I Think Kerry Will Govern Farther Left Than He's Campaigning

[rucky]

He knew he would be running for Prez 3 years ago. About the same time certain aspects of his voting record took a sharp right turn. The Kerry conondrum is more strategic than ideological, IMO. There's nothing much else to explain his puzzling recent votes compared with his lifetime voting record. So assuming he's doing what he thinks needs to be done to win it, and whatever he's doing is working - I've gotta throw my trust in him. I don't see any other options, and i think that reasoning is sound enough to reconcile my problems with his record over the last 3 years.

Going to the center is what Bush did in 2000 and what he's trying to do now. It's a good strategy, but it's not perfect. I'd like him to be able to give me a wink & assure me that - when given the means - he will govern more to the left - but he can't do that. I've gotta trust it.

No, really, I GOTTA.

We still have people around telling the truth for us. Just because none of them will become president doesn't take anything away from Kerry - it just means he was right about what Americans want right now. Since when did the truth (or good taste) have anything to do with what Americans want or think they need?

Sure there's still free trade, but that's a single issue - assuming all is forgiven for the past three years. I might be wrong, but I'd like to find out first hand for myself, rather than just imagine what it could've been like if Kerry had been elected insted of Bush.

[KissMyAsscroft]

1. Well, Dubya campaigned as a centrist....

And we all know how that turned out.

[rucky]

4. He didn't lose the popular vote out of bad strategy

he lost it cuz he's a dumbass.

then he stole it back cuz he's a dumbass with connections.

[Protagoras]

27. I think that's about the most accurate post

that I've seen in some while. Direct and to the point. I give it a 9.5!

:D

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[codegreen]

2. i've been feeling the same way. i think we'll be in good hands

[Uber Llama]

3. Who cares?

Isn't all the really matters is that he isn't Bush? If he is a little more to the left than he says he is, then I think that is a good thing. He has a few things about him that I do not like, but they have been lost in the deluge of stupid criticism from the media elite. If he turns out to be farther to the left, it will probably be in a good way.

[sandnsea]

5. Gee, ya' think?

Yes, I'd like to find out what a Kerry Administration would be like too. It sounds like the polar opposite of a Bush Administration to me.

[rucky]

40. Well it's not that obvious

if it were, it wouldn't be a very good strategy.

[ibegurpard]

6. Not possible with a hostile Republican House and Senate

eom

[rucky]

7. Gridlock is better than Republicans passing laws

Governing to the left in that case is not being afraid to use that VETO stamp

[Uber Llama]

12. True

Very true

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

8. Ted Kennedy was a good hint ;) nt

[jjmalonejr]

9. Shhhhh....

Don't make too much noise about this.

[MikeG]

10. I hope so. Just like FDR. Anyone got a problem with that?

[MurikanDemocrat]

13. Going to the center during a campagn is something ALL

politicians do because that is how they win. They start with the base and swing to the center.

That's what Bush did with his "compassioniate conservatism" centrist approach in 2000, and I noticed at the time that he NEVER ANSWERED A DAMN QUESTION! I KNEW he was trouble right then! He NEVER gave his position on anything!

But as we know, Bush took a HARD right turn once he got into office and has been handing read meat out the back door ever since.

Kerry is tacking to the center now and if I'm not mistaken will continue to do so throughout the campaign. That's how they get the ever coveted rich source of swing votes.

Then we will likely see a more liberal agenda from Kerry assuming he wins the election, but how much he can accomplish will depend on bi-partisan support in a Republican Congress.

[rucky]

14. What threw off alot of progressives was the timing

he spent about 20 years rallying his base & the last three tacking to the center. that's not typical & I see how the timeline would not sit well with some folks.

we really have to look at his ENTIRE career. it's hard to do with so much going on right NOW.

[MurikanDemocrat]

15. Did he spend the last 3 years tacking to the center, or are we

talking about the 3 single votes in his career over the last 3 years that many people disagree with? I'm not sure I agree that he spent the last 3 years tacking to the center.

[rucky]

16. Do you really want to prove me wrong?

Sure it's an oversimplification. I'd like to think that he regrets those votes. i also think that he picked votes where his one vote wouldn't matter anyways. Any way you slice it, those three votes stand out for one reason or another (we know which votes without saying), and are the reason many are sour on JK.

edit: Those also may the votes that saved his ass w/ the center, tho.

[MurikanDemocrat]

19. I think we do agree.

His NO votes on those issues wouldn't have changed the outcomes. They are the litmus test used by some here. And they also probably saved his ass with the center.

I believe the IWR vote was a political suicide vote for the Democratic Senators being used by the Repukes as a weapon, and NO votes would have been whipped into a media frenzy of unpatriotic, soft on Defense Democrats that would have rendered them impotent as a Party then and NOW as a Party.

They are stronger now because they defused IWR as a weapon, and there is NOTHING they could have done to stop it, and they DID add a lot of teeth to the provision making sure a several step PROCESS was requires that should have prevented the Iraq war, and at the very least making war a last resort. It was Bush that lied and tossed the entire PROCESS aside.

(IWR, PATRIOT, NCLB)

Anyway, I was just asking if those 3 votes are why you were saying he tacked to the center.

[AntiCoup2K4]

18. Kerry "went to the center" (or actually right of it) ever since the Coup2K

He wouldn't stand up for what's right to oppose the fascists in power. Why should he do so when the same fascists are now backing him?

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. That's not likely, but not his fault. Here's why

Someone mentioned the other day, in another thread, that even if Dennis Kucinich, who is slightly less right-wing than Kerry on some issues, were magically elected President, he would be unable to deliver even a fraction of the things he proposes.

They weren't accusing Kucinich of insincerity, just pointing out the reality of government. Even bush, with his rubber-stamp congress and predeliction for using the constitution as toilet paper, doesn't get everything he wants.

By the time Congress got through with Kucinich's health care plan it would look a lot like Kerry's, or Dean's or Edwards' just another pushing the peas around on the plate porkpie for the insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

Nor would the oilngun boys be too thrilled with Kucinich's wacko idea about NOT invading Iran.

The president is, to a large extent, a figurehead.

Replacing the figurehead, no matter with whom, does not change the government.

[union_maid]

20. That's true to an extent

It's a process. Electing Kerry would be a huge step in the right direction. Then he'd have the ball, and he'd have to gain yardage against a formidable defense...but at least they'd BE the defense instead both teams at once. The president is not a figurehead when it comes to nominating the federal judiciary and in cabinet appointments. In the latter, a lot of important policy happens and the former holds the key to any hope of progress and democracy. But you're right. He can't just come in and decide to make sweeping changes without any opposition. Clinton had some great ideas that never happened. I do think that Kerry wouldn't cave as much as Clinton did, though. I think he has some bedrock principles and Clinton was more an idea man.

[DuctapeFatwa]

24. Well, you are slipping into Rumsfeld territory there, with the unknown

unknowns. Bedrock principles are not an asset to a politician, and would not really be compatible with 20 years in the US senate.

I think you are on the right track to an extent as regards judicial appointments. Although we can't know for certain what favors Kerry might owe, now or if he makes it to the white house, there is definitely less likelihood that he would appoint exclusively Pickering quality assholes, which I guess is about the best straw you can grasp at, if it soothes your own feathers, but it would not be a talking point if you are trying to persuade someone to vote for Kerry instead of bush, since they are more likely to think that Pickering is a fine fellow and the judiciary needs more like him!

[DaveSZ]

31. I agree with DTF to an extent...

But when you think in terms of judicial nominees and environmental policy, that affects real people in our country.


We're talking about civil rights and the air people breathe.

[onehandle]

21. You are exactly right.

Anyone who says you're wrong knows nothing about politics.

Kerry will govern farther to the left, which will be a thousand percent more than Bush.

[WitchWay]

22. But remember how

Clinton campaigned to the left...but then governed to the center? What's to say that Kerry isn't going to be more like Clinton?

[onehandle]

33. Clinton campaigned to the Center.

Governed mostly to the left except on a few issues that were played up by the media.

Want to compare Clinton to Bush?

Nice try.

[ramapo]

23. He'll govern farther left than the Resident

Kerry will have a tough time assuming Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate. But if the jobs picture continues to suck, there may be more of a house cleaning than conventional wisdom predicts.

[Nicholas_J]

25. True

THe biggest problem that the DLC had last spring when Kerry was in the lead was howvthey were going to run someone like Kerry who had opposed all of the legislative positions of the DLC and the party centrists as anything but a liberal. They are still troubled with having to try to run Kerry, the most liberal of all of the candidates, as a centrist, out ofthe belief that someone as Liberal as Kerry could not win the general election as he is percieved as far too liberal. He has written some of the most liberal amendment to legislation of any of the other candidates, starting with hiss gay civil rights amendment to the Civil Rights Act in 1986, and kept going from there.

[rucky]

35. That's where the Naderites come in handy

can't really call him liberal compared to a green-party liberal. This is another (strategic) reason why Kerry is distancing himself - as a defense against that. We're not going to take back the word "liberal" this election cycle, but voting for DK in the primary can help.

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. We can only hope he goes WAY left

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. I hope you're right

See my post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x439464

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

29. That shouldn't be too hard.

Hoping for the best.

[corporatewhore]

30. I have no doubt he'll govern as a liberal...a Neoliberal thatis

hes got a hardcore neoliberal voting record

[rucky]

37. I know. trade leaves a bad taste in my mouth

but after BCCI, the banks would call in their investments if Kerry ever put the kabosh on the trade agreements. I know, I know, I sound like an apologist. It kills me that we had a chance to change it and America blew it, but I don't see what else we can do other than keep raising awareness and screaming. Which I intend to do.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. If he's going to govern from the left, I hope he signals it somehow

just as Bush signaled his true intention to the wingnuts by speaking at Bob Jones University.

[AntiCoup2K4]

54. So then, Kerry should speak at The Evergreen State College?

Or maybe Berkeley? :hippie:

[goodhue]

34. he better

[mikehiggins]

36. Another version of "if the king only knew" and like all of them,

more fantasy than fact.

Kerry will do whatever he has to do to win, and will do whatever he thinks will keep him in office when he's there.

He will, of course, be better than Bush BUT very little will change in the overall way in which the US conducts itself in the world, once we return to the way we operated pre-Dubya. That little bit of change is more than worth the effort of electing Kerry but nobody should be allowed to think that Kerry in the White House will usher in a golden age of progressive politics.

We're just replacing a dangerous idealogue with someone who seems to have no real ideology other than politics.

Works for me.

[tedoll78]

38. I know one thing.

Should he get into office, the Supreme Court justices he nominates will definitely rule from the left, left, left. Even Clinton was capable of putting in two real lefty zingers. And consider that the average USSC justice term is currently ~19 years.. the winner of November's election will most probably appoint TWO of them..

[WitchWay]

39. Fairness

Kerry should govern from where he campaigns. Otherwise, he would be being deceptive to someone or other. I think that all you can do with a politician is assume that he will govern from where he stands in the election, and then make them stick to it.

[jsw_81]

41. A left-wing Kerry presidency will mean disaster in the '06 elections

I sincerely hope that Kerry governs as a sensible moderate. And anybody who cares about the Democratic party will agree.

[maxanne]

44. why

How long must Democrats cower in fear?

[Duck90MPH]

47. If not now then when?

How long can the left half of the party be kept at bay when they keep getting told to just vote "this way" this time and "we'll" give you a bone afterwards.

Bone me once, dem bones...umm...we won't get boned again.

[newyawker99]

49. Hi Duck90MPH!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Duck90MPH]

55. Hugs!

Thank you for the warm welcome!

[VolcanoJen]

42. Keep that to yourself, would ya?????

We're all pretty much realizing that, but let's not let Rove in on the secret, 'k?

;-)

[Vladimir]

43. I agree that its possible

But it ain't gonna happen in a vacuum. At the risk of being boring:

1) Kerry will be tempted to move to the left if it is made clear to him repeatedly that people are voting against Bush, not for him. For example a massive turnout for Kuchnich and Sharpton now that Kerry is almost certain to be nominated.

2) Much more importantly, without regaining at least one of the houses of Congress, any leftward shift will mean jack.

V

[Duck90MPH]

45. Better to keep it under the table if he is going hard left

No need to scare away the middle voters now. Same with gun control.

Once Kerry is sworn in then the middle will be pleased enough that they won and won't mind a leftward shift or other more liberal values being enforced.

[rucky]

51. Welcome to DU, Duck!

No worries... most people here are ABB.

[NicRic]

46. Very good repug talking point !

Thanks for repeating what the repugs are going to try and pin on Kerry ! What ever position Kerry governs from ,it would be 110
% better the what bush is doing to this country. Lets unite and get this faker in office ,where he belongs in Crawford TX. weeding the yard !

[rucky]

52. That message won't get out...

I'd like to see 'em try it. As long as there's a group from the LEFT that's holding out on their support of Kerry, they have to go soft on the "liberal" bashing. Any loss from the center would be made up for by the left.

[DrFunkenstein]

48. On Free Trade - What He'd Do Is Definitely Further Left

WASHINGTON - May 21 - Friends of the Earth expressed disappointment in the loss of an amendment to trade legislation that would have protected environmental standards from foreign investor lawsuits. The amendment, offered by Sen. John Kerry, sought to address concerns with investment rules like NAFTA's Chapter 11 that allow foreign corporations to bring suits against environmental laws and regulations.

"By voting against the Kerry amendment, the Senate has paved the way for more backdoor corporate assaults on laws that protect our air, water and land," said David Waskow, Friends of the Earth's trade policy coordinator. "The Senate should be protecting the health and safety of Americans, not watching the backs of wealthy polluters who make big campaign contributions."

http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0521-13.htm

"The current Fast Track bill is an environmental nightmare," said Carroll Muffett, director of international programs for Defenders of Wildlife. "The Kerry Amendment would have fixed one of the biggest problems with it. Without Kerry, Fast Track is just a license for unchecked environmental destruction."

http://www.charitywire.com/charity51/03074.html

"The amendment was a modest reform that guaranteed much-needed changes in the NAFTA Chapter 11 investment model in future trade agreements.

Under the model, foreign investors may file a claim in secret NAFTA tribunals to seek compensation when government public interest regulations in any way diminish the value of their investment.

In doing so, the amendment would have instructed U.S. trade negotiators to ensure that future investor provisions do not grant foreign investors rights beyond what the U.S. Constitution provides."

http://action.citizen.org/pc/issues/votes/?votenum=121&chamber=S&congr ...

The Kerry Amendment to the Baucus-Grassley fast-track trade bill would have limited expansion of NAFTA-style corporate lawsuits to more countries.

Under NAFTA, foreign corporations gained broad powers to sue US taxpayers for financial damages if our environmental, health, or land protection laws interfere with their businesses.

The Kerry Amendment would have ensured that foreign investors have no greater rights than US citizens under the US Constitution.

http://www.sierraclub.org/votewatch/2002/kerry.asp

Dear (Decision Maker),

I am writing to ask you to support the Kerry Amendment to FAST TRACK. The Baucus-Grassley Trade Bill is not good enough. I would appreciate your support for this amendment. Specifically, the amendment will:

1. Ensure that foreign investors don't get greater rights than US citizens or investors. We need to make sure that the US Constitution is the benchmark for investor treatment.

2. Clarify the definition of expropriation in future trade deals to conform with the US Constitution and recent US Supreme Court rulings.

3. Protect US laws on public health, safety and the environment from attack by investor-state lawsuits.

4. Ensures that minimum treatment under international law is defined in a way that follows the US Constitution. We don't want to follow that of some other country.

5. Require diplomatic check. Before a corporation could go into one of the secret trade tribunals to sue for taxpayer compensation (avoiding the domestic court system), they should have to check in with their own government.

This amendment will be voted upon soon. I urge you to vote for it and keep the problems that are already happening with NAFTA Chapter 11 from happening under future trade agreements.

Sincerely,
Your Name
Your Address

http://www.unionvoice.org/alert-description.tcl?alert_id=2005

[Raya]

50. Only LANDSLIDE would make that Possible. House and Senate holds

overide on any policy, so we have to win back the congress.

[genius]

53. I hope so.

I want a liberal President.