John Kerry questions

I am starting this thread in an attempt to learn. My bias is this: John Kerry will only stand for an issue if the majority in the senate vote for it, or the president has a high approval rating. I feel that he is one of the Dems that will rollover for the republicans and I feel that he is one of the reasons that this party has taken the beating that it has over the years.

Why should I like him?

Besides the fact that he is not Bush, why should I like him as a presidential candidate?

I know if I go to his website I will get the spin and I would not expect an unbiased presentation of him. I just want the facts about him. I have heard that he is one of the most liberal in the senate over the past 20 years. Is that an average, or has he been that way no matter who is the president or their approval rating?

How did he vote on NAFTA and why?

How did he vote on the IWR and why?

How did he vote on the Bush budgets and why?

How did he vote on No Child Left Behind education mess and why?

How did he vote on Clear skies and why?

Has he been a voice of opposition to any of the failed policy's of the Bush administration and when was he?

Did he speak out against any of the errors Clinton made?

Did he speak up when this administration pulled out of the ICC and the Kyoto treaty?

I am trying real hard here to get behind this guy but it seems the best answer that I get is he is the Dem, or he is not Bush, or he has a liberal voting record etc.... I want some substance here, not a lot of fluff and hot air. Help me out here, this is an issue that I have struggled with. Why should I vote for a person that, as of yet, does not have ideas that agree with me?

It appears he voted for it because he was gullible enough to believe the shrub when he said that saddam was a threat, blah, blah, blah.:puke:

However, after the war started, he realized his mistake as he voted against the $87 billion to continue funding it; however, he would have voted for the funds had they been offset by repealing some of the shrub tax cuts.

Why didn't he investigate it more. Why did he allow himself to be fooled on a matter so grave as that of sending this nation to war?

I believe Bush lied about the reasons for war. If I remember correctly Wesley Clark said that he was called and asked to say that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. I have read the Suskind book and am currently reading the Clarke book they both say that Bush wanted this. Why didn't John Kerry take the time to learn about the IWR? Why didn't he take the time to learn about the reasons behind it? That bothers me about Kerry.


I like that he voted against the $87 billion.

though for someone with over 1,000 posts here, you do make me wonder a bit about whether you're really not seen this discussion before.

I just finished at least a superficial critique of Kerry's Iraq war behavior at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x483977#484122 . Of course, other opinions may differ.

- bill

seriously held views or because DEAN had made respectable to oppose Bush?

Did Kerry vote for the Bush tax cuts the first time around?

<http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/27/221538.shtml>

I know it's a GOP whore site, but every site google came up with was pro-GOP (unless I wanted to go to the 3,000th result, anyway). I e-mailed Kerry asking him for a record of his taxation policy votes since January 2001.

As for the IWR, I am receptive to the Dean-gave-Kerry-a-backbone theory (I supported Dean at the time, too).

Edit: if you want me to PM you after I get the information, let me know.

For a year now? Do a DU search and read. I don't think you're struggling at all. You have your own agenda and you're tearing Kerry down because you think it builds your agenda. If you have better answers, post them or run for office yourself. Otherwise, you're only guaranteeing 4 more years of Bush. But I imagine if that happens you'll just point your finger at the weak Democrats for running the wrong campaign and then leave the country. What conscientious dedication to the people of America and the world. Work to destroy the only hope we all have right now, then turn around and run instead of facing the consequences you caused. Pathetic.

The rest of your response is the type of thing that I get most of the time. Like I said in my original post, I am looking for answers, not a flame.

And with all the posts on these topics, over all these months, you're still just baffled. The only flame is the topic starter. That was the intention, to flame Kerry. Enjoy the flame, when the entire world is burning under Bush. Good job!!

I do get a lot of people telling me the band wagon is the best way to go, otherwise vote Bush since I hate the country so much, or something to that effect. That is what I get told, and it is happening again.

I asked simple questions, I was wanting an answer, not an attack on my character.

I see that he did vote for NAFTA, but why? Nobody has even bothered to answer that question. WHY. Was it a good idea at the time?

There is a lot to be said for the reason that something is done. I am wanting to know WHY his votes are the way they are.

I don't agree. I read the post and I think the poster desrves a more reasonable response than ones you gave.

Democracy is more than voting for somebody 'cause the other guy sucks.

There is a lot of bluster that goes on, but not a lot of depth. I personally am tired of feeling like I have to pick between the lesser of two evils. Pick somebody on party lines, not because they have any merit. I am looking for reasons he voted the way he did, as you have noticed.

Running a red light is wrong, run a red light at 3am because you are taking somebody to the hospital that is bleeding to death is forgivable. This is why I want to know the why. Looking at a voting record with no perspective is a waste of time.

they start off saying they think he will roll over and only do what the majority want and other things, yet don't even know the answers to those questions asked. one would think they would at least do some research and learn about his positions before starting off with the claims they made.

All you are going to get is tripe and hot air.

I am going to vote for Kerry. But ONLY because (1) he ain't Bush and (2) he will appoint at least a few people that I agree with. What else is there? Not much.

Check his on-line forum, it shows his positions.

I am wanting to know why. Will the forum give me that? Will it give me some insight into his reasons?

On edit: I went to his site and I read his health care plan. Two questions arise, maybe I missed them, maybe they are not addressed. 1) It states that he wants a program similar to the one that federal employees have. Not the same, but similar. How similar? The last statistic that I saw, and I think it was from 2002, stated that HMO patients with cardiac problems died 85% of the time compared to non-HMO patients at 32.7%. Is he proposing an HMO type of similar? 2) He states that education will help in the prevention of some chronic diseases. It is a fact that 70-75% of all people over the age of 70 have a chronic disease. With the baby boomers getting up there in age the number of chronic disease cases is going to soar with or with out education at this point. How is that going to be addressed, it is to late for education with these people.

He mentions bringing down the cost for physicians. Of all the physicians that are sued 3 or more times 45% of the cases are caused by 5% of the doctors. Does he have a stance on physician accountability?

Prevention goes a long way, and I am glad to see he is looking at it in some fashion.

Maybe it's time some of us Democrats remember the scenario that was presented in '93...that's the context of which Kerry voted. This is another Repugnican strawman issue, but one that should be really investigated...and I welcome scrutiny here.

I supported NAFTA based on the poor state of our economy in '92/'93 and the large amount of jobs that were fleeing across the borders (anyone remember that round of outsourcing? Check out Roger And Me to see what I'm referring to). Anything that could spur the economy was a good thing...and that NAFTA was supposed to enable us to sell our goods to Mexico and Canada easier, thus new markets not the elimination of jobs. Even some labor came aboard as it meant opening up Mexico for future organizing and supposedly there were provisions that would make sure large American corporations didn't exploit the treaty to outsource too much product or labor.

Finally, some of us felt that letting capital flow to Mexico could actually help generate positive political change. The PRI was the eqivelent to the BFEE...and by moving American jobs there...especially the cheap ones "we really didn't want", it would generate wealth (in Mexican terms) and commerce and "trickle down" to the poorer people. It would create opportunities in the country that many hoped would mean slowing down the flow of illegals.

Thus if you looked at it that way, NAFTA didn't look so bad. Unfortunately it turned into that large sucking sound that Ross Perot predicted...and that was a major Clinton failure (he got too cozy with big business).

When it comes to trade issues, this is tough skating for most Democrats as there has to be a balance between social and economic freedoms...and the use of big government in maintaining that balance.

That's my .02 American (not sure the how much Canadian).

- Cheers -

92/93 that makes some sense. Looking at it today, NATA does not make a lot of sense. That helps answer some of the why would Kerry vote for NAFTA.

This is a typical GOOP trick...distort the past with today's filter. Clinton killed on that issue at the Unity dinner when he showed Kerry how to destroy the issue about his vote against the emergency appropriation (translation: payoff to Halliburton) last year. Clinton pointed out how McCain voted against his appropriations based on principle.

If Kerry sticks with this concept...put things in the clearest possible light about where he was and where we were, he's gonna be fine with a lot of these twisted GOOP charges. The 900% tax increase is already been dismissed and other charges are to follow. By coming straight on, as I've seen Kerry do, it's refreshing compared to a regime that can't talk straight or assume any responsibility.

The GOOP will play NAFTA...even though many of them supported it as well...to try to divert from the outsourcing and downscaling going on that is killing the middle class and their weakest link.

The interesting thing now is RoveCo. is having to launch lots of unplanned attacks to cover his ass...it's draining a lot of their money and energy and their attempts at diverting are backfiring big time.

There are explanations for the votes over the past three years. The emotion in 2001 and 2002. The idea that he could trust Bush's word on intelligence.

Still, his overall record gives me a bit of comfort; it's quite impressive to me.. the environment, overall economic policy, foreign relations. From what he's saying (and from how he's voting lately), I'm willing to take a gamble on him. Not that it matters here in Texas. If I were in Louisiana, it'd make more sense. I know this post isn't the answer, but I figured I'd share how I honestly feel about all of this. Good luck in reaching a comfortable conclusion for yourself. Cheers.

I will take a gamble on him also, I will not vote for Nader or write in a candidate out of spite. I want to know more about this Kerry person.

Don't give up on TX, Bush is not bringing in the numbers there that one would expect. He may win there, but he is not going to take it with 60 or 70%

that John Kerry has for years had his eye on the White House. His approach to getting there has essentially been "make no mistakes". His votes have been as Democratic (capital D) as he could be unless it was a risky position. Then he took the safe route and tried to explain it away.

Go back a few months in the campaign, to a point prior to Iowa. Kerry was doing then what he has always done, that is to say taking no chances. It made him nuts when someone would be more agressive than he in attacking Bush, thus garnering the attention. Remember that "oops, microphone is still on" moment he had when reporters kept asking about Howard and he got frustrated and walked off, muttering "Dean, Dean, DEAN!" Perfect insight into him. He plays it cool and gets riled when someone else takes a chance and steals the thunder.

So he goes into Iowa and looks like he's boring the pants off of everyone and thus likely to finish maybe third solely on name recognition. Except by the time the caucus is actually held Gephart has put his foot in it attacking Dean, Dean has shot off his mouth a bit TOO much for the more moderate Iowa voters, Lieberman is a Dork, Graham is already toast because he's more boring than Kerry has been and Kerry backs into a victory no one would have called 3 weeks prior. Dean not winning is a big blow which the media cheerfully turns into a death knell through mockery and a helpfully misleading videotape. Edwards puts up a fight but cannot do anything to Kerry in New Hampshire for obvious reasons so Kerry rides the momentum to the nomination.

So here we are. Kerry is the man. And I WILL vote for him, even if I have to crawl to the voting booth. I will do everything in my power to see to it that others do as well.

The interesting question is who will he be once he enters the White House? He no longer needs to be as cautious as he has been up until now. His early career gave indications to me that perhaps he is something of an idealist who has buried it for the last 15 years in order to maintain viability. Is that idealism still there? Will he govern as the Liberal he could have been or as the poll-watcher he has looked like recently? I don't know. It doesn't matter at the moment; I would do anything to prevent that moron trashing up the place now from appointing the next 3 Supreme Court justices, not to mention the wars he could yet start etc. Nope, he's gotta go, period.

But what exactly am I getting behing door number 3? It definately feels like a Monty Hall kinda moment. But let's go ahead and make the trade, it cannot get worse than it is now. After that if he tries to be a "New Democrat" I am gonna kick his ass all over this message board.

I will take that chance though. I would like to know what is behind the door before November comes. I was looking into a why Kerry is the way he is. I will say this much, I disagree with the comment about Dean in Iowa, there was a lot more going on there than just Gephardt. He did not help, but there was a lot more there than those two. That is in the past, Iowa is done. I want to know about Kerry.

The trouble is that if you really want to analyze it you can easily write a whole thesis on it. So I simplified it to the point of being flip.

I wanna know about Kerry too. Trouble is that I don't think we CAN know about Kerry. We'll just have to wait and see. That's the point I was trying to make; NOTHING he has done in public in the last 20 years will really serve to give an accurate picture of him. It is clear to me that he has acted as he has, and voted as he has, and so on, for reasons other than dedication to a cause. Unless of course you think remaining politically viable is a cause unto itself.

So who is he? I don't know, and more importantly I would say that while you WILL get answers to the question take them with a few grains of salt because I don't think anyone knows, it's all speculation. We WILL find out though I believe. Bush has a lot of cards in his hand but he has made too many mistakes it seems to me. It's as they often say in sports. Bush cannot beat Kerry, only KERRY can beat Kerry. And I doubt he will, he's far too careful and savvy to lose it on his own.

Some of the post have been helpful, and to those people, thank you.

I am looking for more of an answer to the specific questions in the original post.

Maybe it was not asked correctly, maybe it is something that nobody has an answer for. I am going to try with an example to explain what I am looking for.

Situation 1
Q: I have had a stressful day, do you have anything for it?
A: What the hell is wrong with you, get on the band wagon, learn to read you idiot, we went over this for the past 71 years.

Situation 2
Q: I have had a stressful day, do you have anything for it?
A: Here take a Valium.
Q: How does that work?
A: I don't know, but the Rolling Stones said it was mothers little helper and those guys do know their drugs.

Situation 3
Q: I have has a stressful day, do you have anything for it?
A: Here take a Valium.
Q: How does that work?
A: The exact sites and mode of action of the benzodiazepines have not been fully elucidated, but the effects of the drugs appear to be mediated through the inhibitory neurotransmitter gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA). The drugs appear to act at the limbic, thalamic, and hypothalamic levels of the central nervous system (CNS), producing anxiolytic, sedative, hypnotic, skeletal muscle relaxant, and anticonvulsant effects. Benzodiazepines are capable of producing all levels of CNS depression from mild sedation to hypnosis to coma. Allosteric interactions of central benzodiazepine receptors with GABA-a receptors and subsequent opening of chloride channels appear to be involved in eliciting the CNS effects of the drugs; the benzodiazepine receptors act as modulatory sites on the complex.

I don't care to hear situation 1, I would guess most people don't. I am looking for situation 3. If there is a good reason why Kerry voted on a piece of legislation I want to know why. Especially if it is a controversial one.

If somebody ask "Why should I support Kerry, he voted for this piece of legislation?" I would like to be able to answer them. Knowing the background on a decision helps. If I attempt to answer the question by telling them why they should not vote for Bush all I have accomplished is another vote for Nader, because they go away not liking Kerry or Bush.

You have valid reasons for not feel comfortable with Kerry. I have posted on exactly the same misgivings. Wes Clark was my choice.

But never once did I even think about not voting for Kerry.

Why? Because Bush is the devil incarnate. That's why.

to simplify, was Ted Kennedy's bill - GWB got him psyched up about it in GWB's "uniter" phase. TK worked hard to put it together, it passed, and then Bush underfunded it and turned it into a travesty.

as some one in DC said

For very superficial reasons, ones that I am not looking for here in this thread. I did not like the first Bush, I felt Gore would have continued the policy's of Clinton's which were mostly favorable to the US.

Kerry is against weapons proliferation and has been forever and will be forever

I am going to put it as simply as I can.

1. Kerry thinks bad people should not have bad weapons.

2. Kerry thinks that good people should work with their friends (UN, France Germany etc) to get the bad weapons away from bad people thru sanctions, inspectors, etc.

3. Then if all else fails, then war (with our friends on board) should be used as a ^last resort^ to take away the bad weapons from the bad people

GWB did not do what he and Colin Powell promised. they promised 2, but they did unilateral war instead.

So Kerry is PO'd big time and is going after GWB big time.

---------------------------------------

James this one has been done to death on DU if you do some searches. I'm going to refer you to a nice compilation DrFunkenstein did in my next post to you.

I know IWR has been beat to death. I understand that Bush lied and walked out on the process.

My question is this WHY vote for IWR when you have a president that "rolled" Kennedy on No child left Behind, closed door energy meetings of his VP, appointed to the presidency by the SCOTUS, types of federal judges being appointed. Bush and Chenney had a clear track record of being lying, cheating, illegitimate people already at this point. His actions on 9/11, the deceit about air quality in and round Manhattan. Why did he go back one more and trust him?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=248417

Nice collection compiled by DrFunkenstein

I am glad to see he understood, and because of this I understand the why on his vote a little better.

...because it was the politically expedient thing to do. Any other reason given for this vote is BS. Given the political, social, and Media environment of the post 9-11 era, it would have been death to vote against what the bush* cabal (and DLC) demanded (see Wellstone, McKinney, and others.)

I don't believe that this is enough of a reason to condemn John Kerry. However, it is enough of a reason to do everything possible to hold his feet to the fire up until the convention. I support the continued campaigning of Kucinich and Sharpton.

The Democratic Party is in desperate need of serious reform. Those who are addicted to Corporate money and influence (inside and outside the Dem Party) will not die quietly, and a LEADER who is guided by righteousness instead of expediency will be needed. A simple (and politically expedient) return to the status quo of the Clinton era will not be enough to prevent the slide into Corporate feudalism. That is what I fear from Kerry.

I will support Kerry for president, but my heart belongs to Kucinich. I will work and campaign for Kucinich until the convention hoping that the Party will hear the voices of the Liberal Base. We can have some effect on Kerry and the Party Platform. After the Convention: All Kerry positives, all the time until he is elected.

No one should vote for Nader, but everyone should listen to what he has to say!