What is

[ProSense]

this whole controversy behind Kerry and the DLC. Frankly, I don't understand how anyone running for president can be expected to dis an entire organization. It's not like the DLC is an extremists fanatical group.

Having said that, I just read a post linking to an article in which Al From when asked why the DLC is supporting Kerry who is the #1 liberal, responded that voting records don't mean anything.

That's got to be one of the silliest comments ever. If not for voting records (and the statements linked to these votes), how would one distinguish (on the record) where any member of Congress stood ideologically on the issues?

Now it seems to me that Kerry is on common ground with the DLC on certain issues, but so what? A lot of people are screaming corporatist, when Eliot Spitzer is a member of the DLC and his entire devotion is fighting corporate corruption.

I read two articles recently, one from 1999 and another from 2004, about Kerry speaking to the DLC membership, but he seems to be aligning himself with them on the issues they have in common. It seems the DLC's membership is broad---Kerry is not Lieberman, Lieberman is not Murray (WA), Murray is not Spitzer, so what's the deal?

Any thoughts?

[TayTay]

1. This is a long story.

There is a 'New Democrat' colalition in the Senate that was aligned with the DLC. Sen. Kerry did, sort of, join this. (It is a matter of some contention. Al From also never really bought the fact that Kerry was a New Democrat. He might have just been DLC on paper for a little while. There is simply a lot that doesn't fit between Kerry and the DLC.)

Sen. Kerry is a strong proponent of free trade. (He also wants that to be fair trade. Those two things can be different things.) The DLC wants free trade as well. The DLC does stress fiscal responsibility in a bid to move Dems away from the 'tax and spend' label that has bedeviled them since the 70's or so. (Sen. KErry voted for Gramm-Rudman and strongly supports a PAYGO system in federal accounting.)

There have been other issues that Kerry has brought up that could be considered 'New Democrat' as opposed to 'pure liberal', or whatever it is supposed to be opposed to. (I get confused on some of this.) He had innovate ideas about education and charter schools that attracted some notice. (And that have since been modified since he brought them up.)

Sen. Kerry's voting record does matter cuz what you actually do should matter more than what you talkl about doing.

[ProSense]

2. Thanks for the insight.

That's what everyone keeps doing: trying to separate Kerry from his actions to prove their point.


This is what Kerry said to open one of the speeches:

I'm pleased to be able to share this National Conversation, because that is what this election ought to be: not a shouting match, but a conversation with the American people about our ideas, our values, and our plan for a stronger America. The most important election in our lifetime ought to be a contest of ideas to lift America up, not a cynics' game to define America down.


Kerry is more interested in engaging people in a discussion about the issues.