Why do some "Dems" feel the need to undermine our candidate?

[MoonRiver]

Usually the criticism is not very constructive, it's just flat out negative and mean spirited. If folks don't like Kerry, fine. Don't vote for him. Go for Nader or *. But what is the point of broadcasting these feelings, which only enable AWOL? I just don't get it, unless, unless...
:think:

[rockymountaindem]

1. To sound sophisticated.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. So you think it's an ego thing?

They're like little wannabe Nadirs?

[rockymountaindem]

5. Sometimes.

I'm not saying that some criticism of Kerry isn't warranted. But the original post is talking about some of the really mean-spirited non-constructive criticism. I think a lot of that is ego.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. What's up with that?

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

4. The "dem" Kerry detractors fall into two camps here, but they overlap...

..sometimes.

1. Those who are still pissed their guy (mostly Dean and Kucinich supporters) didn't get the nod.

2. Kerry, who is one the Senate's most liberal senators, isn't idealogically pure enough.

[MoonRiver]

8. That is really bizarre.

These people are so petty they would rather see * bring on Armegeddon than support the guy who beat their guy/gal? Totally mindboggling! :crazy:

[wyldwolf]

9. sad but true

[pop goes the weasel]

38. too late

on that Armageddon thing.

I supported and still support DK, but I'll vote for Kerry in the fall. Just don't expect me to say that Kerry is going to turn things around. Shrub has made a complete mess of things, and Kerry just isn't imaginative enough or brave enough to really clean up the mess. He'll likely not make things worse, and if not making things worse is the best I can get, I'll go with it.

But I won't be happy about it.

[DEMVET-USMC]

74. "not brave enough" Kerry awarded Silver & Bronze Stars+3 Purple

Heart medals. I would never question Kerry`s bravery considering those facts. Evidently the U.S. Navy along with a very fellow veterans and others would strongly disagree with you also, I certainly do. ....Oscar

[zoeyfong]

95. Well, people do change...Kerry also said something 30 yrs ago

about not asking another person to die for a mistake. He has clearly abandoned that belief today.

[sangh0]

146. Bravery is not an opinion

that one can just change. It's a matter of character, not political ideology.

Leave it to one of the purists to assume that political opinion equates to character

[zoeyfong]

200. Character can and does change-kerry proved that on IWR.

As they say, power corrupts; kerry can smell the presidency and he will do *whatever* it takes to get it, including letting many, many people get killed for nothing.

[zoeyfong]

92. Yeah right, i'm just pissed cuz 'my guy' lost. Not. I'm pissed

because dems are being represented by a sleazy war-monger.

[AntiCoup2K4]

22. Nevermind

...I'm not participating in this DLC flamebait thread.

[w4rma]

56. This thread has nothing to do with the DLC. I'm extremely critical of the

DLC, but non-constructive criticism against the Dem nominee doesn't help anyone except the Bush-backers, imho.

[IndianaGreen]

65. How about this for constructive criticism?

Published on Friday, March 26, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Why John Kerry Must Retract his Position on Venezuela
by VenezuelAnalysis.com

The Democratic candidate for President of the United States, John Kerry, published a statement on his web site this past March 19, setting forth his position on the political situation in Venezuela. In this declaration, Kerry relies on inaccurate information and repeats views identical to those of the Venezuelan opposition to democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez.

<snip>

It is almost unexplainable that Kerry, as a Democrat, maintains almost the same positions as Bush and his ultra-conservative cabinet. Many in the progressive community had hoped that Kerry could bring a fundamental change to the foreign policies implemented by Bush towards Latin America. Statements such as this lead us to believe that there may be little change in the arrogant US government foreign policy, and unfortunately, mistrust and resentment towards the United States in Latin America would probably continue to grow as a result.

Without offering any evidence, Kerry, follows the line of the Venezuelan opposition, accusing Chavez of aiding the Colombian guerrilla forces, permitting narcotrafficking, undermining democratic institutions, attempting to impede a possible recall referendum on his mandate, and of implementing policies that are detrimental to US interests.

Chavez is a President who has been elected twice by clear majorities in democratic elections, and who, at this time, still enjoys one of the highest levels of popularity amongst Latin American leaders. Chavez's policies have earned him the support of millions of progressive and liberal voices throughout Latin America as well as in North America.

Kerry's recent statement makes it clear that he has taken the side of the Venezuelan opposition, an opposition which is unequivocally responsible for the political instability in Venezuela due to its failure and refusal to accept Chavez as the President of Venezuela, despite his clear support by a majority of Venezuelans proven through numerous electoral victories.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0326-01.htm

[w4rma]

133. That is constructive criticism, imho. (nt)

[wyldwolf]

201. Some seem to have an unhealthy DLC paranoia

BOO!

See?

Scared ya!

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[sangha]

108. Do you use the same arguments for every occassion?

"ignorant", "frightened sheep"...

[wyldwolf]

202. I haven't had an ad hom personal attack in a LONG time!

Thanks, billy.

[cyclezealot]

77. I do not trash Kerry in Non Democratic circles.

But this week, Iraq is a mess. Iraq and pre-emptive war is literally an international crime...Kerry offers no leadership to get us out of this thing. If only he could act more like his state's senior senator who has some guts. So is Ted Kennedy wrong...
I thought all we Democrats are in awe of the Kennedy legacy.Kennedy offers courage..Kerry timidity. Kerry will do nothing to energize the parties own base..

[jadesfire]

167. which must be why

kennedy spends so much time campaigning for, appearing on the news for, and supporting Kerry.

that makes sooooo much sense. wow!

[PassingFair]

82. You left out the REAL number one:

The 800 pound gorilla attached to every thread:
Our country is prosecuting an immoral and illegal war against the citizens of Iraq. Democrats now have the misfortune to be represented by a candidate whose utterances concerning the invasion and occupation are SO ambiguous that his true feelings and objectives are entirely unclear. We know that he voted to authorize the invasion. We know that he voted to authorize the Patriot Act. He now says he was hoodwinked by the administration, but where is the outrage? Why isn't he calling for Bush to step down? Why won't Kerry admit that the invasion was a bid to capture the natural resources of the Middle East?
The flapping flip-flops of the repuke disruptors hurt us because of their accurate mockery of Kerry's greatest weakness. He is in thrall to the corporatists.

When speaking to other dems, however, I avoid the war issue and concentrate on ridding the US of the Religious Reich and the Polluting Planet Killers.
Kerry comes off well as a champion for women's rights, civil rights, healthcare and the environment. He is clearly a better choice than Bush.

[cyclezealot]

155. Can't help but feel disappointed.

Heah, those who can't understand a little balance here. Just can't be a rah, rah party man when our parties candidate is at odds with the make up of the majority of his party. Every caucus, poll at the primaries showed the parties membership so disapproving of Bush's war and Gestapo..So disapproving of Bush,that they voted for a candidate with whom they did not necessarily agree, but thought might have best chance of winning..
By holding out and not throwing in all our chips, I hope we make Kerry a better candidate with a little more guts. We will do nothing to jeopardize his chances, but at the same time, let him know, we expect him to represent the wishes of Democratic primary voters.
Fallujah, the blood and mayhem. The fact Bush united Shiites and Sunni's against us...This should tell Kerry something.

[IndianaGreen]

157. It's the war, stupid!

Good points, PassingFair!

[zoeyfong]

91. You say "ideologically pure," I say complicit in murder and in

the biggest foreign policy blunder since vietnam, and probably the biggest national security disaster (in the making) EVER. But i guess i should just stop quibbling and get on board.

[Dufaeth]

6. And not supporting Bush

enables the terrorists.

[Warpy]

7. Childish people

...long for a perfect world with a perfect leader who suits them perfectly in every perfect way. If anybody falls short of their Utopian ideal, gawd help him or her, because s/he will be attacked as though they were spawned by Satan and vetted by Karen Hughes.

Since Kerry is not perfect and not all things to all people, they snarl and pout and threaten to vote for Nader, who offers them even less.

Grownups realize that not voting for the lesser evil will always get you the greater evil. Sometimes we can cope with the greater evil and survive it. This time we can't.

The solution? Don't rise to the childish bait.

[WI_DEM]

10. I'm voting for Kerry

He wasn't my first choice by any means, but I honestly don't see how broadcasting negative criticsm of the candidate or even posting your support for Nader or some other third party candidate is undermining support for John Kerry. Afterall, this is a discussion board and who really takes this that seriously? Most Kerry supporters here are able to defend their candidate without any trouble and by having constructive debate, as long as it is constructive, doesn't hurt this site or any other site but in the long run strengthens the site.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[WI_DEM]

20. We can't control everyone

now can we? maybe if you think he is not constructive in what he says you should just ignore him? He has a point of view and it may be extreme but is he destructive to this board--I don't think so.

[sangh0]

25. "Aye, they truly suck"

SO we went from "constructive dialogue" to "We can't control everyone"

if you think he is not constructive in what he says

If *I* think he's not constructive??? What do YOU think?

[IndianaGreen]

66. People that support this war, should go to war

and not let someone else die for nothing other than cheap gas for American SUVs.

[zoeyfong]

93. Right on; if it's worth *other people* dying, it should be worth

them dying, too.

[MoonRiver]

18. Fair point and I generally agree.

But I don't sense that much of the criticism is designed to be constructive. From the angry nature of some messages, I can't imagine what the motivation could be except to undermine Kerry. I have fleeting feelings of anxiety or disappointment about Kerry, but I don't just kneejerk express them on message boards. I know how much is at stake and want to promote positive feelings about Kerry, whom I genuinely support and like. If Kerry doesn't win, we really are going straight to Hell. I don't want to suppress free speech, but let's get a grip here. This is an election and we (should) want our candidate to be seen in the best light.

[damnraddem]

12. At this point, we need votes for Kerry, not just being quiet.

I'm urging Greens to vote for Kerry. And I don't really like Kerry, either; but it's ABB time.

Or as the new bumpesticker on my car says: 'American's Low-Carb Diet for 2004: No Cheney, No Ashcroft, No Rumsfeld, No Bush.'

[cally]

14. My first Presidential election, I did not want to vote for Carter

He wasn't good enough with human rights, not progressive enough, etc. Looking back, I was :crazy: and very ill informed. No national candidate will meet my ideals. None. But you vote to move an inch forward, or even a yard or two. I ended up voting for Carter which I am very proud of today. Reagan won so I learned how much worse it can get. I'm a proud Kerry supporter. I don't like everything he does but I truly trust and respect him. It's not ABB for me.

[Old and In the Way]

17. A lesson we all learn with age, Cally.

:-)

[zoeyfong]

94. Or, we learn that hope isn't going to cut it any more.

Dems are completely out of power after a couple decades of right-wing, corporate aristocracy takever of the US gov 't. And what have dems done to combat this takeover? They've moved right time and time again, and all but denied that they were democrats, while becoming more and more beholden to big money with every election. And in spite of this disgraceful, dishonorable behavior, they continue to lose!!! So what do we have to show for democratic business as usual? Nothing. You know what they say about the definition of insanity... doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.

[Old and In the Way]

15. I go with "unless"

Odd, too, that now we are in and have broken the country, they have no problems leaving without care for the aftermath. Seems we are now obligated to fix what this administration has broken. That would be the only way we will regain our international reputation, I think.

Kerry should (and will) get a real international coalition to oversee the political transfer of governance, but it should cost us plenty to provide the funds to fix the infrastructure.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. While I actually really like Kerry, I don't discredit the fact that people

are disappointed with the notion purveyed by some that Democrats must abandon their traditional values which appeal to a BROAD base in order to get elected. For several years now, the media has been like a vacuum sucking all debate out of the policy process and limiting it, especially as it pertains to social programs.

For the people most affected by the cutbacks, I have empathy. Some will rant against voting for the lesser of two evils, but by constitutional design, those are the choices. Frankly, I think we could do a lot worse than Kerry... most of the people who rant against Kerry lament the fact that Gore isn't in the Whitehouse which would have put Lieberman who is more conservative than Kerry in the line of succession...go figure :D

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[mike_c]

29. in what way does Kerry not support Bush's war?

- He voted for it.

- He has refused to admit that vote was a mistake, or at least to take any responsibility for his own mistake.

- He wants to continue it, and to commit more troops.

- He speaks of winning "the war on terror," which he pledges to pursue more diligently than Bush.

Where did you get the idea than Kerry doesn't "support Bush's war?"

[sangh0]

31. Actually, the quote refers to DUers, not Kerry

Not that I expect you to actually read what there in the link I supplied.

[mike_c]

35. I read it, must have misinterpreted it....

Still, you haven't answered my question, but of course neither do I expect a real response. Senator Kerry shows every indication of suppporting Bush's war. I fully expect to be marching against Kerry's war next spring.

Nonetheless, my response was due to a misinterpretation-- it wasn't a deliberate attempt to hijack this thread. I answered the original poster's question directly, below.

[Prodemsouth]

21. I actually think the left side of Kerry is better behaved than the right

side when it comes to this. Don't forget Zell, Lieberman, and others. Even Noam has said he will support Kerry although with reluctance. In my opinion, Nader, even though he is running, is more restrained, is acting better than Zell Miller who is supporting Bush openly. So this time I think the right side is causing more trouble than the left side. Lieberman praised Condi, yesterday. The left never shirks from 9-11 battle. Also look at Bob Kerrey yesterday shushing the 9-11 widows, he talked down to Clarke about Iraq, and second guessed Clinton on the Cole in open.

[mgarretson]

23. everyone, can we stop freaking out?

On another thread, I tried to post in the middle ground, but didn't succeed in doing so... What I succeed in doing was getting angry retorts from one side that said Dems and Repubs are the same, and from the other side asking me how dare I question Senator Kerry... As I said in that thread, my language didn't help, but it seems everyone is on edge... It's like people are just sitting at the computer waiting to pounce...

I think we all agree that we want Bush out... John Kerry is the best chance of making that occur, regardless of what you think of his policies... Let's debate the important issues, like many DUers do, rather than trying to slit each others throats...

I think we'd all be better off if we chill out a little bit and stop waiting for opportunities to pounce...

Just my thoughts,

[Pastiche423]

24. There is really no reason to undermine the candidate

He is doing quite well on his own.

[sangh0]

26. ARG Poll Kerry 48 % Bush 43 % - Yep, Kerry's killing himself

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x497542

Apr 9 Bush Kerry Undecided

All voters 44% 50% 6%

Republicans 81% 10% 9%
Democrats 3% 95% 2%
Independents 46% 45% 9%

Mar 2004 43% 50% 7%
Feb 2004 46% 48% 6%
Jan 2004 46% 47% 7%

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/presballot /

[blondeatlast]

27. Excellent example, and so well timed!

Nicely done--saywhat put you up to this???

:boring:

Edit: In response to post 24, Pastiche's, NOT sangh0's.

[mgarretson]

28. what was achieved by that comment?

Pastiche423,
What did you achieve with that comment? Are you just looking for the Kerry folks to come crawling down your neck? Rightly or wrongly, one of them will say something about you dragging down the best chance of beating Bush (Kerry) and this flame war will continue...

Maybe to be constructive you could explain your reasons for supporting your candidate (if you have one) and why you can't support Senator Kerry... but the zinging one liner thing just doesn't add much to the conversation...

[blondeatlast]

30. It had to have been on purpose, as an example. It's just too perfect!

[Pastiche423]

32. Just expressing my opinion

How can I have a candidate, when although I have yet to vote, my vote will be irrevelant?

As to why I will not supoport Kerry, see my sig line.

[blondeatlast]

34. What part of "constructive" criticism did you miss?

I see you must be very young. You will learn that there are no ideal candidates.

If you equate Kerry with the evil that is Bush, I can't help you.

:eyes:

[Pastiche423]

39. Constructive criticism was not the question

The question was:

Why do some "Dems" feel the need to undermine our candidate?

That is the question I answered.

Ah, to be young again. In two weeks I will turn a half a century old and I have voted in every presidential election since 1972. I will have been a political activist for even longer than that.

This year, I will join the world of the apathetic and will not vote for the lesser of two evils.

See mike_c's comments, they reflect my feelings.

[blondeatlast]

43. Congratulations on your hard won apathy.

I won't be seeing you in Gitmo, but you may be seeing me. How any SCOTUs justices are soon to retire?

:eyes:

[DEMVET-USMC]

75. Some People Never Learn

Apparently you are one of them. We heard simular arguments from so called idealists or whatevers at least since NIXON vs HUMPHREY and have all had to suffer the consequences of people not voting or going with a third party candidate who had no chance of winning. You have a real choice and Kerry can win this one. Please vote for Kerry and our Nation will get much better in all regards. If we fail this time it may be our last chance. I put absolutely nothing beyond the realm of what the shrubs family is willing to do. They helped to create the NAZI party from the 1920`s up until and then after our entry into World War Two. To check this out go to < www.tarpley.net >. Check out chapter 2 THE HITLER PROJECT. .....Oscar

[blm]

104. Yet you were so willing to vote for someone who governed as a centrist

and who spent his political career way to the right of John Kerry.

Interesting that one of the most liberal Senators is just a lesser evil while you devote yourself to a centrist.

Actually, it's not so much interesting as peculiar.

[sangh0]

36. "Just expressing my opinion" - but not very well

As the responses to it show, no one seemed able to understand your opinion. Is it possible that your opinions are as unclear and poorly reasoned as the manner in which you communicate them?

[bitchkitty]

72. I'll be voting for Kerry

in the GE, but I understand Pastiche perfectly. Why are you being so deliberately obtuse?

[MoonRiver]

46. Thanks for offering that fine example of my point.

[blondeatlast]

47. C'mon, SW, you can tell us--you put him up to it, din'cha???

:evilgrin:

Edit: my parting comment was pretty nasty.

[MoonRiver]

49. Too easy, huh?

What can I say, you got me! :7

[blondeatlast]

50. Ya had me going till he said he would abstain!

[TheDonkey]

86. riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

:crazy:

[mike_c]

33. to answer your broader question, I am a Democrat...

...but John Kerry is not "my candidate"-- he simply doesn't represent my political views, especially with respect to his votes to authorize most of Bush's worst blunders. My opinions are mine, and I don't proselytize them, but I don't keep silent about them either. Nor is my opposition to Senator Kerry a reaction to any other candidate's failures-- Kerry simply does not represent the Democratic Party that I want to work toward.

I respect your right to feel differently. More to the point, I respect your right to express your opinions, and to vote as you believe correct. I presume you will extend similar respect to others, but your post isn't encouraging in that regard.

[blondeatlast]

37. No problem with your criticism--you state a valid reason.

It's the blind one-liners, such as the one above, that irk me.

I was a DK Dem, now I'm ABB, and if a little founded, valid criticism helps us defeat the BFEE, I have no problem with that.

But blind bashing will get a rise out of me everytime.

[sangh0]

40. Kerry *IS* THE Dem candidate

He may not be your favorite candidate, and he may not be your dream candidate. But he is *THE* Democratic candidate for President in 2004. There is ONLY ONE Democratic candidate for President in 2004 and it is Kerry.

Kerry simply does not represent the Democratic Party that I want to work toward.

There is ONLY ONE Democratic Party and they picked Kerry to represent them. Maybe you didn't pick Kerry to represent YOU, but Kerry does represent the Democratic Party. The party as a whole picked him, and your displeasure at this does not change the fact that Kerry DOES represent the Democratic Party in this upcoming presidential election.

I respect your right to disagree with that party. I even respect your right to disagree with the party while continuing to identify as a Democrat. But Kerry is THE Democratic candidate and he represents the party.

[mike_c]

41. I'm glad that comforts you...

...but he'll represent it without my vote.

[sangh0]

42. Your need to ascribe emotion

demonstrates the inherent weakness of your argument.

Please note that my response did not insult or use personal attacks. I merely pointed out that Kerry is indeed the Democratic Party's representative. Instead of responding to the issue, you chose instead to assume emotion on my part.

but he'll represent it without my vote.

I understood you wouldn't be voting him the first time you said it. Please don't think that I feel threatened by your vote and don't think it is in any way persuasive.

What was the point of your repeating that you won't vote for Kerry? Does it make your argument that Kerry doesn't represent the Dem party any stronger? Does it refute what I say?

Or are you the emotional one who needs to throw things around the way a chimpanzee throws his scat when it's meal is delayed?

[Bill Todd]

61. I don't think so

Specifically, I don't believe that "Kerry is THE Democratic candidate and he represents the party."

I believe that Kerry mostly represents the party's disgust with Bush and desire to rid the country of him at virtually any cost. After all, that's what primary exit polling showed: that people who voted for Kerry did so not on the issues (those people voted for Dean 3:2 over Kerry in Iowa, IIRC, and I've got the exit poll stats showing that they broke even between Dean and Kerry in NH even after the 700-odd distortions of the Iowa 'scream' had made 38% of NH voters unwilling to consider Howard at all) but because of his perceived 'electability'.

Kerry may well represent powerful portions of the party's leadership, but don't confuse that with representing the party. After all, if he truly represented us, there'd be nowhere nearly as much debate over the point at forums like this one.

Perhaps he represents you, and you're just concerned that your appreciation of him is not more universally shared. I'd be, in that situation.

- bill

[sangha]

64. Your obvious need to ascribe an emotional motive on my part

betrays the weakness of your argument. Certainly, you don't expect anyone to believe that you can read my mind?

The bottom line is that no matter what the reason for people voting for him, he is who they voted for because he represents what they want.They could have picked Sharpton, DK, Dean, Gephradt, etc, but they didn't.

Perhaps the only entity that represent you is you, and your talk is motivated by your concern that your opinions are not universally shared. For one thing, you are obviously concerned that people did not vote on the basis of issues, and it shows.

Poor thing doesn't know that most people never vote on the issues. If they did, Bush* would never have had a chance in 2000.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[sangha]

99. A funny coincidence

USA4ME had the exact same complaint about me.

[blm]

101. You have GOT to be kidding.

sangha is about as incompetent a poster as John Glenn was a pilot.

Too effin' bad that pure logic tends to trip the switches of so many.

[TreasonousBastard]

67. Fascinating that this...

presupposes the amazing thought that that a political party representing around a hundred million or so people should be perfectly in tune with every single one of them.

Lost in all of these puerile arguments is the simple reality that democracy in all it's forms is always a matter of compromise.

A political party is not a house of worship with all the attendant faith and dogma-- it is simply a means of gaining power. While I agree with everyone who complains about being limited to a two-party system, the simple fact remains that we have to choose one party or the other, and we have to do what it takes to get that party in power.

When we do get in, we have absolutely no right to assume our personal views will prevail. We only have the right to be heard.

[Bill Todd]

69. It might be fascinating, if your observations had any validity

But by and large they don't.

1. My post clearly cited exit polling as indicating that the party nominee is out of step with the party's membershipship - a fact that should also be obvious from the discussions here, given the minority of people who actually appear to be enthusiastic about him. If you're taking me to task for expecting that the positions of the nominee should be agreeable to a simple majority of the party, or at least to some very significant portion around its center, then I'll suggest that you have a somewhat unusual understanding of what 'compromise' means.

2. You may feel that you have to choose 'one party or the other', but the way the ballots are structured makes it clear that other options exist - and some of us will be availing ourselves of them if we don't find either major party candidate acceptable. Your agreement with this position is neither solicited nor required.

3. But I fully agree that we all have the right to be heard: that's exactly what we're doing right here, right now.

- bill

[TreasonousBastard]

71. You bring up one valid point,

but perhaps one you hadn't actually thought of.

There has been much talk of voting for Kerry because of "electibility" but then there are all of these people who voted for him who are half-heated about it-- bringing up the thought that perhaps he's not not so electable after all if not that many are actually that much "for" him.

Aside from that, though, I fail to see how Kerry's positions are that far out of step with the majority of Democrats, unless the majority of Democrats are in the right wing of the party. Kerry has the most liberal record of any of the serious candidates in the race and far more liberal than Dean's were when you get right down to it. Only Kucinich is to the left of him, and we see where that landed Dennis.

Methinks a lot of people are blinded by the IWR vote and ignoring the rest of the record.

Unfortunately, whatever may be on the ballots, we are stuck with only two candidates. Never in our history has a third party had any serious chance of gaining power in any of the elected branches. Third parties have affected Presidential elections, but only negatively. Wallace, Roosevelt, LaFollette, Perot... have all bent the elections, but never had any chance of winning. Congress has had a sorry lack of third party members.

A third party vote is a vote of protest, and since there is no chance of ever getting that candidate into power, it is a vote of defeatism.

I am not talking about being heard here, or in some alternative media, but being heard where it counts-- in the legislature or executive. A politicians supporters are heard before others. Next heard are the opposition that that can help or hurt the officeholders. Those out of the loop are completely out of the loop and have no voice at all.

"President Kerry, I supported Nader for President because I didn't think you were good enough, but now that you got the job..." gets you how far?

[Bill Todd]

87. I don't think you understand

If Kerry doesn't earn my vote before the election, it will be because he demonstrates attitudes and positions that make it extremely unlikely that he'd respond to any requests I might make to him as president - even if I had voted for him (which of course there'd be no way for him to know anyway).

So my intent is to make sure that he recognizes exactly what he has to do to earn my vote (and support), and the votes and support of people like me, before the election - and to make sure that he, and the party, know why they lost (or at least lost so many votes to other candidates, even if they manage to win) if they fail to do that.

As for whether Kerry represents the majority of Democrats, that's certainly debatable. From the answers to recent polls asking whether his foreign-policy stances are uncomfortably PNAC-like in nature and whether he's demonstrating the kind of leadership we want, it's clear that he may well not represent the majority of respondents here, but that's hardly statistically representative of the party as a whole (though may be at least somewhat representative of the activists who turn out the vote).

- bill

edit: As for Kerry's positions being liberal, that really depends on just what period of time one examines. His record as a whole may be so, but his record over the past decade (and especially the past 3 years) leaves a lot more to be desired.

I'd be a lot more comfortable if that pattern were reversed.

- bill

[TreasonousBastard]

90. I understand perfectly...

I simply disagree.

This "earn my vote" nonsense is tedious. One of two people will win the election in November. Choose one or beg out of it completely.

No one will know or care about your protest vote, or who "earned" your vote, but there will be a winner in the election. Choose the better person, or choose the lesser evil, but only a vote for one or the other counts.

If you or anyone else really care about all this, take it to the streets and actually do some work besides whining in internet forums. Find a small party and try to actually get someone elected to office, hopefully a national one. The Greens have been working this way for years, as have some of the rightwing parties. I's not easy, and nothing is guaranteed, but that is the only possible way to be heard.

"Taking back" the Democratic Party, whatever that means (I hope it doesn't mean Tammany Hall and the racist Dixiecrats) is the other tactic that can only work from the ground up with pressure from the leftwing parties. It worked for FDR.

[Bill Todd]

96. No, you don't - nor do you appear to be educable

One of two people will indeed win in November - but in case you hadn't noticed, this is still April. Until November, both nominees and parties will be - or at least if they're serious should be - amenable to persuasion in their pursuit of that win.

That's what people like me are doing - here, by contacting the candidates, by contacting the DNC, by supporting alternatives, and any number of other mechanisms. And if we fail to persuade them, they will indeed know that we voted for a third option, rather than simply didn't bother to vote at all.

We really couldn't care less whether some dullards confuse this with 'whining'. But they'd better get used to it, regardless of what they consider it to be.

- bill

[sangha]

100. Do you use the same arguments for every occassion?

"ineducable", "dullards", "incompetent", etc

[Bill Todd]

110. Only in the regrettably frequent instances where they apply (n/t)

[sangha]

114. So that's a yes

I thought so

[Bill Todd]

124. Was 'only...' too complex a construct for you to understand? (n/t)

[sangh0]

126. It's a "yes"

I understood it perfectly

[TreasonousBastard]

103. Why is it that...

when someone disagrees it's only because he's too dull to see the light? My apologies for not being able to understand this great wisdom I'm so unworthy of.

Contacting nominees is a popular pasttime, and I've done it quite a few times myself. However, If I can't change their minds, I still go with the best option of the possible winners. I have done otherwise, but rarely, and it was always a purely emotional act with no expectation of any actual result.

At this point, all I want is Bush out, and I'll take my chances with Kerry. I would prefer things to be a bit different, but that's just the way they worked out this time.

If you or anyone else insists on a great crusade to get just the perfect opponent for the President-like object, knock yourselves out, but don't expect a whole lot of sympathy.

[sangha]

106. It's all he has

Go through the thread, and you will find many examples of Bill Todd calling others "incompetent", "ineducable", "dullard", etc

[TreasonousBastard]

120. Do we dare...

say the unsayable-lest-we-be-deleted about Mr. "Todd"?

I will say that he has far more energy for this ridiculous line of argument than I do. Where have I seen people brag about that sort of thing?

[Bill Todd]

112. Apology accepted, and no sympathy was asked for (n/t)

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[sangha]

119. What a rousing defense!

I guess there are limits to what can be defended

[wyldwolf]

204. Your post did NOT clearly cite exit polling...

Really, it didn't. You merely threw up an unsourced statement and attributed it to exit polling.

[Dr Fate]

44. Because they dont care if we lose or not.

Strategy dictates that you foucs on the POSITIVE aspects of your candidate- that is, if you are trying to win.

I suppose many have destroyed their egos to the point where winning or making change does not matter- only making a statement matters...

WAIT-I'm just babbling- I have no fucking CLUE what they are thinking...

I want Kerry to win, so I dont trash Kerry- focus on the things I AGREE with him on...

[MoonRiver]

48. And, as usual, I totally agree with you.

Sometimes it all feels so hopeless. BBV + media whores + Naderites + angry supporters of losing Dem primary candidates = another * selection and WWIII. :cry:

on edit: added whores to list of horrors.

[Bill Todd]

62. Thank you!

for that astute observation ("WAIT-I'm just babbling- I have no fucking CLUE what they are thinking..."). Honest assessment is a really good first step toward enlightenment. But if you really don't have a clue, you haven't been reading very carefully.

You want Kerry to win. People like me provisionally want Kerry to win - if he and the party first show some evidence of being people we actually want running the country, rather than just continue campaigning on the basis of not being the bastards who are currently doing so.

Otherwise, we'd prefer that Kerry lose (not that many of us are likely to vote for Dubya, but we'll choose a third way of some sort), so as to weaken the grip that the current leadership has on the party and give us a shot to field a better candidate next time, while turning our efforts to getting solid progressives into Congress to help curb the dog in the White House in the interim (since even the existing Congress has already proven able to do so when the Democrats were willing to stand up and be counted).

Or those of us who just can't muscle up the resolve to tolerate the thought of another 4 years of the chimp want Kerry to win by the slimmest margin possible (by voting strategically in each state to ensure that) to make it absolutely clear to the party just how much support its current policies are losing.

And the point of expressing such feelings here, and now, is to give Kerry and the party an opportunity to understand exactly why a lot of Bush-haters aren't flocking around their feet like adoring sheep, so that Kerry and the party will have time to change to accommodate these concerns if they feel that those voters worth courting. After all, it wouldn't make much sense just to sit back until November 2nd, vote third party (or whatever), and then say "We told you so" without giving Kerry the chance to become someone we would actually want to support.

See: that wasn't so difficult to understand, was it?

- bill

[blm]

139. You sound like someone unaware that Kerry has exposed more government

corruption than any lawmaker in modern history.

That Kerry has a lifetime liberal rating higher than Dennis Kucinich even.

That Kerry is the most liberal nominee we've had in well over 50 years.

If he doesn't deserve faith and trust for his lifetime record then who do you think does?

[Bill Todd]

140. Sorry - being from MA, I'm very well aware of that lifetime record

Unfortunately, I'm also aware of how it's changed over the past decade or so, and especially over the past 3 years.

If this still appeared to be Kerry 1.0, I'd have no problem supporting him. But Kerry 2.0 doesn't seem to resemble that person very much, and that's a big problem for me.

- bill

[blm]

149. So throw away the guy with a 35 year record of progressive work

and throw away the guy who has exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in history.

You would throw away that for who?

Someone who governed their entire career as a centrist and only tacked left during a primary campaign?

Who?

And what moron would turn up their nose and pretend that Kerry's work exposing BCCI, IranContra and CIA drugrunning has no merit today when almost all we have learned about the Bush family (and their foreign policy machinations) has its roots in those investigations?

[Bill Todd]

152. I don't have to throw him away: he's done it himself

but some 'morons', to use your own phrasing, seem oblivious to that fact.

Perhaps they'll wake up after the election.

- bill

[blm]

172. And WHO has a better lifetime record of service than Kerry?

And WHO has no appreciation for the the fact that Kerry has exposed more government corruption than ANY OTHER LAWMAKER in modern history?

I thought only Reagan-Bush loyalists wanted to forget about BCCI, IranContra and CIA drugrunning. Didn't realize those matters were SO unimportant to American history that even some on the left see them as an irrelevant bit of history.

Interesting.

[Bill Todd]

184. What part of the fact that what matters is who Kerry is NOW

rather than who he may have been a decade or three ago is so difficult for you to understand?

- bill

[blm]

191. Because he still maintained a liberal voting record

over the last few years and he is STILL positioned to sweep Bush out in November. He will be the most liberal nominee the Dems have had in decades.

Now what part of EXPOSED MORE GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION THAN ANY LAWMAKER IN MODERN HISTORY fails to earn Kerry any credit from you?

Now why would anyone dismiss Kerry and his 35 year record of progressive work and legislation while bemoaning the loss of a candidate with an 11 year record of governing as a centrist?

[Hav]

45. Because their candidate didn't win?

I think there are some people here who offer valid criticism and genuine concerns and I welcome and appreciate their thoughts.
There is another group though who would rather see Kerry lose because of bitter feelings than seeing an end to the nightmare of the Bush 'presidency' or whatever you want to call what he's doing.
They are expressing their baseless, negative attacks without really being interested in what they pretend to care about. They would attack Kerry for whatever he is doing.

I also want to add how amusing it is to see, how popular Nader suddenly became when the Dem nominee seemed clear and how supportive some are of his effort to get on the ballot of as many states as possible.
Not that I blame Nader solely for 2000 or that I generally disagree with his positions, that's not my point. Of interest is a support that surely wouldn't have been as vocal if the "right candidate" won.

[Bill Todd]

63. You may have confused cause and effect there

at least in part because Nader seemed reluctant to enter the race until it became clear that the Democratic nominee would be Kerry (or some other DLC flunky): without that, he likely simply wouldn't be running.

The other relevant observation is that Democrats supporting Nader may well be doing so less out of pique than because he gives voice to the positions that they feel are important. I've never been a Nader supporter myself, but I like a lot of what he's saying a lot more than I like what Kerry's saying. And since I'm mad as hell about the way the party treated Dean, if ever I were going to support Nader for that reason now would be the time.

One thing that I am glad about is that Nader's candidacy seems likely to place more pressure on Kerry and the party to address better the concerns that people like me have about them.

Rather than assume that people who don't agree with your own political strategy this year are 'bitter' or in some other way less than competent, it might be more productive to try to understand where they're actually coming from. At least if you have any reason to suspect that their votes or other support might be valuable in the future. If their tone is sometimes harsh, it may be simply because they're just as determined to change the party as the more strident Kerry supporters here are to change the occupant of the White House.

- bill

[Hav]

79. .

First, I doubt that it was solely Kerry that made Nader finally choose to run. To my knowledge, he only said he wouldn't run if Kucinich won the Primary and he possibly said the same about Dean.
I also believe that Nader and Kerry are longtime friends. But I could be wrong on these points.
So I believe that you made a false claim by saying that he wouldn't have run if someone else than Kerry would have won this Primary. For the case you believe it was only because of Kerry, I would appreciate some links that prove that Nader made that clear.


As I have pointed out in my post, there are people here who offer valid criticism. I appreciate their thoughts, I listen and understand where they are coming from. Nowhere did I say that all those who "disagree with my political strategy are bitter or less than competent". That is what you assumed what I think when you accused me of assuming what other people think.
What you assumed is not my opinion, it was your claim you needed for your argument and I hope that my opinion is clear by now.
What I said is that there are a couple of people who seem to be that way. I didn't say all but some posts let me make the conclusion that they are pretty bitter (rightfully or not) and that they would rather see Bush win. Like posting on a public board how they will send mail with junk at the expense of the Kerry campaign. Or those who repeat the same baseless slogans again and again.

I also said that this is not about Nader's positions. I made clear that I do not generally disagree with his positions but I also realise that he has absolutely no chance to win the Presidency. That's why he doesn't have to worry much about how he will make his propositions come true. But again, I can agree with many of his positions and it was not primarily about him. It was about a sudden support he got.

[Bill Todd]

88. ?

"So I believe that you made a false claim by saying that he wouldn't have run if someone else than Kerry would have won this Primary."

Exactly what portion of the phrase "Kerry (or some other DLC flunky)" did you find difficult to understand?

"What I said is that there are a couple of people who seem to be that way."

No, what you said was "There is another group...", to my mind a considerably more general accusation than 'a couple of people' (had you said the latter, I would not have suggested that you were generalizing inappropriately).

There's sufficient acrimony in this forum that people tend to be sensitive to such suggestions, and to respond accordingly. If you really only meant to call the actions of a couple of people (whom I apparently have not yet encountered here) into question, I have no problem with that.

- bill

[Zorra]

51. Bashing Kerry is unproductive at this point.

Kerry is almost surely going to be the Dem nominee. Only a Democrat will be able to defeat Bu$h in this election.

Let's quit bashing Kerry and unify and get rid of Bu$h. Every vote is going to be important, barring more election fraud. There is no getting around this fact: We all know that Bu$h will quickly destroy our country if we don't stop him. Failing to unify against him will be the most tragic mistake in the history of the American electorate. We won't get a second chance.

Like DK said:

"We're talking about the essential mission of government -- and John Kerry is going to need a lot of help. He may not be able to say the things he needs to say, so we need to say the things that must be said. We need to present the issues. We need to set the priorities of our party, and we need to set a direction for the Democratic Party, so when people come in November they’ll be lining up outside the polls." --
Dennis Kucinich in speech to PUSH Coalition.

[blondeatlast]

52. God, I STILL love Dennis.

He said it very well.

[MoonRiver]

53. What a wonderful man and American!

Kucinich is awesome! :toast:

[Kanary]

54. Tugboat Dennis says it sooo well!

Speak up for those issues, Dennis!

Kanary

[blondeatlast]

58. Tugboat Dennis! LOOOOOOOVE it!

[Hippo_Tron]

55. Agreed completely w/ Kuch, Kerry is a great guy but he's only human

And as much as I'd like to believe that Kerry has publicly trended a little more to the left since the start of the campaign, I think it's Dennis Kucinich who ultimately pushed him and the other frontrunners there. I believe that Kerry and Kucinich are much more liberal ideologically than most here think but the difference is that Kerry is politically ambitious and Kucinich is not. Kucinich is absolutely right and it's a shame that he can't be heard by more people. We really oughta do exactly what the Republicans do and put our most vocal people in the house leadership. I mean there's little difference ideological between Tom DeLay and Bush (Well, Bush's advisors). But Tom DeLay is openly fascist whereas Bush has to hide it because he has an approval rating and re-election to worry about. DeLay's job is safe as long as the house remains under control of the GOP. And I think the argument that he'd be a liability is total bullshit. DeLay has been a liability for 10 years and he still holds his position. Dick Armey and Trent Lott were liabilities and remained in power for quite some time. Bill Frist is a liability right now, considering the HCA scandals and the fact that he killed cats. The only one of them that has their nose clean (or appears to) is Denny and he has no real power. Kucinich has no liabilities other than his political beliefs, and to me that's only a liability if you're a communist or a total DINO like Zell Miller. He needs to be in a position where he can voice his opinions at the national level without having to worry about re-election. And then maybe in a few years the country will be ready for a Kucinich presidency.

[blondeatlast]

57. Bravo! DK serves well strategically in this election, as does Howard

Dean (whom I did NOT like at all as a primary candidate).

This year's convention is gonna be the best. Never in my lifetime has a Dem victory meant so much, never has the far left and the moderate wing of the party been so united.

I can't wait.

[GalleryGod]

59. Never Underestimate the Asswipe Factor

:argh: Dilettantes and dick-heads abound in this joint!
Come to Philly! Meet us face-to-face!

GG:spank:

[John_H]

70. Dems don't. Freepers do.

[MoonRiver]

76. Point taken.

Thanks.

[DEMVET-USMC]

73. RIGHT ON saywhat !

The only real choice we have in the upcoming Presidential election is between Pres.Chickenhawk and Sen. Kerry. So to DUers out there, get behind Kerry , he`s a very good man who for many reasons is well positioned to win this election. GO JOHN KERRY, ALL THE WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE !!!! ....Oscar

[Ardee]

78. that is the wrong question

Here are the correct questions:

1. Why do certain neoconservative democrats on this forum abet and promote hatred and divisiveness?

2. Why do people on the right in the democratic party fear any and all criticisms of their positions or their chosen candidate, whether or not that criticism is couched in proper and polite language ?

3. Why do the same names post the same misrepresentations of the
positions of the left wing of the democratic party and those of
leftists in general?

4.Why do some people adopt the distorted memes of these right wing operatives without thinking or researching to understand the truth?

5.Why is there never any discussion of why the democratic party has failed in two elections now?

6. why is there never any discussion of why the democratic party has consistantly supported the policies and agendas of George Walker Bush for three full years now?

7. why do people post absurd threads calling for lock step unanimity among democrats when debate is healthy and leads to successful political strategies? Whats next,uniforms?

[Bill Todd]

85. Excellent points - and there are indeed answers for them

"1. Why do certain neoconservative democrats on this forum abet and promote hatred and divisiveness?"

Such behavior is often the result of insecurity - perhaps because they know they're in the minority of the party (though people like them to a large degree control it), because they know that they're not exactly a popular minority ("don't get no respect" for their positions, though if they presented them less confrontationally they might get more), and at least to some degree because they really do detest Bush and are afraid that anything short of unanimity won't suffice to get rid of him.

"2. Why do people on the right in the democratic party fear any and all criticisms of their positions or their chosen candidate, whether or not that criticism is couched in proper and polite language ?"

See above.

"3. Why do the same names post the same misrepresentations of the
positions of the left wing of the democratic party and those of
leftists in general?"

Well, to start with, if such people were educable the behavior would soon cease, hence one must conclude that they're ineducable (unless they simply refuse to listen at all, which produces a similar result).

And, once again, some of it boils down to insecurity - a classical cause of bullying.

Unfortunately, such behavior isn't always confined to the right wing here. Perhaps national polarization contributes to polarization right down to the local faction level, but it's something we'd be better off without, regardless of what side it's on.

"4.Why do some people adopt the distorted memes of these right wing operatives without thinking or researching to understand the truth?"

Laziness, to some significant degree. For some people, thinking and questioning one's assumptions constitute hard work rather than recreation.

"5.Why is there never any discussion of why the democratic party has failed in two elections now?"

See previous response: scapegoating is much easier. Furthermore, of course, it might make such people uncomfortable to have to confront the possibility that the same policies which have been so spectacularly unsuccessful for the past decade (rather than merely the past two biennial elections) are exactly the ones being pursued this year.

"6. why is there never any discussion of why the democratic party has consistantly supported the policies and agendas of George Walker Bush for three full years now?"

I'd guess because apologists for such behavior simply consider it to have been political survival rather than anything more ideologically motivated - and feel that political survival trumps every other consideration. Such people overlook the fact that survival of the species trumps survival of the individual, at least in Darwinian terms - and what has enabled individual Democrats to survive these past 3 years has severely threatened the party as a whole.

"7. why do people post absurd threads calling for lock step unanimity among democrats when debate is healthy and leads to successful political strategies? Whats next,uniforms?"

I think that brings us back to answers 1, 2, and 3 again.

People who feel threatened aren't the pleasantest (or most interesting) conversationalists. And they often strike out at the easiest targets rather than strategically.

While the moderators enforce some level of civility here, real courtesy is beyond their capacity to dictate. And without real courtesy and respect, the divisiveness and rancor both here and in the party at large seem likely to continue - not an encouraging basis upon which to build any real coalition that could get the country out of the hole that it's in, regardless of who may be elected in November.

- bill

[sangha]

102. "Laziness", "ineducable"

it seems you have the same argument no matter what the debate.

Kind of ironic for you talk about civility

[Bill Todd]

107. Actually, what I'd like to see is actual courtesy

Technically, we have civility.

But until that halcyon day dawns, I tend to believe in fighting fire with fire - if only to highlight the desirability of change.

- bill

[sangha]

111. I believe you!!

After all, your use of words like "Laziness", "ineducable", adn "dullards" is obviously meant to foster courtesy

[gpandas]

117. pleasent, more pleasant, most pleasant...

learn basic grammer befor you decide who is educable

[Bill Todd]

123. "Pleasent"?

Under glass, perhaps?

- bill

[gpandas]

125. not to quick on the uptake, eh bill

pleasantest is not a word, who is uneducable?

[Bill Todd]

132. Oh, dear - and now not 'to' quick...

I fear someone who clearly can't even spell is presuming to be picky about grammar. Unfortunately, this level of competence seems to be on the increase here of late, where one might have hoped for something a bit more substantive in the way of discussion.

(Based on your apparent level of acuity, perhaps I should explain the 'under glass' comment as well: in addition to being a play on a secondary misspelling, it referred to people who live in glass houses - but seems also to have turned out to have been a 'roof joke' as well.)

- bill

edit: Before you respond again, you might also wish to learn the spelling of 'grammer' (sic).

- bill

2nd edit: And I'm afraid that the opposite of 'educable' is not 'uneducable' (sic). This is getting ludicrous, but fortunately your messages are short enough that you're about run out of words to misspell, so I think I can stop now.

I don't use the spell-check option here because I don't particularly like enabling script, but you might consider trying it.

- bill

[gpandas]

137. gotcha, didn't i

[Bill Todd]

142. That's certainly not my impression

but I'm always willing to consider new evidence if it appears. Should your future posts that I happen upon prove to be dramatically better-constructed and insightful, I'll start considering the possibility that this exchange was in fact a well-orchestrated series of jokes and appreciate it accordingly: that would certainly be an improvement over the current environment here.

- bill

[edzontar]

127. Thanks, Bill and Ardee, for saying it best of all.....

Kerry has come out for explicitly in favor of the war in some of his recent comments, and if this keeps up, even I, who have sworn to vote for him because I live in PA, may have to vote 3rd party instead....there is a limit to how far I am willing to compromise on this matter.


As for the ranitng of the rightwing Dems, I say fine-let them rant--nothing can ever stop them, so let them flame on until they choke on their own venom.

I have tried to explain to them that their stalking and ranting only does their cause more harm, and drives people AWAY from the very candidate they want us to support.

But it just does not seem to do any good.

[sangh0]

128. Bill Todd disagrees with you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x498958#499165

Bill Tood approves of Kerry's Iraq policy

[edzontar]

129. I was thanking Bill on his evaluation of the DEM-RW bashers

My comments on Kerry's warpolicy were my own.

[sangh0]

130. Your own words contradict you

Thanks, Bill and Ardee, for saying it best of all.....Kerry has come out for explicitly in favor of the war in some of his recent comments, and if this keeps up, even I, who have sworn to vote for him because I live in PA, may have to vote 3rd party instead....there is a limit to how far I am willing to compromise on this matter.

You made Iraq the critical issue in your earlier comment. Now you want us to believe that "DEM-RW bashers" are the issue even though your own words on that issue were tepid, at best:

As for the ranitng of the rightwing Dems, I say fine-let them rant--nothing can ever stop them, so let them flame on until they choke on their own venom.

[edzontar]

131. Whatever...

nt

[sangh0]

135. What a rousing defense!!

It was everything I expected from you...Nothing

[Bill Todd]

136. Thanks

The Brown Shirts appear to be out in force here of late.

Kerry has been wrong from the start in his wishy-washy support for (or at best refusal to oppose) the war, and that's one of the reasons I won't be voting for him without seeing a substantive rejection of the PPI neocon foreign policy on his part. My comment referred to elsewhere concerned his apparent current desire to hand over control of Iraq to the U.N. to try to defuse the flavor of U.S. occupation that (rightfully) helps fuel Iraqi turmoil: if he's also saying things that appear to contradict that goal, I'd like to become aware of them.

- bill

[sangh0]

143. Contradicting yourself again

Here's what you said in the post I linked to earlier:

If Kerry's current stance on Iraq were the sole issue in the election I'd support him in a heartbeat: he may have been utterly unacceptable in this area a year ago, but given where things stand today at least seriously attempting to get the rest of the world involved (with particular emphasis on countries the Iraqis might find more sympatico) by offering a transfer of authority to the U.N. combined with continuing economic and logistical support is the best remaining option, even if there's no guarantee it would succeed (and God help the region if it doesn't).

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

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

[Ardee]

148. Thanks for the sincere response.

I may differ a bit on your definitions but, in general,I agree with the assessment.

I see no difference between the tactics of some on this board, those who overlook the debating points and comment upon style rather than substance are first on that particular list, between the Rush Limbaughs , Sean Hannity's, Bill O'Reilly's and those democrats who adopt the same smear campaigns, distortions, lies and arrogance in demanding no debate, no questions, just blind allegiance and support.

If the opinions of those who disagree with them are so dangerous as to provoke them in this sad way then I needs must more closely examine their positions, find some substance there and decide why they seek to end free speech, banish any competition, deny the rights of people to run for office with absurd and unfounded charges of complicity and duplicity.

When some seek to make our political decisions almost comic-book like by referring to Bush as if he were a Stan Lee villain, or a dedicated and caring person like Nader as if he were a traitor, an agent of that same villany when he has spoken out against the Republican party and Bush in particular time and again, when they seek to silence any and all critique of the system and their own party then you can be very certain of one thing. These people have an agenda, and that agenda has nothing whatsoever to do with honesty or truth, it has nothing at all to do with saving our nation from its slow and enoxerable descent into facism.

No indeed, al these neocons in the democratic party want is the certainty that they will have a share in this facist entity that is emerging.They wish no questioning of the decisions of democrats to vote for war, to vote for the suspension of our liberties, to vote for Bush again and again and again. They want noone delving to closely into the sad and empty silences we hear ( or fail to hear) from democrats for three years now, we see them using every means at their disposal to prevvent discussion as to why two elections have been abysmal failures for democrats.

Oh yes blame the antichrist Nader, rail against his portfolio, forgetting or not caring that it pales next to those of many, many democrats, or not understanding the difference between common stocks and mutual funds. Distort or outright lie about his comments about the democrats, ignore his scathing critiques of the GOP, criticisms far more pointed than that of the democrats mild and whispered rebukes.

Use every means at your disposal to keep people from understanding that the democratic party is a hollow and empty shell of a party, one that has sold its soul and cast out its liberals for a mess of pottage in the form of a few corporate donations. Keep folks from understanding that your party is living on its past and ,unless there is a debate and a discussion it will have no future.

For heaven sakes allow noone to understand that ,even should Kerry win the election very, very little will change. Our bloated defense budget will continue to grow, our children's future will be sold out for continued corporate profit, terrorism will remain as rampant under Kerry as it is under Bush as it grew under Clinton because to deal with terrorism one must deal with inequitable distribution of wealth, with blatant racism and unfair meddling in the governments of nations to make more money for a few old white guys.

I much prefer to refuse to participate in a sham of a party, in an empty promise to me and a sacred oath to the Halliburtons of the world.I have had enough of this fraud and want real change. In the words of an old ,dear and too soon deceased friend:

"There comes a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you cannot take part, you cannot even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies on the gears, and upon the levers, and upon the wheels, upon all the apparatus. And you've got to make it stop." Mario Robert Savio

Bob, old friend, old Valedictorian, old fond memory, that time has come for me.

[Bill Todd]

154. You're more than welcome

And it's worth remembering that throwing oneself on the gears may be more effective when done from inside the system than from outside it.

I'm slowly learning that there are a several very active people here who simply aren't worth talking with, because they won't allow an actual conversation to interfere with their agenda. This in contrast to a few others who seem honestly earnest but a bit hard of hearing.

So as I weed at least the former out, I hope that the tenor of my interactions will improve, because I suspect that there's quite a bit to learn here from people who may often be too disgusted with the noise level to participate much - and so far I'm afraid that DU has lacked the substantive nature that I'd hoped to find here, seeming more to be divided between a Kerry pom-pom section and those with varying degrees of aversion to his candidacy (but with even more aversion to Bush's, save for a minority like myself who take a wider view of the problem than simply who the next president will be).

Do you happen to have any pointers for areas of activity (beyond the melee here) where one might engage in productive gear-clogging, or even something that might produce an immediately positive result rather than just help pave the way for one down the road? I asked someone else a while ago who had raised the question of what other activities I was pursuing, but if she was aware of any such avenues she may have elected not to pass them on, not being of similar mind.

- bill

typo edit

[Ardee]

183. areas of activity

depend solely upon your political bent. There are, on this vast internet of ours, many, many political forii of every persuasion and degree of intellect. They all, however, have one thing in common; they are useless for anything but researching and venting. Some provide petitions to be signed, addresses to email ones elected crook of choice and the like and may be useful to those who think real activism consists of venting ones spleen in front of a keyboard.

That latter is my main reason for posting here, that and keeping track of the neocon, DLC lovers trickery and treachery in deceiving most loyal and well meaning democrats.

If one is serious about working to change the system under which we live in false and shoddy "wealth" while the world pays dearly for our toys and trinkets then one must work locally, tirelessly and among ones friends and neighbors. Find one person who shares your view and both seek others. Meet ,plan, and act. Ive been involved in political activism for over forty years now and mainly with the same group of (aging) activists, and now, proudly, with some of the children of those folks. Most of them, and we are split between the Bay Area and Oregon, feel that my internet activities are a waste of time, but I think that finding one sympathetic soul, or planting a seed in one persons mind that might sprout and lead to a revelation is worht the countless failures and responses from those who seek only to perpetuate the rotten mess in which we wallow.

As a charming person who once graced these threads with wisdom and wit before receiving a very unjust tombstone for a four word response to a question, a response that contained no epithet or curse by the by, once said:

Agitate,Antagonize, Educate, Organize........

[Bill Todd]

194. I can't see much utility to DU beyond whatever smattering of education

manages to occur in the midst of the noise here. And I understand how grassroots efforts eventually grow.

But I'm specifically interested this year in getting together with people determined to influence the party platform away from the neocon agenda that currently seems to be on the table. I don't see supporting Nader as likely to be a useful approach, at least right now, since it takes the focus outside the party. Supporting Dennis seems likely to result in a pat on the head and a brush-off at the convention, since I don't expect him to threaten to bolt if the platform does not meet with his approval.

So my suspicion is that there's a need to make it clear that there's a sizable constituency out here that's prepared to support Kerry if he and the party move credibly in the proper directions and equally prepared to oppose him actively if they do not, regardless of what, say, Nader may do (though there are clearly multiple groups, including Nader's, who might cooperate to varying degrees in such a project because they're unhappy with Kerry and the party leadership, ranging from people who plan to vote for him reluctantly but would still like their concerns to be met to those who will go out and spear-head an 'anyone but Kerry' movement specifically aimed at diverting supporters whom he and the party might think they can take for granted).

That's the kind of activity I'd like to hook up with. Progressive groups seem generally reluctant to play the kind of hardball that we saw from the DLC and its minions during the primaries, but there have to be some people out there sufficiently disgusted to be making such an effort.

- bill

[Ardee]

196. Bill Todd meet dead horse

You are beating the proverbial dead horse, especially here at neocon central.It is admirable that your intentions are to "rescue" your party from its self inflicted suicide but how on earth can you do so?

Can you oust the McAuliffes and the Froms from power, no of course you cannot. Can you persuade the DNC that wooing corporate donations by softpedalling traditional Democratic values and programs is simply making the GOP look better, nope sorry. Can you decide on a platform for your candidate that makes him look less like a 'me-too only better' loser, again the answer is afraid not.Can you restore the voice of the progressive to the decision making process, you already know the answer, dont you?

Nader brings one important thing to the table during this campaign, he will raise issues that neither party wishes raised. He will force Kerry to deal with these issues when he would rather not do so, or at least his DLC masters wish he wouldnt.

As a former forty year democrat I tell you sincerely that your party is dead meat, at least for the forseeable future, and this regardless of whether or not Kerry beats Bush! Nothing important or far reaching will change regardless of which centrist occupies the WH, both answer to corporate masters in the end.

Each must follow h/her own course, each must evolve politically at h/her own speed, but ,for me, the work revolves around the growth of third party politics as it appears the only way to ensure that a progressive agenda remains on the table.

[Bill Todd]

197. You're in a far better position than I to know whether any such effort

as I described is going on, which is why I asked you.

And unless I've misinterpreted your response, it's that there is absolutely no group within the party with the balls to stand up and rebel (rather than simply whine) to demand substantive position changes in areas such as foreign policy and the economy, so the only way to express one's refusal to accept things as they currently stand is to go elsewhere.

That's a pretty dismal situation, if it's true. The ideals of the party membership (at least as in evidence here) still seem pretty compatible with my own and more so than with its current leadership, which would normally suggest to me that working for change from within would make more sense than helping start a separate national party with similar ideals from the ground up. But I guess ideals don't count for much if you're not willing to take a stand for them, and lacking the Bush boogeyman the impetus for real change seems likely to be even weaker in the future.

As long as Nader and the Greens are so solicitous that they'll refuse to campaign in 'swing' states, I'm not sure how much pressure they'll actually place on Kerry and the party leadership. I'd like to join people interested in doing something a bit more assertive than simply 'airing issues' - Howard and Dennis did plenty of that already, and while that may have helped provide impetus for some longer-term change if it didn't create more than a handful of people willing to stand up right now then I'm a little skeptical about the likelihood of really significant longer-term follow-through. I'm especially worried that Nader might actually withdraw at the last minute and try to swing his supporters to Kerry without having obtained anything significant in the way of compromise, but perhaps having him as a focal point in the interim would still be worth it - after all, a significant number of Dean supporters are refusing to back Kerry under the current circumstances, regardless of what Howard himself is urging.

I understand that DU isn't the best place to find recruits for such an in-party effort. But there seem to be enough dissatisfied Democrats here that I'd hoped to find at least a pointer to somewhere less party-line in nature (yes, there are other discussion fora that fit that description, but none that I've yet found doing any real organizing).

At any rate, thanks: it's not that I'm uninterested in activity that has only a longer-term potential payoff, it's that I don't see why we should feel it necessary to give up on something more immediate in the process. I care a lot less who the next occupant of the White House will be than about what his committed stances will be, and the latter is still theoretically subject to influence (if the people he'll be depending upon to elect him are willing to make their commitment to this sufficiently visible).

- bill

[Ardee]

198. Democrats with attitude

If you choose to remain within the Democratic Party then ,imo, you must work to overthrow its current leadership, install more enlightened ones who will listen to those left of Attila the Hun, ones who will seek to restore the party to its once proud place alongside working men and women, championing liberal causes and reaching out to the disaffected voter.

I welcome your efforts and believe that there are many here who feel the way you do, but are silent in the face of the barrage of right wing posts and insults.

There are many ways to be an effective activist and I would encourage you to take the road you see as best, just do please take a road, we need you.

[madfloridian]

89. Good points you made. Discussing positions is NOT bashing.

It is necessary in a democracy. Saying that we do not agree with a nominee's stance on a position is not bashing.

I like these points you made:
QUOTE:...". why is there never any discussion of why the democratic party has consistantly supported the policies and agendas of George Walker Bush for three full years now?

7. why do people post absurd threads calling for lock step unanimity among democrats when debate is healthy and leads to successful political strategies? Whats next,uniforms?....."

[Guaranteed]

80. Nobody's undermining Kerry. They're simply asking more

of him than he's prepared to give, at least at the moment.

I'm taking the opposite position to what you mentioned. I'm almost definitely voting for Kerry, but I'm going to tell him how I want him to represent me. You can not tell me that there's anything wrong with that.

[MoonRiver]

83. The only thing I'm asking of him right now is to win.

He seems to be doing a good job in that area. Most recent polls show him ahead of widdle emperor wannabe.

[Piperay]

81. Some of these "Dems" aren't really

"Dems" all...


all...http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=120x16577

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[Larkspur]

97. To let you know that we are not sheep willing to follow Kerry

and to express our disapproval of the Stalinist tactics of the DNC, which wants to paint a false picture of unity on the Democratic Party.

I supported Al Gore first and then Howard Dean. If Gore had not bowed out or Dean had not done the wonderful things he did, I'd have written in Bugs Bunny on my state's primary ballot. My distain for Kerry predates my support of Dean.

Kerry is about as charismatic as a zombie. He only surpassed Gephardt as being more likeable.

As far as his "liberal" views, well those are faux liberal views of Kerry's. Kerry is a political opportunist. If he perceives that votes for liberal causes will help him gain power, he'll vote liberal and the same holds for conservative views.

[MoonRiver]

98. And amidst all that anti-Kerry dialogue, I detect nothing negative about *

Guess you consider the DNC and Kerry a bigger threat to civilization than AWOL. :eyes:

[Bill Todd]

105. There's actually a reasonable argument to that effect

because both current events and the emergence of something resembling a spine in the Democratic party are weakening Bush, while a win would put the DLC-dominated portion of our party in the White House and on the ascendent, hence possibly even harder to evict later.

But it may be more likely that Larkspur doesn't really think people here need much education about Bush, while many of them clearly could use a bit of eye-opening about the current direction of the party and its implications for the future.

- bill

[MoonRiver]

113. I see.

:eyes:

[sangha]

116. He's trying to edicate the "ineducable"

Go through the thread and see how often he uses the word "ineducable"

Now he wants to say he's trying to educate people.

[MoonRiver]

118. Must be really frustrating for the poor guy!

We DUers are simply incorrigible! :D
:spank:

on edit: What's not to love about DU's Spellcheck feature? :shrug:

[sangha]

121. Incorrigible? Speak for yourself

I'm unejumicatible!!

[MoonRiver]

122. Sangha!

You simply MUST stop sourcing B.T.'s 'Jack Daniels's Enhanced, Revised, and 100% Proof Improvised, New American English Dictionary'!
:spank: BIG TIME!

[blm]

109. HAHAHAHA.....you hate Kerry because he was TOO liberal for you.

There are many posts of yours that claim Kerry was TOO liberal and that Dean was a better fit for your moderate centrism.

LMAO at those who now want to pretend that Dean is some sort of real lefty Democrat while Kerry is not much different than Bush.

What a load of hypocrisy.

Dean knows he was just politicking when he made most of his comments during the primary. That's why it is so easy for him now to just work to defeat Bush like ALL Democrats should.

[Larkspur]

161. I don't think I ever recall saying Kerry was liberal. I always saw him as

faux liberal at best. His supporters on this board claim that he is a super-liberal and then that gets Kerry in trouble with the conservative-biased media, which may explain why Kerry backtracks on his so called liberalism.

I'm a moderate and the problem with you blm, is that you think every DU'er is an extreme leftwing liberal. I said and have done so repeatedly said that I was a moderate and yes, I preferred Dean's pragmatic politics to Kerry's opportunist ones. Dean's record in Vermont is much better that Kerry's 19 years in the senate. My Mass Dem friends can recall what the hell Kerry has done for Mass in 19 years.

Kerry is really a political opportunist and I do recall saying that. And in addition I said that if Kerry lived in Zell Miller's district, he'd be a conservative.

[ACK]

162. What a load of crap

He is a solid centrist liberal.

Are there mistakes in mind in terms of decisions in this list? Oh yeah, but it does not eradicate 19 years of solid liberal Democratic voting record.

He is not a super liberal but he is no frickin' Zell Miller. What insulting reactionary garbage.

John Kerry on Abortion

No criminalization of a woman's right to choose. (Jun 7)
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on disallowing overseas military abortions. (May 1999)

John Kerry on Budget & Economy

Bush policy kept economy afloat in recession-keep some of it. (Sep 25)
No excuse for special tax cuts for the rich. (Jun 17)
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted NO on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

John Kerry on Civil Rights

Include a sunset provision in the Patriot Act. (Jun 17)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Shift from group preferences to economic empowerment of all. (Aug 2000)

John Kerry on Corporations

Democratize the process of corporate boards. (Sep 25)
Voted NO on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)

John Kerry on Crime

Voted YES on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)
Voted NO on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)
Voted NO on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995)
Voted YES on repealing federal speed limits. (Jun 1995)
Voted NO on mandatory prison terms for crimes involving firearms. (May 1994)
Voted NO on rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals. (May 1994)
More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)
Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)

John Kerry on Drugs (snicker)

Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Voted NO on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)

John Kerry on Education

Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on Educational Savings Accounts. (Mar 2000)
Voted NO on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules. (Mar 1999)
Voted NO on education savings accounts. (Jun 1998)
Voted NO on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)
Voted NO on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
Voted NO on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer. (Jul 1994)
Voted YES on national education standards. (Feb 1994)
Offer every parent Charter Schools and public school choice. (Aug 2000)
Three R’s: $35B for Reinvestment,Reinvention,Responsibility. (Jan 2001)

John Kerry on Energy & Oil

ANWR won't provide any oil for 20 years. (Sep 25)
Invent our way out of oil dependency-don't drill our way out. (Sep 25)
Invest in advancing secure forms of energy instead of oil. (Jun 17)
Led effort to try to raise fuel efficiency standards. (May 3)
Create new energy sources to end Mideast dependency. (May 2002)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 10)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 19)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on replacing CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on keeping CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)

John Kerry on Environment

Safeguard the environment and grow the economy. (Jun 17)
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997)
Voted YES on terminating desert protection in California. (Oct 1994)
Voted YES on requiring EPA risk assessments. (May 1994)
Reduce liability for hazardous waste cleanup. (May 2001)

John Kerry on Families & Children

Fund Head Start to leave no child behind. (Sep 4)
Voted YES on restricting violent videos to minors. (May 1999)
Give parents tools to balance work and family. (Aug 2000)

John Kerry on Foreign Policy

Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (May 2002)
Voted YES on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons. (Sep 2000)
Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech. (Apr 1998)
Voted YES on $17.9 billion to IMF. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on ending Vietnam embargo. (Jan 1994)
Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)
Multi-year commitment to Africa for food & medicine. (Apr 2001)

John Kerry on Free Trade

Dean's trade policy is protectionist. (Sep 25)
FTAA needs more labor and environmental standards. (Sep 4)
Fix NAFTA-canceling it would be disastrous. (Sep 4)
Capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. (May 3)
Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000)
Voted YES on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority. (Nov 1997)
Voted YES on fast track trading authority. (Nov 1997)
Voted YES on imposing trade sanctions on Japan for closed market. (May 1995)
Build a rule-based global trading system. (Aug 2000)

John Kerry on Government Reform

Flag and patriotism belong to all Americans. (Jun 17)
Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on allow signatures for voter registration instead of photo IDs. (Feb 2002)
Voted YES on McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on limiting funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
Voted YES on cloture of 1998 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Feb 1998)
Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on Approving the presidential line-item veto. (Mar 1996)
Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995)
Voluntary public financing for all general elections. (Aug 2000)

John Kerry on Gun Control

Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)

John Kerry on Health Care

Cover more citizens with health plan like Congress gets. (May 3)
Lack of accessible health care is a disgrace. (May 2002)
Voted YES on allowing importation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on increasing funds for Medicare prescriptions. (Mar 1999)
Voted YES on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
Voted NO on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Voted YES on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
Voted YES on medical savings acounts. (Apr 1996)
Establish "report cards" on HMO quality of care. (Aug 2000)

John Kerry on Homeland Security

No new generation of nuclear weapons. (Sep 4)
Automatic citizenship to immigrants who serves in army. (Sep 4)
Voted YES on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures. (May 1999)
Voted NO on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (May 1999)
Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP. (Mar 1999)
Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%. (Feb 1999)
Voted NO on deploying missile defense as soon as possible. (Sep 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex basic training. (Jun 1998)
Voted NO on favoring 36 vetoed military projects. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on banning chemical weapons. (Apr 1997)
Voted NO on considering deploying NMD, and amending ABM Treaty. (Jun 1996)
Voted NO on 1996 Defense Appropriations. (Sep 1995)

John Kerry on Immigration

Amnesty to anyone here over 5 or 6 years. (Sep 4)
Voted NO on allowing more foreign workers into the U.S. for farm work. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
Voted NO on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)

John Kerry on Infrastructure

Voted YES on Internet sales tax moratorium. (Oct 1998)
Voted YES on telecomm deregulation. (Feb 1996)
Chief information officer to digitize federal government. (Aug 2000)
Promote internet via Congressional Internet Caucus. (Jan 2001)

John Kerry on Jobs

Trade grows jobs. (Sep 25)
Jump start jobs at home via energy independence. (Sep 4)
Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Voted NO on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Voted NO on allowing workers to choose between overtime & comp-time. (May 1997)
Voted NO on replacing farm price supports. (Feb 1996)

John Kerry on Principles & Values

Favorite song: Bruce Springsteen, "No Surrender.". (Sep 9)
Need a president who won't write laws only for contributors. (Sep 9)
Contest between common sense values and extreme ideologues. (Jun 7)
I'm talking about things that matter to people. (May 3)
It is time for this country to ask again, why not? (May 3)
Religious affiliation: Catholic. (Nov 2000)
Supports Hyde Park Declaration of "Third Way" centrism. (Aug 2000)
Member of Democratic Leadership Council. (Nov 2000)
New Democrat: "Third Way" instead of left-right debate. (Nov 2000)
Member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition. (Jan 2001)

John Kerry on Social Security

Guarantee Social Security soundness, even if unpopular. (Sep 25)
Don't threaten Social Security on Wall Street trading block. (May 2002)
Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999)
Voted NO on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees. (May 1998)
Voted NO on allowing personal retirement accounts. (Apr 1998)
Voted NO on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes. (May 1996)
Create Retirement Savings Accounts. (Aug 2000)

John Kerry on Tax Reform

10% bracket in Bush tax cuts was Democrats' idea. (Sep 25)
Bush tax cuts reach 32 million in middle class. (Sep 25)
We're tired of being trickled on--Middle class tax cuts now. (Jun 7)
Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 23)
Voted NO on cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion over 11 years. (May 2001)
Voted YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
Voted NO on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on $792B tax cuts. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)
Voted NO on FY99 tax cuts. (Apr 1998)

John Kerry on War & Peace

Maybe on $87B for Iraq-repeal Bush tax cut to pay it, if yes. (Sep 25)
De-Americanize Iraq: the exit strategy is victory. (Sep 9)
Vote for war was needed to push Saddam on inspectors. (Sep 9)
$87B for Iraq only when internationalization is addressed. (Sep 9)
Don't miss 3rd opportunity in Iraq to bring in UN. (Sep 4)
Don't send more US troops to Iraq-share power & share burden. (Sep 4)
Against a misapplied blanket pre-emptive doctrine. (Jun 17)
Intelligence information should not be manipulated. (Jun 17)
Disarm Saddam, but war should be a last resort. (May 3)
Preferred diplomacy, but supported invading Iraq. (May 3)
Vietnam didn't threaten US; US war crimes did. (Apr 1971)
Vietnam war was criminal hypocrisy and tore apart US. (Apr 1971)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted NO on allowing all necessary forces and other means in Kosovo. (May 1999)
Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
Voted NO on ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Jul 1995)
Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)

John Kerry on Welfare & Poverty

Voted YES on welfare block grants. (Aug 1996)
Voted YES on eliminating block grants for food stamps. (Jul 1996)
Voted NO on allowing state welfare waivers. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on welfare overhaul. (Sep 1995)
Finish welfare reform by moving able recipients into jobs. (Aug 2000)

[Larkspur]

170. That's not what I said...

I said that Kerry is a political opportunist and if he was from Zell Miller's district, he'd be like Zell. Kerry can get away with playing the liberal card because Mass is a liberal-moderate state.

[ACK]

171. The lie machine is go good we believe it ourselves

The man has always been just a tad left of center.

That is how he was in his private life from everything I have read and heard.

Opportunist? If you dismiss his entire career because of two or three votes then yes. If you look his entire record, forget the propaganda and look at the man, you will see he is nothing like a grandstanding media whore-driven Zell just looking for another ten minutes of talking head time.

Mass is a solid liberal state and if anything Kerry can be too moderate to those values.

Did you read the How Kerry Wins thread and read the Salon article?

How do you come by such an opinion? Is just the two votes? If he was an opportunist he would have stabbed Clinton in the back the way many Dems of the times did. He did not.

I just do not get this unless you are single issue voter which many people who hate Kerry are and just will not admit it.

+

[blm]

175. HooHaw. Exalt the centrist Dean while complaining Kerry's no progressive.

What a hoot.

Guess Mass folks have no appreciation for the FACT that their Senator exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history?

Or is the complaint that Kerry NEVER did anything just more bs meme-spreading from the intransigent and aggrieved?

[RetroLounge]

134. Poop

Deal with it...

RL

[wadestock]

138. When I saw the young Kerry talking about Vietnam.....

on recent videos that were intended to portray him as fessing up to war crimes....I got more respect for him than I've ever had before.
He came across to me as completely honest, caring, and driven to do the right thing. He didn't express anything in my opinion other than concern for his country and what was right.

I was a solid Clark guy but now my heart is coming over to Kerry.
He is definitely for real.

His message telling is also greatly improving of late...especially recent college forums....

Not only is he acting more personable....he's getting the message of the "bipartisan" sound financial management concept across.

This is extremely important because it IS what happened with Clinton....when financial sanity did take hold for a while. But instead of saying that he will "return" to the Clinton year type strategies....he's articulating much better what happened in those years....and why it happened....where he was in the whole thing and what he did....and why it was the right thing to do. He is clearing up for a lot of people (assuming they are listening) where his real intentions are and how this relates to his Senate record.

Kerry is going to make a wonderful president.

[ACK]

141. Circular firing squads are fun

What is the use of having a political party if you can't run around and stab each other in the backs?

Come one they did to Clinton on the National Healthcare issue and other issues.

Its the thing to do.

Its not about winning or losing. Its about fucking over the guy who is supposed to be on your side for not being ideally pure or on the other side for being a leftist extremist. Pick your side and start stabbing.

Its fun and the corporate whore press will give you lots of help too while you do it.

This is not the time to band together and work behind the scenes to move our candidate more to the left.

This is not the time to band together to reform the party.

This is not the time to come together to expel a criminal regime.

After all that is not what Democrats do. We all run around living up to the worst expectations and stereotypes of the freepers. We bounce about in our Daschle-made pink tutus with silver plated pistols in a big circular firing squad circle jerking to the sound of our own death.

Try it. Its fun.

+

[MoonRiver]

144. So, are we having fun yet?

Sometimes I think this discussion has gone completely over the edge. We wanna win by losing!! YEAH!! Let's bash our guy and prop up the international war criminal selected resident AWOL chickenhawk/shit moron!! YEAH!! Go Team Go! Take the ball and run to the oppositions goal post!! Wheeeeeeee!! :crazy:

[ACK]

145. Just getting annoyed myself

Everyone ignores the threads listing Kerry talking about Iraq then they post threads that complain he is not doing anything... blah .. blah .. blah.

Considering how early in the campaign it is (Nicholas_J in another thread pointed this out) Kerry doing damn well in the polls.

Its like everyone thinks the evil of shrub is self-evident while at the same time complaining about the brainwashing of the population by the corporate media. Circular logic seems to be fun.

Alright, I went into self-imposed exile during the middle of the primary. Maybe I need to go back until this election is over and concentrate on real efforts like working on the Kerry campaign directly.

Yes, btw, I have already donated all the money I could logically spare.

_

[MoonRiver]

147. If your time and energy permit (I know how limited those can be)

you should jump back into the fray. Some of us have been slugging it out against the irrationally left plus leftist pretender freepers for awhile. We need your help! (I sorely wish there were a DU icon for "The Scream").

Other than that, Kerry is doing damn well :kick: ! He's winning more polls than he's losing! :kick:

[ACK]

150. Having a slow week at work and feeling guilty

Like I should be getting some real work in for the campaign in the hopeless land of Virginia.

Instead I have been lurking here. :-)

[MoonRiver]

151. Don't feel guilty. I waste so much time it's shameful.

What to do? We gotta have some down time. :pals:

[gate of the sun]

156. give me a break

flat out negative and mean spirited? This sounds like some republican post. For goodness sake some of us here don't believe in what Kerry stands for. we don't like his record , we don't like his recent votes that enabled bush. We don't believe he is going to help the situation we are in very much. I mean he will help stop the slide into oblivion maybe....but is he going to return jobs to the US? Stop the invasion of Iraq? Nullify the patriot act? I don't think so. The point of broadcasting these feelings is because we are part of the party who desires real change for the better in this country. Not some talking in name only democrat who is going to continue us down the same yellow brick road as bush. Get it? Mean spirited I think not.

[ACK]

158. You don't like two votes probably

The same two votes as a Kerry supporter I don't like.

It takes a twisted narrow minded soul to take a 19 year liberal tradition of voting and twist it into the phrase "talking in name only democrat".

Look at his total record and that man is one of the most solidly liberal candidates to run since Mondale for goodness sakes.

Mean spirited? Bitter is more like it.

+

[gate of the sun]

193. I don't know

those were 2 important votes affecting many lives. I did mention otherwise his present stand on many issues causing us to appear "mean spirited".

[Sorry.]

159. US left bends over ...

As a Brit I find this thread pretty astonishing. John Kerry stands to the right of virtually every single conservative party in the developed world.

He's not going to withdraw from Iraq. He probably won't renew the patriot act, but his stance on "fightin' terr" means that the security services won't let up even he does. Economics; same old shit - NAFTA, no health care, FTAA - more US jobs down the toilet. At best he'll sort out the deficit. Israel, Venezuela, Haiti, Columbia bla bla bla bla bla.

Yet somebody shoves the Bush boogie man in your face and you hurried to write out your voting form and get in the prettier face of the multinationals, whilst he promises middle America that he'll "fight terror" (kill poor people for money) even more than this regime did.

2 years time, you'll be complaining about him being the same old conservative. Then maybe you might finally realise that really change in society comes from mass social pressure, from facts made by people fighting on the ground - not from changing big business' mouthpiece.

[ACK]

160. no health care? wtf you talkin' about?

He has a health care plan.

He won't renew the Patriot Act.

He will sort out the deficit.

He will continue on his voting record for supporting environmental legislature and back up his pledge to turn around the polluter bills coming from the Repukes.

He wants to fix but not dump NAFTA. Small step but with a Repub congress its the best you are going to get.

He wants to get rid of the tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas.

He supports and does not demonize teachers and their unions.

He is pro-choice.

"bla bla bla bla bla"

That is what I think of this mouthing of the propaganda that there is not a dime worth of difference between the parties crap.

There is no Repuke out there with this kind of voting record.

Has he mad mistakes? Fuckin' A he has. But look at the record and stopping just another tool out to troll:

John Kerry on Abortion

No criminalization of a woman's right to choose. (Jun 7)
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on disallowing overseas military abortions. (May 1999)

John Kerry on Budget & Economy

Bush policy kept economy afloat in recession-keep some of it. (Sep 25)
No excuse for special tax cuts for the rich. (Jun 17)
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted NO on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

John Kerry on Civil Rights

Include a sunset provision in the Patriot Act. (Jun 17)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Shift from group preferences to economic empowerment of all. (Aug 2000)

John Kerry on Corporations

Democratize the process of corporate boards. (Sep 25)
Voted NO on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)

John Kerry on Crime

Voted YES on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)
Voted NO on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)
Voted NO on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995)
Voted YES on repealing federal speed limits. (Jun 1995)
Voted NO on mandatory prison terms for crimes involving firearms. (May 1994)
Voted NO on rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals. (May 1994)
More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)
Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)

John Kerry on Drugs (snicker)

Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Voted NO on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)

John Kerry on Education

Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on Educational Savings Accounts. (Mar 2000)
Voted NO on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules. (Mar 1999)
Voted NO on education savings accounts. (Jun 1998)
Voted NO on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)
Voted NO on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
Voted NO on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer. (Jul 1994)
Voted YES on national education standards. (Feb 1994)
Offer every parent Charter Schools and public school choice. (Aug 2000)
Three R’s: $35B for Reinvestment,Reinvention,Responsibility. (Jan 2001)

John Kerry on Energy & Oil

ANWR won't provide any oil for 20 years. (Sep 25)
Invent our way out of oil dependency-don't drill our way out. (Sep 25)
Invest in advancing secure forms of energy instead of oil. (Jun 17)
Led effort to try to raise fuel efficiency standards. (May 3)
Create new energy sources to end Mideast dependency. (May 2002)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 10)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 19)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on replacing CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on keeping CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)

John Kerry on Environment

Safeguard the environment and grow the economy. (Jun 17)
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997)
Voted YES on terminating desert protection in California. (Oct 1994)
Voted YES on requiring EPA risk assessments. (May 1994)
Reduce liability for hazardous waste cleanup. (May 2001)

John Kerry on Families & Children

Fund Head Start to leave no child behind. (Sep 4)
Voted YES on restricting violent videos to minors. (May 1999)
Give parents tools to balance work and family. (Aug 2000)

John Kerry on Foreign Policy

Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (May 2002)
Voted YES on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons. (Sep 2000)
Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech. (Apr 1998)
Voted YES on $17.9 billion to IMF. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on ending Vietnam embargo. (Jan 1994)
Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)
Multi-year commitment to Africa for food & medicine. (Apr 2001)

John Kerry on Free Trade

Dean's trade policy is protectionist. (Sep 25)
FTAA needs more labor and environmental standards. (Sep 4)
Fix NAFTA-canceling it would be disastrous. (Sep 4)
Capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. (May 3)
Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000)
Voted YES on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority. (Nov 1997)
Voted YES on fast track trading authority. (Nov 1997)
Voted YES on imposing trade sanctions on Japan for closed market. (May 1995)
Build a rule-based global trading system. (Aug 2000)

John Kerry on Government Reform

Flag and patriotism belong to all Americans. (Jun 17)
Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on allow signatures for voter registration instead of photo IDs. (Feb 2002)
Voted YES on McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on limiting funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
Voted YES on cloture of 1998 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Feb 1998)
Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on Approving the presidential line-item veto. (Mar 1996)
Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995)
Voluntary public financing for all general elections. (Aug 2000)

John Kerry on Gun Control

Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)

John Kerry on Health Care

Cover more citizens with health plan like Congress gets. (May 3)
Lack of accessible health care is a disgrace. (May 2002)
Voted YES on allowing importation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on increasing funds for Medicare prescriptions. (Mar 1999)
Voted YES on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
Voted NO on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Voted YES on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
Voted YES on medical savings acounts. (Apr 1996)
Establish "report cards" on HMO quality of care. (Aug 2000)

John Kerry on Homeland Security

No new generation of nuclear weapons. (Sep 4)
Automatic citizenship to immigrants who serves in army. (Sep 4)
Voted YES on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures. (May 1999)
Voted NO on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (May 1999)
Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP. (Mar 1999)
Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%. (Feb 1999)
Voted NO on deploying missile defense as soon as possible. (Sep 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex basic training. (Jun 1998)
Voted NO on favoring 36 vetoed military projects. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on banning chemical weapons. (Apr 1997)
Voted NO on considering deploying NMD, and amending ABM Treaty. (Jun 1996)
Voted NO on 1996 Defense Appropriations. (Sep 1995)

John Kerry on Immigration

Amnesty to anyone here over 5 or 6 years. (Sep 4)
Voted NO on allowing more foreign workers into the U.S. for farm work. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
Voted NO on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)

John Kerry on Infrastructure

Voted YES on Internet sales tax moratorium. (Oct 1998)
Voted YES on telecomm deregulation. (Feb 1996)
Chief information officer to digitize federal government. (Aug 2000)
Promote internet via Congressional Internet Caucus. (Jan 2001)

John Kerry on Jobs

Trade grows jobs. (Sep 25)
Jump start jobs at home via energy independence. (Sep 4)
Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Voted NO on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Voted NO on allowing workers to choose between overtime & comp-time. (May 1997)
Voted NO on replacing farm price supports. (Feb 1996)

John Kerry on Principles & Values

Favorite song: Bruce Springsteen, "No Surrender.". (Sep 9)
Need a president who won't write laws only for contributors. (Sep 9)
Contest between common sense values and extreme ideologues. (Jun 7)
I'm talking about things that matter to people. (May 3)
It is time for this country to ask again, why not? (May 3)
Religious affiliation: Catholic. (Nov 2000)
Supports Hyde Park Declaration of "Third Way" centrism. (Aug 2000)
Member of Democratic Leadership Council. (Nov 2000)
New Democrat: "Third Way" instead of left-right debate. (Nov 2000)
Member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition. (Jan 2001)

John Kerry on Social Security

Guarantee Social Security soundness, even if unpopular. (Sep 25)
Don't threaten Social Security on Wall Street trading block. (May 2002)
Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999)
Voted NO on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees. (May 1998)
Voted NO on allowing personal retirement accounts. (Apr 1998)
Voted NO on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes. (May 1996)
Create Retirement Savings Accounts. (Aug 2000)

John Kerry on Tax Reform

10% bracket in Bush tax cuts was Democrats' idea. (Sep 25)
Bush tax cuts reach 32 million in middle class. (Sep 25)
We're tired of being trickled on--Middle class tax cuts now. (Jun 7)
Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 23)
Voted NO on cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion over 11 years. (May 2001)
Voted YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
Voted NO on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on $792B tax cuts. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)
Voted NO on FY99 tax cuts. (Apr 1998)

John Kerry on War & Peace

Maybe on $87B for Iraq-repeal Bush tax cut to pay it, if yes. (Sep 25)
De-Americanize Iraq: the exit strategy is victory. (Sep 9)
Vote for war was needed to push Saddam on inspectors. (Sep 9)
$87B for Iraq only when internationalization is addressed. (Sep 9)
Don't miss 3rd opportunity in Iraq to bring in UN. (Sep 4)
Don't send more US troops to Iraq-share power & share burden. (Sep 4)
Against a misapplied blanket pre-emptive doctrine. (Jun 17)
Intelligence information should not be manipulated. (Jun 17)
Disarm Saddam, but war should be a last resort. (May 3)
Preferred diplomacy, but supported invading Iraq. (May 3)
Vietnam didn't threaten US; US war crimes did. (Apr 1971)
Vietnam war was criminal hypocrisy and tore apart US. (Apr 1971)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted NO on allowing all necessary forces and other means in Kosovo. (May 1999)
Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
Voted NO on ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Jul 1995)
Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)

John Kerry on Welfare & Poverty

Voted YES on welfare block grants. (Aug 1996)
Voted YES on eliminating block grants for food stamps. (Jul 1996)
Voted NO on allowing state welfare waivers. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on welfare overhaul. (Sep 1995)
Finish welfare reform by moving able recipients into jobs. (Aug 2000)

[Sorry.]

164. liberal?

Liberal voting record? Most of the stuff on there is either peripheral ideological fluff (abortion, gun control etc) that it's easy to a liberal about.

Look at absolutely anything that would involve actually taking on the big business élite that actually runs Washington.

NAFTA - big fat yes to that one.
Rule based global trading system - we have one already John; it's entitled 'Whatever the IMF and World Bank want done, poor countries have to do'.
FTAA - Tick, tick, yes, yes, please, please, more, more.
Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan - oh god yes please let's kill more people for global capitalism.
Massive defence spending? Yes sir.
Farming subsidies that kill people world wide? Yes.
Energy deregulation - sounds fine to me.
Continued private control of massive amounts of healthcare and education? Check
Privatisation of election management? Not a peep.

[ACK]

Yes a centrist liberal -- talking out your ass

NAFTA -- adjust it but do not dump it.
Better than no rules at all.

FTAA -- Right off his website he opposes FTAA without protections for the environment and worker's rights. Its right there.

Massive defense spending? Yes and every other US candidate said the same thing. At the very least he wants to cut Star Wars and other useless programs and give better benefits to military families all but forgotten by the Repukes.

Farming subsidies? Hypocritical crap. The europeans can't get rid of them either. The easiest way to shut down Paris is to talk about cutting subsidies.

Energy deregulation? Nonsense he spoke out against energy deregulation during the California debacle and the Enron affair.

Continued private control of education? You did not look at his record. He voted against those kinds of schemes time and time again.

Healthcare? He has a healthcare plan and if that plan is good enough for the representatives in Congress then its good enough for the American people and I say that makes a damn good start.

Privatisation of election management? He decried it in FLA and said that every vote should count.

If you actually researched your bullshit you would realize this kind of stuff and also realize that you are being played a fool by the Nader Bush-enablers in the same fashion that Fox News plays the idiots on the other side of the fence.

+

[Sorry.]

186. give me strength

The problems with NAFTA and FTAA run a little deeper than a few bits of legislation about working and environmental rights. The whole principle of free flows of capital without similar movement of labour undermines worker's bargaining positions, it destroys independent decision making, allows big capital to dominate governments.

Ineffectually insisting on a minimum wage and little less polluting ain't going to do jackshit.

Oh and if you don't have a problem with the US continuing to preach private initiative and free trade to everyone else whilst it pumps shitloads of public money into the military-industrial complex and protects Jeb's Florida orange buddies from cheaper Brazilians, then I'm stunned. For the record I didn't vote for the murderers that run my country either, so their farm subsidies have nothing to do with me.

Re: energy/elections - I'd be absolutely gobsmacked if he actually started back tracking on some of the privatisations and deregulations. After going on 15 years of 3rd way politics from Rio to London, not one 'Centrist liberal' has attempted it.

Is his health care plan going to nationalise your health services? 'Cause in the meantime as far as I can see, Americans will continue to pay more than any country on Earth for their bad healthcare, whilst privateers and speculators line their pockets.

[ACK]

189. Do you get out much? Do see what is happening in this country?

He opposses the FTAA because it does not protect worker's rights or the environment. But that is not good enough.

Fine. He wants to modify NAFTA because he has to deal with a Republican frickin' Congress that will crucify him if he tries anything more.

Are you anti-free trade or what? You don't want to protect farmers but you do want to protect industrial labor? WTF?

How in the hell do you muster the sheer arrogance to tell American liberals they need to end farm subsidies in a society much more rural still than Europe? After all, even in very liberal European states, they do not have the political will to tackle this. But somehow in a much conservative controlled political atmosphere of America the Dems are supposed to pull it off and sell it to America? Bullshit.

No I do have a problem with the military industrial complex.

However, there is a reason that the Dems are in the minority and liberalism is a free-fall in America. The Republicans for years now have focused on the media and think tanks and talking points. It took them over twenty years to do it. They have made the word liberal a death label for a candidate and thoroughly convinced America that anyone who decreases the military budget is a wussy boy traitor that deserves to be shot. No Democrat has touched the whole military budget thing with a ten foot pole. They cannot until they have both the Presidency and the Congress. Otherwise, whoever the candidate is might as well go home and put a bullet in their head because their political career will be over.

The control of energy is mostly done in most areas on the state not the national level and maybe this is the big change. I am pointing out that Kerry has spoken out against energy deregulation and the whole Enron scandal. Against a Republican House and Senate, I am not sure how much can be done.

The health care plan is extending the same health care plan that congress has to every American which reduces the real cost per person for healthcare by about $1000 on average. Could it be more national and more socialist? Yeah. Is it perfect? No. Will it cover 96% of all uninsured Americans and reduce healthcare costs. Yes. Does Kerry also have a plan for reducing the costs of drugs? Yes. Do you see anything close from the right? No.

I want real change something that is not just a giveaway to the corporations.

However, I am not going to wait for the revolution to turn America into the perfect Socialist state. It ain't happening. The majority of Americans who do not know any better would equate it with communism which they do not understand either and reject all of it out of hand.

You call all those other issues I listed fringe issues:

like

the environment, abortion rights, crime (like no votes of mand. sentences anyone), education like fighting against privatization and for money toward smaller class sizes, Head Start, Multi-year commitment to Africa for food & medicine., and fighting against the privatization of social security

I don't see any Republican that fights for the things I see this man fighting for.

Sure, I wish that someone with the charisma of John Edwards, the platform of Kuicinch, and the organizational power of Dean fell out of the sky on a cross of purity to save us all. But I am not holding my breath or my nose as I vote for a man that is more liberal than Clinton and a zillion times better for the country than Bush.

+

[Sorry.]

192. round and round in circles

Whilst I do have issues with Kerry personally (for the aforementioned reasons), I think you're kind of missing the point I'm making here. It's not just that Kerry is to my (and your) right, it's that expecting significant repair to our deeply troubled society to come from a change of leadership and some new legislation is a naive outlook. There are social democrats elsewhere with a much more radical mandate for change that plod along trying to force through the most moderate reform who come up blank (see Hugo Chavez and Lula de Silva's hapless attempts at land reform). Capitalist democracy is designed to stabilise the system and defend the propertied. An output for the complaints of the powerless classes so they don't take the streets with their grievances. And the latter is the danger, that you get so wrapped up in changing the government from centre-right to centre (or even if you're a Naderite or Kucinich) that you forget where the groundwork is - in organising communities and workplaces to remember that the system only budges when you bother to push it.

I'm not critical of people who vote Democratic, just anyone who thinks that it's all they have to do. If Kerry wins, he needs to know that there is a militant core to the American left that WILL attack him and WILL desert him if he doesn't get the job done. A real resurgence in the US left means more than convincing the swing voters to get rid of Bush.

[ACK]

195. Not quite ... Very few people see the big picture.

I pointed out some pretty big misrepresentations in my mind of Kerry's positions on a number of your issues.

I fully understand that simply voting is not the answer.

I fully understand that this is not the sixties and the brave street protests of many citizens are just getting turned around in the media and the protesters are villified in the press.

It reminds me a lot of the beginning of the organized labor movement actually.

Protests and taking to the streets are part of the answer not the end all solution.

I also fully understand that wresting control of or doing an end-run through new media around the corporate media is necessary.

Otherwise your goals will always be villified in the whore press.

I understand that grassroots organizations and efforts are needed to educate the population in a face to face manner.

Very few people here really honestly connect the dots. You have to vote, protest, organize, and promote new media unfettered by the corporate interests. That is a hell of a lot of work.

The vast majority of Americans are not ready for socialism even in the softer form of European style socialism. There are too many people here who grew up being taught to equate socialism with the tolitarian states of the "Communist" authoritarian nations.

American liberalism (not leftism mind you) was formed around the idea that social programs and a social safety net are essential in fact to saving capitalism from a popular uprising in the streets. It has worked since the days of FDR.

It is actually only the base corporatism of the radical Republicans that has put this in danger as seen in the street protests against the WTF. Still, the people out there were not the masses. They were still the educated idealistic exceptions.

A real resurgence of the in the US left does mean more than convincing swing voters to get rid of Bush. We agree on this.

It means actually doing the work of talking to the majority of people in America and convincing them of the correctness of your positions. It means finding the populist voice in your positions and talking to the people in a way that they not only can understand but they cannot ignore.

It took the Repukes years to find a populist tone to their orwellian message and they have been quite effective in terms of toning it into the nonsense of compassionate conservatism. The militant left it seems sometimes cannot be bothered.

You can not form a popular movement without the people.

[MoonRiver]

163. Kerry, our presumptive candidate, has a noble liberal voting record.

I didn't like his Iraq or Patriot Act vote, but that's not enough of a reason to bash him, thereby enabling our current nightmare regime to continue marching US toward Armegeddon.

A lot of Brits are conservative and would like * to get another 4. Do you know anything about those folks and how they might be operating to influence the AMERICAN presidential election?

[Sorry.]

165. Brits

most Brits are to the left of Kerry. Even the conservative ones. Bush is bad for business because he's got the subtlety of a rather large ogre. It becomes rather easier for the lefties to say "you know, we really shouldn't let oil companies run the world ..." when he's around. Soon as JK gets in, all the middle class liberals will pat themselves on the back and thank god that's all over. Then get surprised the next time the US throws money at a dictatorship, sponsors terrorism, genocide etc etc.

[MoonRiver]

166. I seem to recall one "liberal" Brit who chose to go to war with *

Is he one of those "liberal" Brits you're talking about?

[Sorry.]

168. what's your point?

Doesn't particularly disprove my generalisation that most Brits are to the left of John Kerry. You're telling me that Kerry wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq?

[MoonRiver]

169. Kerry certainly would not have INITIATED a war against Iraq.

He's said so. Blair DID go to war with Iraq, a sovereign nation which threatened neither the US or GB. Blair's own Labor Party complained but ultimately gave him the go ahead. So much for your argument about how most Brits are to the left of Kerry.

I also detect a theme in your posts that having * around makes the left stronger in GB. Fine for YOU, but it destroys the USofA, left and right combined. So, I say :thumbsdown: to your self-interested :thumbsup: to little dictator.

[Sorry.]

173. easy to say

harder to back up. Ultimately he's done the same as the British Labour Party. Only he hasn't got the excuse of a government or party leadership to boss him around (in fact he had the perfect oppurtunity of opposition). Besides which, all of this puts both the Democratic Party and the Labour Party in the disgusting position of being the only left-wing parties pretty much in the whole world to support the war.

As for making the British left stronger - all the war has done is radicalise a few student and middle class liberals. The old Labour left still slumbers peacefully and pays its Labour Party dues. The longer the we stay focused on the monkey, the longer that will continue. Regarding dictators - you fight them on the streets not at the ballot box; as any European who had their democracy destroyed because they let it happen will tell you. The American left should giving just as much as to what they'll do if Bush steals another election, as they are to getting Kerry elected.

[ACK]

174. He said at the time

The threat of violence was needed to get Iraq to comply with UN mandates.

However, he said that the UN and the weapons inspectors were railroaded and that "Bush f*cked it up" to quote him from the Rolling Stones article.

Is that backing it up enough?

You take all the Nader Bush enabling horseshit and you buy it like Fox News fan belching back ever Rush Limpballs line. You are no better at all.

[Sorry.]

177. you what?

opposition politician in demeaning the incumbent's ability shocker. That's his fucking job for christ's sake. Where in that statement has he done anything but (as per for a Democrat) questioned the technique rather than the principle? Ultimately John Kerry thinks that the government in Iraq (now and before) has to hold itself accountable to the United States. Not to the world, not to its people, but to the United States government.

I wouldn't vote Nader either btw. I'd set about building effective democratic grass roots organisations to challenge Republicrat hegemony, so people have a say in deciding their own future and making controlling their own communities.

[MoonRiver]

179. Guess what!

Neither you, nor anybody else, will have a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing that if * gets another 4. That's why we rational people support Kerry, the liberal alternative to dictatorial fascist imperialism.

[ACK]

185. He would have done what he said he would have done

Which is let the UN and the inspectors do their job.

Not start a unilateral pre-emptive war.

Which he did say.

+

[MoonRiver]

188. Exactly!

[MoonRiver]

176. Kerry was in the same position as the Labour Party MPs.

Get a grip. I don't know exactly what your agenda is, but you appear to desire that Kerry not be elected. Since you claim not to be an American citizen, I can't imagine why you'd want * to be re-selected unless you are a rightwinger, whether Brit or something else.

[Sorry.]

178. what gave you that idea

I couldn't care less it's the monkey or the baked beans heir. It's still rich arseholes fucking the rest of humanity.

[MoonRiver]

180. Helping * get re-selected WILL NOT help your cause!

What about this totally obvious concept do you not get?

[Sorry.]

182. where did I say it would?

as stated earlier, I have no preference.

But supporting the lesser of two evils is like marching up to Bush and saying "here, take the country, the only fighting we'll bother to do is putting a bit of paper in a box".

[MoonRiver]

187. I certainly do not see Kerry as "the lesser of two evils"

I guess that's why we're having this little communication problem.

[gate of the sun]

190. just a little support saywhat

some people on this board can't stand the ugly truth about Kerry and how many of us feel about him. To them this is allmost as bad as being a bushlover. Beats me.....Kerry is no gem and the feeling is held by many who plan to vote for him. Dissent is welcome here by many who do not blindly see Kerry as a "noble candidate" with a "noble record." In my eyes they are deluded. This country is in big trouble regardless of Bush or Kerry get elected. I think are chances are better with Kerry but I'm not going to stop saying what I think of him.

[freetobegay]

181. I don't like Kerry, with that said though

I will vote for Kerry. I though only Repukes were suppose to not criticize their candidate?

If we don't criticize how will the candidate know what we want?

[tiedye]

199. Mumia Abu Jamal says

That the two candidates that were picked far before most Americans woke their weary heads, are essentially the same guy. The problem is that these two extremely wealthy candidates feel that what is going on in Iraq is okay. Kerry opposes it, in a way. In a way that will continue to cost us millions and has already cost the lives of tens of thousands of people. Innocent people. People that weren't conspiring to attack the US as the admin would have us believe. Kerry voted for the 87 billion which eventually found some of its way to good old Miami for the NAFTA protest. What better way to spend American tax Dollars than to gas our own people. Peaceful protestors. Terrorists of peace? Kerry won't change NAFTA neither, nor the WTO. So, what do we get with Kerry? The satisfaction that the world's worst ever president is dethroned from a position his brother and the supreme court secured. He already isn't the President. Let's get rid of caucuses so that the elections are not decided by corporate America and then approved by the two wtitest states in the nation. Florida voters who were disenfranchised should get two votes this time.

[wyldwolf]

203. no

You're wrong. Enough said.

[Hippo_Tron]

206. Welcome to DU tiedye...

And out of curiosity, who the hell is Mumia Abu Jamal?

[SpongeBob]

205. I, for one will be wearing my "Vote for John Kerry, He's Not Bush" button.

[Kerry Edwards 2004]

207. I know exactly what you mean!

saywhat, I know exactly what you mean. The man I supported in the primaries is constantly attacked on the Kerry website in the VP discussion area. He is not attacked for his viewpoints but merely because he is who he is. It is very distressing to see other Democrats make vicious personal attacks against another Democrat. In the VP discussion topic the negative crowd feels the need to tear my candidate down rather than to promote the positve qualities of their own candidate.

I've even seen people on the Kerry site post negative comments about Kerry while at the same time arguing for their candidate to be the VP! How is that for stupidity? I usually ignore the people posting negative comments because I have no idea if they really are Democrats! I think a lot of the people are really Bush supporters trying to stir up trouble.

The only time I was really bothered about the negative stuff was when I saw one of the Kerry moderators fan the flames of the negative crowd. If you can't even have a moderator keep people from tearing down another Democrat on a Democrats website why bother visting their site? In my opinion that moderator did a great disservice to Kerry when she allowed the destructive comments to continue without saying a word to stop them. I read some of her earlier posts where she jumped in to stop negative comments about Kerry, but for some strange reason she felt no such responsibility to stop the same type of comments from being made about Edwards. As a Kerry supporter and an Edwards supporter I found it very disappointing.

The good news in all of this is that there are more positive people than there are negative people. You are a Clark supporter and judging by your comments here I don't believe for a moment that you would be out there knocking Edwards any more than I would be knocking Clark. I certainly hope that people like you & I and some of the others on this website will always stand up for other Democrats being unreasonablly attacked whenever we have an opportunity.

Thanks for posting your topic. I have enjoyed reading some of the comments. I'm glad to see other people expressing their displeasure with the crowd that delights in tearing other people down.

[MoonRiver]

209. I really appreciate your comments. Kerry Edwards.

And if Edwards were our nominee I would be defending him against attack too. Edwards, like most of our candidates (Lieberman excluded imho) are good decent people, eons better than *. They don't deserve to be demonized like I've seen done here. But I also believe that many on DU are infiltrators, probably posting enough one worders over a week or two to look legit. Others, though, seem to be true believers, although, again, imho, the things they want constitute an impossible dream, at least for RIGHT NOW. Yes, I would like to live in eutopia RIGHT NOW also, but I'm practical enough to know that ain't gonna happen, no matter who wins the presidency, or which parties controls the House and Senate. If we had a landslide and took back all three, by sizeable majorities, we could certainly te able to move pretty quickly toward reform. Then there would be no excuses, and I'd be screaming for an overhall in this democracy also. If that happens I'll eat my hat (or its chocolate facsimile :D), but it's hard to imagine we'd be that fortunate. Under the current conditions, I'll simply be overjoyed if Kerry and his followers manage to overthrow one of the vilest and most evil administrations in American history. Nothing should come before that objective. Nothing.

This thread is getting really long. Should I start Thread 2? It doesn't seem to want to die.

[JCMach1]

208. My critique is here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x502818

I am sorry, but Kerry is undermining himself at the moment.

[rasputin1952]

210. I am locking this thread a t the request of saywhat:

The discussion continues at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x502967

Thank You...

Ras, DU Moderator...:)