

Expenditures
$2,069,400
$982,751
$1,424,059


Kerry is sneaky, he does not need PACs, he just gets a lot of corporate types to give money.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/sector.asp?CID=N00000245&cycle=2002

Sector Total PACs Indivs
Agribusiness $61,389 ($265) $61,654
Communic/Electronics $929,134 $3,510 $925,624
Construction $202,325 $0 $202,325
Defense $94,450 $0 $94,450
Energy/Nat Resource $120,161 $2,000 $118,161
Finance/Insur/RealEst $2,010,966 $17,809 $1,993,157
Health $409,146 ($1,000) $410,146
Lawyers & Lobbyists $1,630,457 $2,517 $1,627,940
Transportation $106,916 $1,000 $105,916
Misc Business $981,626 $3,000 $978,626
Labor ($644) ($2,250) $1,606
Ideology/Single-Issue $149,834 $11,032 $138,802
Other $722,180 $0 $722,180

[Raya]

40. So What. Individual donors have to work for some company. Unless self-empl

Are you asking anyone who donates 50-2k to a campaign that
they have to be unemployed or quit their job so that some
idiot doesn't tabulate all the individual donations and
say "Kerry got money from industry X," really?

[Sensitivity]

52. As It Says "OpenSecret" nothing to hide if it is BAU

[WiseMen]

84. Kerry just addresses this in detail on HardBall

[Raya]

48. Know a couple guys who felt that way. Now they love kerry

[corporatewhore]

8. I quoth Raw Deal Kerry

"I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts court's decision."
I am a proud queer latina saying he is against gay marriage is like saying hes against a brown and a white marryning
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/02/05/sjc... /

[no name no slogan]

12. "Seperate but Equal"

EXACTLY my thoughts on this, too. When has seperate but equal EVER worked for the "minority" in this country, anyway?

The Massachusetts Supreme Court was right. We'd be setting up a "queer ghetto" with "civil unions" legislation. It's second class citizenship for GLBT folk.

Although Kerry is the "lesser of four evils" (as far as the "front runners" go), it's still going to be tough to pull the lever for him in the fall, if that's what it comes to. I'll do it AGAIN, for the Dems, but grudgingly. As will a lot of other progressives, IMHO.

[mvd]

13. Good point!

Kerry does have a good record overall. Often, people point out the bad things, but ignore all the good things. Kerry made a mistake with his IWR vote, but I'm not willing to be a one-issue person in this election. I see his voting against additional money for Iraq as just an attempt to correct the problem caused by Bush - he can use that excuse.

[ibegurpard]

16. The "No-Deals Guy?"

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I'm living in an Orwell novel.

[Raya]

17. Kerry has a 30-year reputation for that style. Wellstone was strong backer

[corporatewhore]

18. I call him the Raw Deal

PATRIOT ACT
IWR
NAFTA/GATT/WTO
saying that I shouldnt have equal rights because iam queer
Akll Raw Deals

[Snivi Yllom]

22. this is a joke right?

Most important, John Kerry is the LEAST OBLIGATED of any candidate. No Big Union, Big Money, Big Endorsements that Kerry had to depend on or do deals with
to get where he his. He depended on his "Band of Brothers," long-time supporters, and his own back-pocket.

Won't it be great to have a President who didn't have to make back-room deals!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=269640

AP Exclusive: Kerry Blocked Law, Drew Cash

WASHINGTON - A Senate colleague was trying to close a loophole that allowed a major insurer to divert millions of federal dollars from the nation's most expensive construction project. John Kerry (news - web sites) stepped in and blocked the legislation.

Over the next two years, the insurer, American International Group, paid Kerry's way on a trip to Vermont and donated at least $30,000 to a tax-exempt group Kerry used to set up his presidential campaign. Company executives donated $18,000 to his Senate and presidential campaigns.

[Raya]

25. Kerry was on PROGRESSIVE SIDE of this argument. The Repubs against it

Kerry and Kennedy acted to stop part of a Repub plan to block projects in Dem districts which would have put the reconstruction of Boston on indefinite hold and made democrats in the state look like incompetents.


The Massachusetts Democrat actually was angered by the loophole but didn't want money stripped from the project because it would hurt his constituents who needed the Boston project finished, spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said.


When the "AIG investment scheme (came) to light, John Kerry called for public hearings to investigate the parties involved and the legality of the investment practices. However, he firmly believed cutting funding for the Big Dig was not the answer," Cutter said.


Damned if you work for you constituents, Damned if you don't.

[Snivi Yllom]

37. What is the progressive side of this?

he knocked out legislation that would have prevented the looting of your tax dollars to be used for a corporation's gain.

What is progressive about that?

How would cutting out the OVERSPENDING on INSURANCE that WAS NOT REQUIRED possibly hurt the constituents? He damned us all right, and AIG laughed all the way to their stock broker as he got them a $128 MILLION kitty to invest.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

23. Edited for stupidity

misread the original post

[Raya]

28. You are right. Kerry is "PROGRESSIVES BEST HOPE"

[library_max]

29. I think you misread the original post.

I believe it said that Kerry, not Dean, is the "progressives' best hope."

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

34. Whoops! I will read it again. My apologies.

[corporatewhore]

27. Kerry the environmentalist meme has been disproved

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=258514

[library_max]

30. The League of Conservation Voters has given him a 97% rating.

That counts for a bit more than one DUer's personal opinion.

[WiseMen]

79. Hope it does.

[Raya]

32. How, by Robert Kennedy Jr. and LCV support? Have you read the LVC

endorsement. Says Kerry is unique Presidential candidate EVER in his support for environmental initiatives.

[corporatewhore]

33. did you even read it

[Raya]

39. Link to Kerry Endorsement on Home Page of LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS

www.lcv.org

Plus they are now independently funding, developing and running ads supporting Kerry as the best ever. LCV has never done this before in its history.



Steve Terrell, The Santa Fe New Mexican
January 30, 2004

In addition to the television ads that Sen. John Kerry's revived campaign began running in New Mexico this week, a major national environmental organization has bought 30-second TV spots urging viewers to vote for the candidate in Tuesday's Democratic presidential caucus.

"They will start running (Friday) night and go gangbusters until Tuesday morning," said Mark Longabaugh, senior vice president for political affairs for the League of Conservation Voters.

"The ad talks about our support for Senator Kerry, his record of fighting for the environment and how he's the best candidate to defeat George Bush," Longabaugh said in a telephone interview.

The League -- which Longabaugh described as "the political voice of the environmental movement -- endorsed Kerry earlier this month.

[WiseMen]

42. Great Post. Kerry as President opens up a world of possibilities

[IrateCitizen]

44. What post is next for the pro-pro-pro-Kerry crowd?

"Progressives and Christians unite! Kerry walks on water!"

"Kerry ends famine with two baskets of loaves and fishes!"

I mean, seriously, how long do you two have to stroke each other over this? It's getting quite ridiculous. I liked it better when people would just try and lay out a latest proposal by him or what have you, or tell their personal story of why THEY supported Kerry. Now, it seems, you're not happy unless you're all up in people's faces about it.

Hell, it makes me almost want to NOT vote for Kerry, should he get the nomination, just to spite all of the overwhelming, "Vote for Kerry or you're not a progressive!" posters. :puke:

[WiseMen]

45. Good Ideas. Thanks.

[library_max]

51. Oh come now.

Every candidate's supporters have posted plenty of messages about how wonderful their candidate is and why he is the best choice. Why isn't it okay for the Kerry people to do what the Dean, Clark, Kucinich, etc. people do? I can see how it could be annoying if your candidate isn't doing as well as you want him to right now, but is it really fair to blame the Kerry supporters?

[NV1962]

54. Him, "progressive"? Pah, on behalf of Kucinich I take humbrage...

What nonsense. He's as liberal as any belleweather Senator can go. And uh... Don't want to break your heart, but if you're rooting for a member of Congress, don't bring up "my guy does no backroom dealing."

It's as credible as Limburger cheese marketed as inobtrusively aromatic.

Try a self-made invention instead, such as "my guy doesn't want people to cry in tea cups." That should go well with the Starbucks crowd!

[WiseMen]

57. Kucinich's Lifetime Progressive Record Compares Poorly w/ Kerry's: Facts

Political campaign often selectively focus on specifics that serve
their purpose. Kucinich is a great guy. I support his run. But supporters who have the illusion that Kerry is less progressive than
Kucinich should check the record which will show that DK IS more progressive, but just on the SPECIFIC ISSUES that DK and Dean have chosen to campaign on.

Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) is America's oldest independent liberal lobbying organization. ADA founders included Eleanor Roosevelt and renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith. Current ADA President is representative Jim McDermott, arch enemy of Bush’s Iraq policy.

ADA Lifetime scores for candidates with congressional records:

Sen. John Kerry 92
Rep. Dennis Kucinich 86
Sen. John Edwards 85
Sen. Joseph Lieberman 78
Other past presidential candidate scores can be used for comparison:

Ted Kennedy 88
Al Gore 66
John McCain 9

- - - - - -

John Kerry’s extraordinarily consistent lifetime progressive record often surprises the casual observer of the presidential campaign for the simple reason that some candidates have focused on attacking senator Kerry on specific votes in order to garner support from liberal voting blocks.

[corporatewhore]

68. see post 64 and see how it comes down to one issue

[library_max]

81. Well, saying so doesn't make it so.

Saying "it comes down to one issue" doesn't make it actually come down to one issue. Not for me, not for DU, not for the primary voters.

[charlie]

71. I'm looking at the numbers

http://www.adaction.org/voting.html

Kucinich's latest evaluation is from 1999, with a rating of 90. He got 90s for every year assessed. Where does the 86 come from? Do you have a more recent document from the ADA?

Edwards' most recent rating is listed as 88, Lieberman's is 76.

Al Gore's stats are frozen at 1993, since his last Congressional vote was in January of that year. There is no ADA rating for the man that ran for president in 2000. (Also, it should be noted that Kennedy's 88 figure is presumably from 1980. It's markedly more liberal now. In fact, I don't know how he gets only a 90 rating, his listed stats are roughly equal to Kerry's)

(Not commenting on Kerry's "liberalness", just wondering what the source of your numbers is)

[Terwilliger]

56. There are few progressives in the Democratic party

even less in positions of power

[WiseMen]

58. Good Point. I guess thats why Kerry can't get a bigger following here.

Could it be that the more DUer know the less they like Kerry -- he
is too progressive for this board?

[Terwilliger]

60. he's not progressive at all

stop spinning

Kerry is an establishment, mainstream Democrat who is there to push Democrat positions and policies.

Progressivism requires a different outlook.

[Raya]

62. Tell the Major Progressive Lobby Groups. ADA: Kerry 93%; LCV: 96%

Guess who has been "spinning"

[Terwilliger]

63. ADA...the Democratic Party arm that determines everything Democrat

that doersnt make them progressive

You're not progressive just because you're liberal.

[quaker bill]

These folks don't even understand the word liberal

To them it is a Betty Crocker receipe. Vote for a bit of environmental protection and bingo you are a liberal. Hell, buy a Sierra Club calendar and you might qualify.

Progressive, being a step beyond plain vanilla liberal, is simply beyond their comprehension.

Think of Paul Wellstone, voting for the right thing even when unpopular at home and yet getting re-elected time after time because he was seen a person faithful to his conscience. Then you are beginning to get close to an understanding of progressive.

There is just so much of this that John Kerry isn't.

[quaker bill]

66. There folks don't even understand the word liberal

To them it is a Betty Crocker receipe. Vote for a bit of environmental protection and bingo you are a liberal. Hell, buy a Sierra Club calendar and you might qualify.

Progressive, being a step beyond plain vanilla liberal, is simply beyond their comprehension.

Think of Paul Wellstone, voting for the right thing even when unpopular at home and yet getting re-elected time after time because he was seen a person faithful to his conscience. Then you are beginning to get close to an understanding of progressive.

There is just so much of this that John Kerry isn't.

[corporatewhore]

67. oh kerry is a liberal allright.....A NEO LIBERAL to call him proggressive

is a slap in the face to the global justice movement

[corporatewhore]

64. yep thats why he voted for

our jobs to move overseas
slavery
a bill of rights for big agribusiness
spreading of genetically modified franken foods
privatisation of public services like water
the theft of land of indigenous people
the rape of land
all on a global level when he voted for WTO/NAFTA/IMF/GATT etc etc
you see what is overlooked is free trade encoompasses every thing progressives are supposed to be against it is so oppressive that the people in bolivia took upon an armed revolution tostop it

[corporatewhore]

65. once again you tout his environmental credentials when he voted

for nafta/gatt/wto and bushes fasst track to the ftaa
this is what kerry "the environmentalist" voted for
A Bill of Rights for Agribusiness?
One of the most hotly contested sections to NAFTA has been Chapter 11, a virtual Bill of Rights for corporations. Chapter 11 allows corporations to sue governments for "damages" if a government law affects their profits. This undermined the sovereignty of democratically elected governments.
A Quebec law banning specific pesticides reveals how Chapter 11 clauses—which are set to be included in the FTAA—undermine environmental protection. Quebec laws ban a popular weed killer called 2,4-D that is considered a possible human carcinogen, and shown to adversely affect the immune system and reproductive functions in humans, among other impacts. But now a corporate lobbying group representing some of the makers of the pesticide are now threatening to challenge the law by suing the Canadian government under NAFTA's Chapter 11. The provincial government of Quebec and Canadian taxpayers has been given a harsh choice: face paying the corporations millions of dollars, or repeal the law. Similar cases could speed the introduction of GE crops. Several states and municipalities in the Americas—from Oregon to Mato Groso, Brazil—have passed anti-GE legislation. These statutes will no doubt come under heavy fire from corporations under the FTAA. Any expansion of Chapter 11 through the FTAA will further threaten local, state and national governments' ability to enact legislation to protect their citizens and environment.

Biopirates: on your mark, get set, go!
In the last decade, the Americas and its biodiversity have been targeted by "life science" corporations ((the growing consolidation of pharmaceutical, agrichemical and seed corporations) in search of "green gold." These corporations have pillaged humankind's patrimony of traditional knowledge and biodiversity to create and patent drugs and agriculture products. The quest to develop and patent biodiversity, especially medicinal plants and crops, is threatening our food security, access to health care and the biological and cultural diversity of the Americas. The FTAA Intellectual Property Rights chapter will require that member countries allow the patenting of life forms and the extension of US Life Science patents across the continent. Member countries will be unable to restrict or deny corporations' access to biological riches.


GE contamination
GE crops are being proposed as not only the silver bullet solution to global hunger, but also the only option for agri-economic development for the hemisphere. However, GE crops have not been adequately tested by the US Department for Agriculture or the Food and Drug Administration. Impacts on the human health include, but are not limited to, allergic reactions, increased food toxicity and antibiotic resistance. As demonstrated by the genetic contamination of native corn varieties in Mexico discovered in September 2001, GE crops represent a virtual "Pandora's Box" that has already blown open. The genetic contamination of native Mexican corn varieties by genetically engineered versions was largely a result of the introduction of nonsegregated, subsidized GE corn from the United States and NAFTA.
The expansion of GE crops will accelerate environmental destruction. Aside from the environmental catastrophe of genetic contamination, GE crops are provoking more obvious environmental impacts. Greenpeace has documented the accelerated deforestation in Argentina as a result of widespread GE soy cultivation.
Centers of Origin, Mega-diverse countries Latin America is one of the most biologically and culturally diverse regions on the planet. Dozens of crops have been developed and domesticated by Indigenous peoples over the last 10,000 years, including corn and potatoes, two of the world's most important crops. Mexico alone is the center of origin and diversity for some 112 crops, including tomatoes, beans and peppers. The introduction of Genetically Engineered crops into these regions threatens the long-term viability of not only the crop itself, but the ecosystem as whole. Additionally, 7 of the world's 12 mega-diverse countries, (Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Costa Rica and Colombia) are found in the Americas. "Mega-diversity" countries represent the majority of the world's biodiversity and surviving Indigenous peoples, the true guardians and developers of biodiversity.
Un-kept promises, peeks at the future
"Free trade" agreements to date have been little more than code words for US business expansion across the globe. In theory, these agreements assume a level playing field between partners. However the United States has yet to follow the rules. Just recently, the US Congress approved a $70 billion agricultural subsidy for the next 10 years. This largely benefits corporate agribusiness while undermining small farmers both in the US and across the globe.
One of the most glaring attacks on food security and agribiodiversity has been US corn exports to Mexico under NAFTA. Import quotas were established under NAFTA to protect Mexico's corn producers for up to 15 years, applying high tariffs on imports exceeding those tariffs. However the quotas were lifted within three years, paving the way for millions of tons of corn to be dumped on Mexico. The corn imports in Mexico have displaced at least 500,000 farmers and is steadily eroding the genetic diversity of thousands varieties of native corn varieties. The FTAA will open up national and local markets, already vulnerable as a result of the World Bank's Structural Adjustment programs and volatile international market.
source:
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/ftaa/FTAAWTOEnvironment.html

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[Raya]

70. I am proud that Kerry Folk don't play such dishonest games.

[corporatewhore]

72. do you mean by airing a valid concern?

[Raya]

74. Using innuendo, implication and speculation to slime another dem

[corporatewhore]

77. oh come on kerry folk have done that too everybody does

[library_max]

82. My goodness, that was an astonishing admission.

That must have taken a lot of courage to admit that you, as a Kerry supporter, have used innuendo, implication, and speculation to slime Democratic candidates.

What? You're not a Kerry supporter? Oh, so that was just a cheap and baseless smear, then.

[tobius]

76. Just a bit

of humor to make a point. I have seen supporters of Kerry make all types of claims about him that are contradictory, but have votes and quotes to back them up. To call him a progressive is humorous to me.

[Sensitivity]

78. Too Risky. But Too Late, I guess. What happens when RNC exposes JK record