Why the Democrats' Left Wing Is Muted

Why the Democrats' Left Wing Is Muted
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

Published: May 29, 2004


ASHINGTON, May 28 - Senator John Kerry found himself on familiar ground when he talked about Iraq in a speech on Wednesday: out of step with much of his own party. Once again, Republicans and even some Democrats said, Mr. Kerry appeared on the verge of squabbling with the antiwar base of his party.

But that has not happened, even in a week in which Mr. Kerry rejected calls from the antiwar Democrats to set a deadline for the withdrawal of United States troops from Iraq. If anything, Democrats have grown more enthusiastic in rallying around Mr. Kerry, dismissing as inconsequential their differences with him on this presumably central issue.

more

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/29/politics/campaign/29dems.html

and encouraging.

ABB

As much as I am anti - war, I am more anti - Bush. I will put my faith in Kerry instead of Bush to find PEACE on earth.

I still believe the anti war activist have a tremendous role to play in stopping this horrible blood bath in Iraq. Their constant pressure on this mal administration has been valiant!

The enemy is not Kerry - the enemy is BUSH.

But that has not happened, even in a week in which Mr. Kerry rejected calls from the antiwar Democrats to set a deadline for the withdrawal of United States troops from Iraq. If anything, Democrats have grown more enthusiastic in rallying around Mr. Kerry, dismissing as inconsequential their differences with him on this presumably central issue.

It could very well be inconsequential. Whatever Kerry says now may be inconsequential on January 20. Between now and then, Bush will be in the White House mucking up his own colonial project in Iraq beyond any hope of salvation. The difference between Kerry and Bush that makes Kerry the man to support is not that Kerry has a revulsion of US colonialism, but that he is a pragmatist. Kerry will not try to salvage a situation that is beyond hope, regardless of whether he thinks it was a good idea to undertake the project.

"There are antiwar Democrats who will fume and still vote for Kerry," Mr. Nader said, adding: "I don't think Democrats should give their candidate a pass on the war. If Democrats are so freaked out by Bush that they are, like, 'Do anything you want, John, we'll support you,' well, as I told him in our meeting, he's not going to be left with a mandate."

Here, Nader is wrong. I will vote for Kerry, but that should in no way be taken by Kerry or his people that I am giving him a blank check. It has a lot more to do with my revulsion of Bush, who should not only be turned out of office but turned over to Interpol. I am prepared to vote for Kerry, celebrate his inauguration and then protest his policies and initiatives. However, I expect Kerry to allow the police state provisions of the Patriot Act to die a quiet death under the sunset clauses; I do not expect anybody to be put on a no-fly list as a consequence of exercising the right to dissent. That is why I am voting for Kerry.

I entered this campaign season with high hope for a REAL reform candidate that would salvage what Bush left of this country. I rooted for Kucincich, (as I still will until the convention), I cheered Howard Dean, and I loved John Edwards, but the majority of Democratic voters selected John Kerry as their candidate na dhe is the only one who has a chance to unseat Bush. So I will vote for John Kerry, with the hope that he may still be swayed away from his Clintonesque attitude toward compromise with the right and being willing to settle for half a loaf. I would be much heartened if he would accept one of the "losers" in the primaries who could influence him in the directions of instituting real reforms and dealing from the strength that the progressive base would offer him.

Sometimes it is.

This is one of those situations where it is.

The Kerry-Bush contest is like the War Between the States (as I was taught to call it). There are two opposing views of what the U.S. should be. You can vote for Lincoln or you can vote for Jefferson Davis.

who puts himself above his country.

People keep insisting that John Kerry needs be some kind of God. He doesn't. To improve our country immeasurably, he merely needs to not be the worst person ever to occupy the oval office. As it happens though Mr. Kerry will far exceed that minimal expectation. I expect many good things from the next President.

Here is our task: We need to see that Nader-Cheney-Bush gets less than 40%. That's my goal.

We need to have a clear majority voting either for Kerry or against Bush (I don't care which). Kerry needs to have a mandate to take our country back to the center.

Yes, I am a liberal, but I can live much more safely with a centrist government as we had under Clinton than with the far right government we have now.

Tom Friedman's advocacy for the invasion of Iraq and Judith Miller's reporting of WMDs (using Chalabi as her primary source).

I am not about to believe the NY Times now!