Kerry Is A Clinton-Lite Centrist?

[DrFunkenstein]

From DU's own website:

Kerry, let's face it, is a kind of centrist liberal: Clinton lite, as it were. He voted to give Bush a blank check to invade Iraq; he voted for the Patriot Act, he's voted for numerous bills that would embarrass most progressive Democrats. (In all fairness, he also has supported and pushed some righteous liberal bills, and when he wants to fight for a cause, he's a good scrapper.)

First, everybody voted for the Patriot Act. Second, he's voted for a HANDFUL of bills that would disturb progressives - almost all of which you've just mentioned. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY - not "some" of his legislative record is liberal, if not specific to the progressive cause.

And, if he gets elected, he'll probably do OK as President, a little bit liberal, a lotta centrist, a little bit to the right. No great initiatives, no shockwaves, no major embarrassments.

Raising CAFE standards? A massive overhaul of our energy consumption and production? Nearly universal health coverage? A strong SEC watchdog? Ending off-shore tax havens?

This is pretty silly, even as lazy speculation goes.

Kerry is a known quantity, a Democratic centrist who brings with him all sorts of establishment baggage over the decades he's been in politics.

Actually, as a known quantity, Kerry is the guy the Dems took off the Iran-contra committee because they thought he'd impeach Reagan. And he has a record more liberal than 85-90% of the Senate. And he has a 96.5 rating from LCV. And he votes with Public Citizen 95% of the time. And he has repeatedly voted to transfer Defense spending to liberal programs like education and health care. Baggage, my butt.

If it's a Bush v. Kerry race between two men of great privilege, Nader's run may take on more legitimacy for some voters -- you know, Nader's old tune about there not being all that much difference between the two parties.

This is class warfare of the dumbest kind. FDR and JFK both had gazillions, and that's without a committed environmentalist like Teresa Heinz thrown in the package. If RFK Jr. becomes Kerry's EPA chief, will he do less of a job because he comes from money?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/02/25_dilemma.html

[Cappadonna]

1. But look at the other point that the DU made:

First, Dennis Kuicinich is a candidate for the converted. He's too much of a clean cut idealist and too unknown to take out Bunnypants. For Goodness' Sake, he's a vegan. And Edwards, for his relatively cleaniless, smarts and charm, is still a kid in terms of politics. What is he, 49? My parents, who are two years younger than the Big Dawg, are older than him. And he only has one term under his belt. Its hard to go after Bush when he technical has more experience than you. (I know, I know, Governorship of Texas is basically a non-job, but I think we all get it.)

The point being that all of these candidates have their strengths and their weaknesses, all of which the BFEE are more than happy to exploit.


I dream ticket would be this: Kerry as the frontrunner, Edwards as VP, Kuicinich as Sec. of State and Clark as Sec. of Defense. Hell, offer Nader and Dean jobs while you're at it.

Since its all but obvious that this is a Kerry/Smirk, the best defense is get everyone on the same page.....squabble later, get rid of Smirk now.

[KC21304]

2. A snob is a snob is a snob.

Just goes to show you people who call themselves progressives can also be snobs. Some people come out unfavorable in comparisons not because of what they have done for others in their life but simply because they are rich. I have seen a lot of that here.

[Bombtrack]

3. Kerry has a lifetime left wing record, but mostly because he started his

career off like Paul Wellstone, but ended up like Joe Lieberman at the tail end, at least on the one issue that democrats would always win on if we were credible and consistent as a party, the reform, regulation and policing of big corporate america and the acountability of the nations big industries.

On balance I wouldn't and don't want someone the GOP can point to and say "who knew that Ted Kennedy was the conservative senator from Massachusetts", but it wouldn't be as bad if the one big winning issue for democrats was included in all those pro ADA votes

[mobuto]

4. John Kerry has one of the most consistently liberal

voting records in the Senate. According to the ratings people, he is more liberal than Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, and Russ Feingold. He is well to the left of Bill Clinton.

[RichM]

5. Ugh. No, not "everybody" voted for the Patriot Act. Kucinich didn't.

And looky here:

Kerry is the guy the Dems took off the Iran-contra committee because they thought he'd impeach Reagan...
- Oh sure. In a pig's eye. That's exactly the type of thing a Kerry would never in a million years get involved with -- anything that's highly-charged & controversial. It would be more accurate to say that Kerry learned all about the illegal things the Reagan admin did, then quietly sat on the information, not wishing to make any waves. You are trying to paint him as a brash & fiery radical -- precisely what he is not.

This is class warfare of the dumbest kind...
- No it isn't. It's not dumb at all. Generally speaking, "class warfare" reflects an accurate view of the true dynamics of capitalist society, and the refusal to recognize this is part of the fundamental dishonesty of capitalism. // In the context where you raise the issue, it would indeed be better to often have candidates from working class backgrounds, because such people are better able to appreciate the life-situations of most of the population. People who grow up with yachts are not so good at this. It isn't necessary to hash through exceptions to the general rule, like FDR etc. It is unhealthy for a so-called "democracy" to have almost everyone in public life being a millionaire, & to have 2 multimillionaires as the only presidential candidates in the general election.

Raising a skeptical eye towards Kerry's half-billion dollars is an entirely legitimate objection to his candidacy.

[DrFunkenstein]

6. You Obviously Know Nothing About Kerry And Iran-Contra

Take a look and learn something before shooting your mouth:

Suddenly, Kerry's theories didn't seem so far-fetched. He hoped this would be his moment to help lead the investigation into this extraordinary episode. The Iran-contra scandal was the top story in town, and there was worried talk in the halls of Congress that the United States might suffer another failed presidency.

But when congressional leaders chose the members of the elite Iran-contra committee, Kerry was left off. Those selected were consensus-politicians, not bomb-throwers.

The feeling among a disappointed Kerry and his staff was that the committee members were chosen to put a lid on things. "He was told early on they were not going to put him on it," Winer recalls. "He was too junior and too controversial . . .. They were concerned about the survival of the republic."

Even some Democrats "thought John was a little hotter than they would like," says Rosenblith.

As a consolation prize, the Democratic leadership gave Kerry chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations and a charter to dig into the contra-drug connection.

While disappointed, Kerry stuck with his investigation and the subcommittee published a report in 1989 that concluded the CIA and other US agencies had turned a blind eye to drug trafficking occurring on the fringes of the contra network.

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062003.shtml

[blm]

8. You really don't understand what happened in IranContra, do you, Rich?

I hope you try to learn about these things before you make claims or set yourself up as an expert. Some innocent young minds might actually believe you, and you would be responsible for their ignorance.

You really proved in your post that you haven't a CLUE what occurred.

When Congress was ready to drop it, Kerry was working with Nader and Public Citizen to bring even MORE charges out in the open. When Congress was ready to drop it, Kerry sent Robert Morganthau the necessary documents to indict some of the culprits under NY state law.

[sangha]

9. Don't misunderestimate RichM

He doesn't understand all sorts of things! :-)

[RichM]

11. Don't flatter yourself that the difference between you & me is a matter of

"knowledge." It's entirely a matter of interpretation. You insist on characterizing a cautious politician who has generally played it safe, gone along to get along, & not had much stomach for stepping on the toes of the powerful, as a brave & unrelenting warrior for the truth. I don't agree with that characterization.

I read Robert Parry, as you may recall (because you specifically asked about Parry last year). He does not portray Kerry in anything like the heroic light you try to portray him in. Rather, he gives the impression conveyed by my post: that Kerry KNEW where all the dirt was, but didn't do much to bring it to public attention.

Consistent with your mischaracterizing events of the '80's, you also mischaracterize the present. The ludicrous contortions Kerryites go through attempting to rationalize the IWR vote is ample evidence of this.

[PurityOfEssence]

7. More crazy talk; Kerry's a Liberal

Clinton, on the other hand, is a pragmatic, appeasing sucker with great political skills that he squanders trying to placate those who hate him even more for the very attempt.

Clinton has core ethical beliefs, and although farther to the right than I'd like, he's got a heart and it's in more or less the right place.

Kerry's a good old-fashioned decent liberal.

(I still prefer Edwards, dammit, and he's MUCH MORE ELECTABLE!!!)

[Meshuga]

10. Thanks for the post DrFunkenstein

The person who wrote the article doesn't know much about Kerry and is making generalizations based on his/her own perceptions.

Great post! Thanks!