Kerry is running toward the center. Is that f-ing okay with you?

So I flew back from LBN, and boy are my arms tired...

I read the thread in there about Kerry's statement (paraphrased headline: I MIGHT APPOINT PRO-LIFE JUDGES AS LONG AS THEY AREN'T REALLY ANAL) and watched a few people flip out and kvetch about real democrats and so on. To them, I have some really bad, bad news.

http://homepages.wmich.edu/%7Ecorder/PLS200R1.html <--- That's a website from one of those fancy-dancy university professors (obviously a tool of PNAC)

Please go to that link and read the third item from the bottom. For those of you too lazy to click, allow me to reproduce it for you.

"In the general election, candidates must win over the moderate voter."

Read that again so you understand it.

Despite what Michael Moore may have told you in his books, most Americans aren't interested in electing someone they look at as an extremist. (It can be argued that one of the central reasons Dubya's had any success at all is that he's been able to play off as not a right-wing stupid asshole. Not the point, though.) Consequently, candidates battle over the roughly 20% of the voters located in the middle, while the 80% that makes up party bases does it's thing in every election and really only serves to decide the nominee. (Note - I don't have a fancy-dancy university professor link for that, but take my word for it, or ask James Carville about it sometime.)

So, the point is this: John Kerry is going to run toward the center so he doesn't lose. You may not agree with some of the stuff he says during his run toward the center. I would remind you of this:
1) He's trying to appeal to the center, not to you because you're probably part of the 80% that makes up both party bases
2) If John Kerry did not run toward the center the democratic party would get fucking smashed in the general election.
3) If you agree with EVERYTHING a politician says and you are not that politician, you are probably a cyborg with a remote control.

Just thought that it was important to drive that shit home. Especially the part about cyborgs.

-C

That doesn't mean he'll do it. He's pandering, like any experienced pol. We liberals need to give him the benefit of the doubt. I have confidence he will be much more progressive as a President than his words currently indicate.

DTH

Pose as a moderate for the general, and then use your seat as president to carry out your goals for the country!

I know I can't think of ANY presidents that have done this. None at all. Must be groundbreaking strategy!

-C

Virtually every election cycle has someone who runs as a non-politician, and sometimes he/she even gets elected. Usually, they prove this to be true, and that's why they lose.

Dean lost because he shot off his mouth and said things that were incorrect, and in a few cases, deliberate lies. Clark lost because he started late, didn't have the poise, misspoke in ways that put him on the defensive and then lied big time in the end. Gephardt lost because he's a legislator, and that's a different critter than an executive; he also had too much baggage and too little pizazz. Carol Mosely-Braun lost because she had a little old baggage, couldn't find a resonant stance that wasn't already taken, and oh yeah, that race and gender thing. Sharpton lost because he was viewed as a huckster, many people are wary of a cleric in politics, because he wasn't a politician and that race issue again. Kucinich lost (although he doesn't seem to quite know it) because he is simply too far out of the mainstream, comes across as shrill, doesn't come across as a compromiser and makes people feel morally inadequate (which, of course, they are). Graham just couldn't get his footing. Lieberman came across as a pompous stuffed-shirt fundamentalist prissy little moralistic Quisling, so even with the media pumping him and an advantage of recognition, he was a goner.

Edwards lost for a variety of reasons, but the reason he did as well as he did was because he never lost his temper, made virtually no missteps for which he had to explain, listened, connected and engaged the questions and individuals directly. The guy's a born politician, regardless of his job history, and more than anything, it was the shortness of the schedule that hurt him. The point is that he is a politician and a statesman; he's someone one would feel safe representing one, unlike a Dean, who's likely to say what he really thinks about a foreign head of state and muck us all up.

Kerry, for all his failings, is a politician. The grown-up fucking reality of politics is that the person elected should morally and ethically be representing us all; for an extreme ideologue to be elected would be a disservice to society. This "we're gonna beat 'em" crap is the same version of juvenility that has people liking the firebrands. Children like the "I hate politicians" version of politician, and once the whooping and hollering subsides, even they come around to a more stolid choice. "We're" never gonna "beat 'em" in this system, and "they" are never gonna "beat us" either, because the margin is so slim and will probably remain so. When ideologues take over and cram their agendas down the throats of others, they get their comeuppance.

I have only one real fear (well, other than martial law and the suspension of the election) and that's BBV. If we can force it through that verifiability must be guaranteed, we'll be okay in the long run. This election is the watershed, as we all know, and let's keep up the pressure.

Being a politician is a complex performance art, and it takes a skill set that isn't all that common. Kerry should shut up sometimes and not tip his hand, but even the masterful politician Clinton never mastered that one either. A simple "I really don't want to address that right now" will often suffice, as will the classic fluff of "it all depends on the circumstances".

True political acumen is typified by Edwards' response to Lesley Stahl's baiting on the question of gay marriage. She ambushed him at the beginning of an interview with "Do you support GM", and he responded "No". She came right back with "Why not", and he said "I don't think the country's ready for it", and then volunteered his position on the rights to be accorded to partners. It was a great move because it showed that he was attempting to serve the people, it didn't let her trap him into moralizing or religion, and it absolutely ended her line of attack. When he then volunteered that partners should be guaranteed insurance, survivorship rights, visitation and such, it gave him complete control of the moment. That's a politician, and he did it gently, firmly and with great presence.

One of the most annoying things about the human race is that so many people are like some refugee from a romance novel: madly in love with their own deep emotions and endlessly contriving ways they can be betrayed by the dull and unfeeling world that besets them so. Perfectionists fuck up everything, but the merciful thing about them is that they don't really accomplish much of anything either and people don't like being around them.

People should be somewhat upbeat right now: we have a real chance, and Kerry, for all his faults, is a pretty liberal and decent guy. Not only that, he's got the loyalty of some of the best and brightest, and he ain't afeared.

...I appreciate the lesson in freshman poli-sci. It's been a few decades since I've taken that course and I may have forgotten that basic concept :puke:

Having said that...I also would expect some moderation; however, I also don't expect to see out-and-out changes to his position (a matter of emphasis is good politics; a matter of flip-flops is too much politics for my taste, thank you). One thing that your post did not mention is that his first priority, as a politician, is to start his re-election campaign immediately after assuming office. So, how do I know that these "moderate" positions are not the ones he is going to maintain, at least for his first term? If he has to totally re-make himself for the general election campaign, he may need to stay re-made. That's my concern here.

You accuse me and those like me of being pollyanish...well, maybe I am to a degree. But, I would like to KNOW the person I am voting for in the primary and I would like to have the same person running in the general and have the same person sitting behind the desk. Otherwise, for all I know, he'll do whatever he has to in order to stay in office for a full 8 years. Including taking positions that are complete anathema to me. WTF? Are the troops going to stay in or are they going to come out once he's in office? Is he going to support pro-choice or anti-choice? Is he going to stick it to corporate interests or is he going to pander to them? It appears, to me, like he is going to pander to whatever interest group helps him get elected, and once in office, helps him get re-elected. I'd prefer somebody a little more principled.

Suppose, if you will, that things go badly for him once he's in office. Suppose the Bush* deficit causes the economy to go into a tailspin once he's in office. Suppose the terrorists don't understand the significance of the election and decide to launch another attack on this country (sorry, I am not a LIHOP or MIHOP person). If I don't feel that the man is principled and that those principles are aligned with mine, then I have no idea what he'll do. If he is a true politician, he'll react -- and react badly. Remember the wide margin that the use-of-force authorization against Afghanistan passed with? Now look what is happening over there. Remember the pretty wide margin that Patriot I passed by? The politicians reacted...not in a principled manner but as a reaction to the political realities.

Right now, I see his advantage in this election is that he isn't the shrub. While that's good enough to get me out to vote, it sure isn't good enough to get me excited. I could continue on with this rant, but don't have the time...hopefully you get the idea.

you can take heart in Kerry's long and pretty consistent record.

The troops will stay in for the short term as he makes it a priority to cede power to a legitimate international coalition. He won't cynically hide the reality so we can still control the oil, and I think he'll do it in a fairly deft way. He will definitely defend a woman's right to choose. He's not an anti-corporate Bolshevik buccaneer, but he's going to hold them accountable.

I'm tired of the flip-flop arguments: changing one's mind is the curse of having one, something Junior hasn't an inkling of in his tidy little world, and what can be portrayed as contrary or changing positions are often consistent with core values and priorities.

The guy's got a very long record, and the votes for the Patriot Act were brilliantly manipulated and sustained by public outcry and fear. Only one Senator voted against the Patriot Act (Feingold), so if Kerry's a cowering fascist enabler, then so was Wellstone, Kennedy, Boxer, Durbin, Harkin and a host of others. The war resolution is harder to explain, but suffice it to say that they were hoodwinked by Junior. I would say that this is naivete more than cold calculation, but since I didn't hear the classified briefings, I don't know either. He's a good person, and good people are often at a disadvantage with black-hearted scoundrels like this administration.

Enough said. Rest assured that I wasn't personally targeting you.

The problem with your rousing defense of centricity, is that the center in American politics is morally wrong and fundamentally unjust. We don't have the "conservatives" and the "moderates" and the "liberals" although lots of people like to use those terms. The people in power controlling the country today represent the following groups: The extreme fascist right (neo-conservaties) the far right (moderates) and the Right (Democrats.)

That's the whole heart of the problem. Maintaining the status quo of a broken and unjust system is not right.

It isn't about perfectionism. It's about an ethic of risk. An ethic of risk says, "we know it is much, much too late to "save" the world, but the fight is still right - the commitment to principles of social justice and equality is right, regardless of whether or not you lose fights and never change the world. It will change some lives, and its right just the same.

It's like the captured King and his brother who are about to be executed and the King tells his brother to stand tall and be proud and not cower. His brother says, "you fool! As if it matters how a man falls down." The King replies, "when the fall's all that's left it matters a great deal."

The only positive progressive change that has ever been achieved in this nation or in any other place or time in history has come from people who were labeled "radicals" or "ideologues" or "refugees from romance novels" at the time. The civil rights movement wasn't driven by middle of the road kind of guys. It was driven by guys who stood up and said silly idealistic things like "I HAVE A DREAM." Womans suffrage was the movement of extreme radicals, despite all kinds of men saying "why can you just go home and be satisfied with what you have - you silly perfectionists, you fuck up everything and don't really accomplish much."

There are three general spheres of influence in American right now there are the neo-conservatives, who seek to change society toward empire and fascism. There are the progressives, who seek to change society toward greater social and economic equality and deeper justice. And there there are the middle guys, who make long, elaborate, sophisticated defenses of maintaining the status quo.

The only problem is I believe the status quo to be fundamentally unjust, and I will stand in good company with a long, long, long line of people labeled "radical" in their day who fought for genuine, serious change.

when people see that you break promises and do opposite of what you say. Kinda like bush and his phony conserevatism and no nation building that he ran on in 00.

I suspect he will consider it. But to select a pro-life judge is much different.

and I'm an effing marxist.

Just win. We'll worry about the details later.

Howard Dean! It's very sad, but to win, a candidate has to move to the center to get the most votes to win.

The country has a lot of very solid Reps and Dems. and there are very few that can be persuaded to decide between the two.

GIve him a break! He's doing what he has to to win.

Why doesn't he just flip, he could run on an indy/Repub platform and beat dubya in a landslide.

In case you hadn't noticed, momentum highly favors Kerry at this point. Also, in case you hadn't noticed--Kerry is dropping lefties in scads to Nader. That's right, NADER.

This is sounding awfully familiar...

Is that why he's losing votes to Nader?

Sounds like a lot of people could stand to take an entry-level Political Science class.

-C

It's just a bit hard to "slide center" after a judicial appointment

.... it's the moronic jackasses who vote for him....

damn leftier-than-thous.... they'd rather have *no* loaf than 3/4 of a loaf....

Gotta link to solid data that backs your statement ?

That ain't happening.....unless they'd rather have Bush in for a 2nd term. Only the really politically naive lefties will be wasting their vote on Ralph.

and walk into a wall, stutter everytime he's faced with an honest question that he didn't rehearse for, laugh nervously and pray the teleprompter doesn't malfunction?

<sarcasm on>

environment before running to the center.

those who aren't pacified by now with his stellar record on both of those issues for THIRTY YEARS are just being belligerently OBTUSE.

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

Kerry's credentials as a liberal are sufficient that I'll give him all the leeway he needs to beat Bush, trusting that his true liberal/progressive self will emerge once in office . . . if I'm wrong, he'll still be light years better than what we have now . . . I do think he should be aggressively opposing the war, however, because I think that will win him votes by the time November rolls around . . .

Hipopcracy squared.

You can't change people by following them. The more we keep appealing to the center in a desperate attempt to win in name only the more we are seen as pandering flip floppers. So the very tactic used to scavenge votes drives even more people away from us.

Ask people who hate George why they are so reluctant to vote for Kerry (or any Dem for that matter). Its because they do not trus us. We stand for nothing. We no longer stand behind the words we speak. Our candidates increasingly say whatever they need to say to get ellected.

Their impression of the repukes is that they may not represent everything they believe in but they trust them (whether this is deserved is another question). It may be the result of a massive PR campaign. Or it could just be that we have not placed them in a mode where they have to run after votes. But they can appear to do what they say and stick to their ideals (be they right or wrong). It is the inflexibility in the right that people admire.

So by trying to curry the favor of the middle we just sicken many that could not vote for Bush. If instead we stood up for the things we claimed we did and fought on our own ground we might be getting more of the massive numbers of people that do not vote out of disgust to actually return.

People want leaders not followers. The Dems under the tutilage of the DLC have become a party of followers. Chasing after the middle votes. We have lost our way and everyone can see it in our eyes.

Campaigns are about winning elections, not changing people.

And I fully agree with him. One should not be picked because of political preference. It should be someone that you can guarantee will uphold the Constitution to the letter and not follow their own personal agenda. This little part got forgotten along the way (unfortunately, FDR started this ugly trend.) Judges were truly apolitical appointees for the most part. Of course, those were also the days when "advise and consent" did not mean for the Senate to become a rubber stamp.

just win the race! Then he can do like the rest of the politicians -WTF they want to - cause they all lie! Just get Bush the hell outta there!!!
:kick:

it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Had he run as the extremist that we know him to be, he probably wouldn't have come as close to winning as he did in 2000.

The problem is that when you move to the center, you lose some of your base. Unfortunately on Kerry's left flank, Nader is there to suck up the lefty votes.

Kerry can go ahead and say whatever t takes to get elected, just so he gets elected. I'll withold judgement on whether he has 'moved' or not until I see which direction he governs in.

If he governs as he has voted in the Senate, I'll be mostly happy.

...when he was supposedly liberal?

Junior may have pretended to be a centrist candidate, but he didn't spend the previous three years as Texas governor doing so.

but in the meantime,it would be wise to look at their glasses as half full.

"Before 1968, party politics in the United States followed a predictable cycle of change. Critical elections in 1860, 1896, and 1932 reflected large swings in the partisan loyalties of the electorate. This process of realignment is less descriptive of American electoral politics today than it was thirty years ago. Party identification is becoming less important over time. More split-ticket voting indicates weakening partisanship."

Note those dates.

They were periods of crisis where people saw an urgency in throwing the bums out and looked for real alternatives. Normally, nobody is looking for radical change. People are "conservative" by nature-- they may want some things, but are afraid of screwing up what they have if things are going reasonably well. They will not vote for a known radical or ideologue of any stripe.

Aside from a few diehards, issues are largely irrelevant. What most voters are looking for is stability, and a reasonable expectation that the politician will work reasonably hard to not screw things up while possibly making things slightly better. Try as I might, I can't think of anyone I've ever met who took seriously anything a politician said or promised in a campaign.

We're looking for attitudes and warm fuzzies. We're looking for someone we can feel confident about giving the responsibility for a large part of our lives to. We know we're not going to get everything we want, but we're looking for someone who will get us a fair share.

I'll take his word for 1968 being the point of change in party loyalties, but prior to WWII, the country was much different than it is now. It was still largely split between rural and urban populations, and they had vastly different concerns. Now, many of the concerns of those days have been dealt with, and we are geographically much more unified in our concerns. Something like the "Cross of Gold" speech would be ridiculous. We tend to agree on the problems, and don't differ all that much on the solutions.

A "Cross of Black Gold" speech might be in order sometime in the near future if and when we actually do hit a peak oil crisis. But that day isn't here yet.

And it's sobering to note that that speech didn't win Bryan the election.

Kerry's move to the Center is hurting him more than it helps him. The problem is, it makes him look like a weak leader. People see Kerry as an opportunist, who makes choices based on what the polls are showing. Bush is on the far right, but many people don't care, because bush remains consistent.

If Kerry, would not move to the center, people would trust him more, even if they don't agree with his issues. Look at the polls, people trust Bush more than they trust Kerry by a landslide. People don't trust Kerry's flip flopping on the Iraq war and on various other issues. If Kerry would stay consistently against the Iraq war, consistently against government intrusion into social issues etc, I would think he would have a higher chance of winning, especially with Nader in the election.

in the huge liberal state of California. Nothing but a pathetic hypothesis for a failure in the making. What will your analysis be if he loses this one? Im not looking forward to that, I suppose next go round he should run as a conservative?

for a variety of reasons, the biggest being because she refused to back the racist Propostion 187 that repuke Pete Wilson used to get out all the anti- immigration people. Kathleen Brown stood on her principles and sacrificed herself, in the end the sacrific was worth it because it painted the repukes here forever (or anyway for a long time) as racists. Thanks to Kathleen Brown California is solidly in the Blue State Democratic column.

She did an amazing impression of Pete Wilson. That sorry proposition didnt sink her ship. If there is a correlation between race based initiatives and gubernatorial candidacies, how did Prop 54 take a dive and Ahnold steal into office? Well, of course, he did steal in and the disparity between 54 and his vote count, previous gubernatorial elections and his vote count, nobody candidate vote totals and his huge number... She blew it, and I wouldnt trust the states elections system any further than I can throw it. You remember what the blues up in SF did with municipal power dont you?

he once said he didn't like caviar. How bigoted. I could not vote for such a bigoted man. He doesn't seem much different than *.

Only kidding, folks. I have no evidence Kerry said he doesn't like caviar. I made it all up.

Bush just spent over a hundred MILLION dollars trying to get the center and what's he doing now?

THE WITLESS WONDER OF THE WHITE HOUSE IS DESPERATELY SHORING UP HIS BASE!!!!!!

If Kerry wasn't pandering to the center right now, I'd be afraid he was trying to throw the fucking election!

The election is being won right now by the moves Kerry is making while Bush is panicking and shoring up his base.

I have avoided going in this direction because 1) I believe it is fraught with peril and 2) its contrary to the premises of this board.

If Kerry wins on a center-right vote, and the DNC and DLC take that as an endorsement, I believe progressives will need to challenge every sitting Democrat in the primaries who accepts that view.

And we will need to reconsider our approach to the 2008 national election.

there can be no valid three party approach unless we get rid of the Busheviks first.

Job one - Dump bush.

Job two - hold the Democratic Party's collective feet to the fire.

It is a a center-right position at best.

Read the Emerging Democratic Majority. Read polls on the subject. The majority of Americans are moderately pro-choice.

So I have to assume Kerry is pretty stupid, the people advising him are pretty stupid, or this is their real agenda (pro-life).

Kerry and other national dems need to proceed carefully with a move to the right-of-center.

Shut-up-and-vote is not an approach to the Democratic Base that will open my waller or get me out working in advance of election day.

It is a perscription for open rebellion in the party or, worse, division into two parties.

Worse, choice is an winning issue for us nationally and in most states. It's just flat out stupid to run away from that position.

He's "open" to appointing pro-life judges. He'll "consider" them.

Doesn't mean he WILL APPONIT them.

This is what they hate about the Dems. This is clearly a twofaced position. If you are going to remain prochoice then bloody well come out and say it. People can hold their nose and vote for someone they don't totally agree with as long as they believe the person will stand up for what they say they will.

This is the single biggest problem the Dems face right now. We are not trusted. Every single conservative and indipendent I have talked to say the same thing. They do not trust the Dems. They may hate much about George but they trust him (whether that is wise or not is another question).

"two-faced?" Really, I'm curious if you can't back that up.

What Kerry is saying is that the judiciary does not begin and end with abortion. Therefore, why do judicial appointments begin and end with abortion?

Somehow, we're not supposed to be intellectually honest anymore; we're supposed to take the position that looks the most cohesive when a pundit takes a brief look at it before writing a column. God forbid one takes the policy positions he/she honestly feels are best - instead, one must simply pick the simplest positions that somewhat resemble one's own feelings.

there are obvious deal-breakers like slavery. If a person considers abortion a deal-breaker then the idea of a competent anti-abortion jurist becomes as nonsensical as the idea of a competent pro-slavery jurist. So it's not necessarily uncontroversial to say the judiciary does not begin and end with abortion.

Seriously, how long would one consider a brilliant jurist who favored slavery but was brilliant, honest and even-handed on all other matters?

Good God. Most people don't have a problem with Kerry trying to woo *moderates* (the word used in Colin's post).

But when did anti-choice, strict constructionist, Federalist Society BS become anything other than right wing for goodness sakes?

But our system sucks so we always seem to vote for the less of 2 evils or have to comprimise in some way.
So he has my vote but not my heart.

Very much. Great post. :)

n/t

Please note: the report that John Kerry said he'd consider appointing judges who are anti-abortion was written by Nedra Pickler. The report does not include Kerry's exact words, which increases the possibility that what Nedra said deviates from what Kerry said or meant.

I agree that he's moving too far to the right, but that Pickler bitch is always twisting words.

despite all the scientific studies noting that there's nothing wrong with it.

I remember when Kerry was a liberal. I remember when I thought that he'd make a good candidate for Prez. I remember when I was going to vote for him.

Then he convinced me that was a bad idea. He, and the DLC, continues to do so.

and it's for you, bandera. I just want to ask you again what the point is of continually posting that you aren't going to be voting for Kerry, and reminding us how much you dislike him. Are you hoping to dissuade others? Are you hoping it will change Kerry? Does it do something for you emotionally?

There are more votes at the center, sorry, and *any* candidate would go there after the primaries. It happens every time, and every time, some people act surprised and upset. But make no mistake: there has never been as wide a difference in Republican and Democratic presidential candidates as there is between Bush and Kerry -- not in my lifetime, at least. Surely we can at least agree that Kerry is more liberal than either Gore or Clinton.

My question remains: Why expend so much energy criticizing Kerry and telling us you aren't voting for him?

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

The answer to each question is: I want Kerry to defeat Bush.

He gets a "pass" for appealing to center because it makes some sense for him to do so in order to defeat Bush. Yes, I do hope to persuade others that Kerry deserves our support, and that it's untrue that Kerry "refuses to take liberal positions," because I want him to defeat Bush. Do you? If so, why aren't you voting for him?

I disagree that Nixon was further from McGovern than Bush is from Kerry, because Bush is far, far more extreme and dangerous than Nixon ever was.

If you said what you hope to accomplish in your posts vowing not to vote for Kerry, I missed it. I am sincerely curious.

This I take as an attack: "reminding us how sycophantic and groveling you are towards him."

As if your questions about my emotional state weren't an attack"?

What do I hope to accomplish in my posts?

I want the left to hold Kerry's feet to the fire. The only way of doing so is to threaten to withhold our votes. He, and the DLC, are counting on us to vote for him because we have the threat of Bush over our heads. If he can't count on us, he will have to move to the left rather than mimicking Bush and moving to the right.

I do want him to defeat Bush. I'm withholding my vote because it's the only real weapon I have to move the party (and, country) to the left. I'm not giving him a pass because we did that with Clinton and the party moved right under the delusion that that's the only way to "win". Was Clinton better than Bush or Dole. Undoubtedly. Was he a real liberal, progressive, president? Not by a long shot.

I'll probably be voting Green for Prez because their ideas are a lot more in line with my own. I'll be voting Democrat for senator and congressman for the same reason.

Got it?

I was sincere in asking if emotional satisfaction is your reason for griping here. For some, venting or ranting is a release of some sort.

But I believe you if you say it's because you think you're "holding Kerry's feet to the fire." As I've said, if everybody did that, the candidate wouldn't be able to walk -- no matter *who* the candidate was.

I'm as left as anybody I know. But I know that Clinton won, and Mondale and Dukakis did not. I know that the middle ground holds disgruntled Republicans and moderate fence-sitters, and they always fear the Massachussetts Extreme Liberal characterization. And I believe -- I don't know anymore, but I believe -- my fellow liberals are smarter than those moderates, see the stakes, recognize the chasm between one of the most liberal Senators we've got and the most dangerous administration in history, and will vote for Kerry despite his political campaign maneuvers.

Or not.

You say you want Kerry to defeat Bush. How exactly does 'threatening to withhold your vote' and encouraging others to do the same -- in an effort to blackmail Kerry into stances during the *campaign* (as opposed to in *office*) that in fact may jeopardize his chances of defeating Bush -- help further the cause?

So, you believe that "political campaign maneuvers", lying to the electorate, is a sign of political entegrity? The "wink-wink" "nudge-nudge" to we politically in the know liberals is sign of what? Statesmanship? Ethics? Respect for voters? Sounds sorta like "Compassionate Conservatism", "No Child Left Behind", "Trickle Down Economics", and such to me.

Sure, I recognize the maneuvering. As I've said, I've been involved politically since the early '60s. And, I can even forgive most of it. However, I've also seen the "maneuver" become reality. LBJ's "anti-communism" (we all "knew" he was just pacifying the stupid rightwingers) led to Vietnam. Clinton's "compromises" and "triangulation" led to Welfare Reform, Nafta, the continuing embargo on Cuba, etc.

I do want Kerry to defeat Bush. But, I want him to answer to the voters on his promises. If he's promising 4 more years of bloodshed in Iraq, (nudge, nudge, wink, wink,....we all know he doesn't *really* mean it, don't we?), or, that he will consider appointing pro-life justices (wink, wink, etc...we "know" he doesn't really mean it don't we?), then what happens if he lives up to his "campaign maneuvers"? Do you want to take the responsibility of having to say that you voted for the announced policy when the bodies come home? When Roe v Wade is overturned?

If Kerry really doesn't mean what he's saying on such issues as war and peace and women's rights, how can we believe him? We're not talking about kissing ugly babies and saying their cute here.

I want him to do something that, to date, he seems incapable of. Tell me why I should vote for him for good reasons, rather the the feeble he's not as bad as Bush.

I voted for Clinton twice, and hoped his words were just "political maneuvers", and was wrong. If he's going to "maneuver" let him do it towards the left. The votes are here, waiting.

It's not intended as a "sign of political integrity" -- it's simply being realistic in doing everything possible to win an election. *Both* sides do it, every time. Kerry can't afford not to.

Again, the goal is to win the election. Harp on his policy after he's in office! I can tell you one thing for certain: if Bush gets in, he will destroy reproductive freedoms, without question -- but he'll destroy much more than that. This is a man who believes in the rapture, the "end of days," a man who is consulting religious wackos on his policy in the middle east, heading for armaggedon. He cares nothing about justice, nothing about preserving the planet, nothing about anything but his own warped sense of power in a destructive destiny, as I see it. There is nothing Kerry could even *think* of doing to equal the dangers of another four years of Bush.

Winks and nudges? That's the scandal? I'll take it!

Kerry's got a long record. Look at it. He's liberal. Clinton was not. And again, as I've stated and as the original post here stated, there are *more* votes in the much-maligned "center" -- sorry! It's up to us to be smart enough to see the truth and let our candidate do what he needs to do in campaigning to win.

He's being pressed from the right for being a Wacko Radical Massachussetts Liberal, and it doesn't help to give counterpressure from the left for being "DLC Bush Lite Can't Even Tell the Difference." We ought to be smarter than that. The stakes are too high to cut off the party's nose to spite its face. The stakes are too high to spend time trying to persuade others to "threaten to withhold their votes" to change rhetoric in the campaign, as opposed to policy when he's in office. The stakes are too high to do ANYthing but try to defeat Bush, period.

were you out of the country at that time?

;)

...and the Democrats fold like paper dolls when they're called 'extremist' for upholding the values and principles of the 'old' Democratic party.

- RWingers define our positions FOR us...and then weak-kneed Dems AGREE so as not to look 'extreme'. Kerry is running toward the center because he agrees with those who label as extreme what used to mainstream Democratic ideals.

- Rationalize all you want...but Kerry is selling out OUR values so he can look good to some frigging 'moderates' that can't seem to tell the difference between the left and right.

I do agree it's a huge ass problem, and while I pretty much disagree with the last part of your post, it's being hashed out by tons of other people on this thread.

What's your solution to the label of "extremist"? Is there a quick fix?

-C

that has worked so well since bush took office.

- It's no more complicated than saying what you believe and believing what you say. The Democratic party doesn't HAVE any extreme positions. Our positions have been called 'extreme' by those who want to replace our agenda with theirs. If we're going to be the 'party of the people'...we're going to have start acting the role. That means fighting FOR the people and telling them the whole truth about THEIR government.

- It's PROJECTION...and if Democrats can't see that then they can't be helped. Democrats have been literally brainwashed into believing that allowing a women to decide her own reproductive fate is somehow an extreme position. Meanwhile....hundreds of thousands of WOMEN show up at a protest rally to show their support for choice. So how is this extreme when it has universal support from those most directly involved?

- What's more extreme than stealing elections, lying a nation into war and policies that eliminate environmental protections and rape and pillage our resources? What's 'extreme' about the progressive ideal of equal and civil rights? What's extreme about striving for peace instead of unnecessary war? What's extreme about wanting/demanding an open government?

- I laugh in the face of those who call me extreme or 'fringe'. Having a RWing lunatic call you extreme is funny stuff. After all...they support the most secretive, fascist government in the history of the US.

And if there was ever a time to change the status quo it is THIS year. If they don't give it up in 2004, they NEVER will. They have allowed the right to become insanely radical because the RW feel no need to avoid looking extreme. Bush didn't campaign as a compassionate moderate. He wasn't a good 'ol boy at the ranch to appeal to swing voters. Dems move to the right, Repubs move to the right... and a huge block of people are left out of the equation. I'm as ABB but Bush as can be, but looking at the big picture, I can't fault anyone for not jumping on the train.

This has been happening since the dawn of time.

I read your headline and thought you were ranting about how he *shouldn't* be running to the center. I had a totally different response in mind. Glad I don't need it.

:thumbsup:

and Kerry is one of the most liberal Senators in Congress. That whole thing is "rhetoric."

Politics 101

Rule #1:
"When running for President ALWAYS claim that you have no litmus test for a judge."

us not to be afraid to be Democrats again. I would like Kerry not to fear being a Democrat.

The party needs to be what it is, Kerry needs to be who he is.

I think he can win if he's authentic. He won't win being mushy.

Perhaps appealing to the center is the *authentic* John Kerry, if so I haven't as much of a problem with that, but voters will see through a *scheme* and he wont win against the so called (principled) George Bush if he lacks principle himself.

in a general election? See? you proved our point by bringing up your man, Dean.

runner.

He ran lousy ads, Gep and him trashed eachother in Iowa so badly no one wanted anything to do with either.

As I said, Kerry has his strenghts, Dean has his, I'd like for Kerry to be a man of *principle*

The RW is already saying he doesn't stand for anything. He needs to address this.

But hopefully, when he's President and people are comfortable with him, he'll show the old Kerry some more.

Being in the center is what is wrong with the Democratic party. It is THE reason 50% of voters are not inspired to vote AT ALL.

College professors, campaign managers, political organizations. Explain to them your point of view, try to change their minds. Or volunteer to run a commission campaign, have your candidate scream "I AM A LIBERAL" from the rooftops, and see what happens.

Come on. If you're going to bitch, contribute and prove me wrong.

-C

I am working with a local candidate for House of Representatives that makes no bones about himself being a liberal and he is anti-war.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it friend.


If we are to affect a REAL change in our government we must support candidates who aren't afraid to call themselves liberals.

Milque toast candidates like Kerry need to be put out to pasture.

to them; the Left's or the Center's.

High time someone told those fools that people who stand in the middle of the road get run over.

The left is too proud to take it on the chin once in awhile.

God, I feel like a fucking DLC apologist. I feel like I need to take a shower or something.

-C

We've been taking it on the chin for the last 30 years and watching the party shift so far to the right as to be unrecognizable.

There's no such thing as a kinder, gentler occupation and I take exception to any politician who tries to sell me one. Kerry is not even saying "We will stay IF the Iraqi people want us to stay", he helped build up the myth of WMDs for 14 years, pushed for the war, voted for it and now wants the occupation.

I am sure you can understand the disgust of anti-war/anti-occupation people like me.

Sorry for making you feel like a DLC apologist when it's pretty clear your heart is in the right place.

Right now he has bu$hco's massive failures to help him along.

If it weren't for the torture scandal and the fallout from that (military/intelligence/WH war), I would agree that his drifting to the center was foolish and insulting to the anti-war left.

Since it's becoming more a situation of him just playing it safe and keeping his lead going, I can accept this more easily. We know his past, and I have a suspicion that his 20 years in govt has taught him to tread lightly on certain issues.

Also, I have to be positive and keep in mind that the great big shining silver lining to the past four years (twelve, really) is that there are so many more people willing to take an honest assessment of our government and then proceed to actually do something about it.

it's purely a question of putting together a solid plurality in enough states to win the Electoral College so it's the number of votes that is important. Any other criteria for the campaign would be malpractice.

he is obviously just going towards the center. As soon as he gets in its Liberal heaven. He's no damn moderate, hes definately a liberal, and anyone who believes he would appoint anti freedom judges is really naive.

You play up to the center or the right and then turn your back on them after you win?

Why do you think so many hate the Democrats? Why do you think even with Bush's horrible handling of the war Kerry is not picking up any ground. There is a strong hatred of the Democratic party because of the perception of exactly this tactic. We say one thing and do another. Flip Flop. We try to appeal to both sides of the argument. We don't really stand for anything.

There are people that can't stand George Bush that are going to vote for him anyway because they believe he stands for what he says. They may be delude but we enable this delusion by using these tactics. We sneak into office by appealing to values we do not share.

I say be left and proud. I just see what he is doing. Imo kerry is a conservative and clinton was a near republican. I think people hate dems for the most part due to the lack of a message and terrible campaigns. Lewis black was joking "Republicans are the party of bad ideas. Democrats are the party of no ideas" I am a Howard dean supporter, and i see how the party did him, and dk and kucinich so they are even despised on the left. The dlc is driving it into the ground

Inherent dishonesty blows the doors off blatant dishonesty, every time.

Why do you think so many hate the Democrats?

Simple. I don't think so many hate the Democrats.

Why do you think even with Bush's horrible handling of the war Kerry is not picking up any ground

Kerry HAS been picking up ground. His numbers have been climbing steadily.

over recent years. Not so many landslide wins, either. Not so many wins at all, for that matter.

are just a few DLCers who have won elections in recent years.

So how many Senators and Governers has the Green Party elected? Let me quote a wise voter

Not so many wins at all, for that matter.

Dean was never DLC and Gore left it long ago..

Gephardt, Edwards, Graham, Hillary Clinton, Boxer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41036-2004May19.html

"I voted for Judge Scalia." - John Kerry
--- EEwwwwwwwww! And numbnuts thinks it's a good idea to remind us of that? This guy has to be a worse candidate than Gore. HE JUST DOES NOT GET IT!

We are to assume that a candidate has other motives other than what he tells us? We need to take the candidate on "faith" and we are "sure" he really is more liberal and progressive than what he says on his campaign. We know that, because it came up on the Tarot cards.

I am totally turned off to this type of talk

If this is the way we are expected to vote and expected to know a candidate that we would vote for, one whom we do not know at all because he is "playing" to all factions and has no ONE strong platform -- we are indeed, indulging in magical thinking. We are indeed being deliberately held back from forming a definitive opinion--because it is so vague and it is vague because it is "playing" to someone called the "middle"--

At this point, I am very disappointed in the entire process. It is a sudden revelation that we are all caught up in magical thinking, and it is a loss of innocence.

And people think it is a mystery why Americans are apathetic re their votes or their participation in the voting process. Americans probably are fed up with the same ole, same ole crap.

If Kerry wants to run to the center (I personally believe he's running to the right), then let him win w/their support and votes.

I have always believed that my vote is sacred. I vote for the person that represents me the best. I research the person's past and present on as many issues as possible, then decide.

In Kerry's case, most of his stances are turning 180 from mine. Almost everyday, I discover another reason I will not vote for him.

There have been many here that declare we must vote for him due to SC judges. Well, his vote for Scalia and his recent declaration that he may vote for anti-choice judges pretty shoots that deciding factor all to hell, eh?

You asked another poster on this thread why he/she continues to post that they will not vote for Kerry. I agree w/that poster's reply and would like to add that I know many people read this board. I want all of those people to know that not everyone is pleased w/the DLC appointed and supported Kerry.

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day

The base of the Democratic Party consists of minorities, ***working women***, and professionals. We're just asking to be Nadered with comments like this, regardless of Kerry's outstanding record.

but I guess you know more about abortion than they do.

In Illinois in 1998 we tried to run a pro-life guy for the governorship and lost badly. Working women in the suburbs didn't feel it was worth it to turn out. Illinois is a hardcore blue state as liberal as California; there was no excuse for it.

Look at it this way. Suppose Kerry was endorsed by the NAACP, and then spoke about how it was alright if he appointed judges that would do away with affirmative action. Regardless of the endorsement of the interest group, we would have no one to blame but ourselves when the real-life voters didn't turn out.

Suppose Kerry was endorsed by the NAACP, and then spoke about how it was alright if he appointed judges that would do away with affirmative action

The only problem with that premise is that Kerry did NOT say he would appoint judges that would "do away" with Roe v Wade. In fact, he said the opposite. He clearly and explcitely said he supports Roe v Wade and would NOT allow it to be overturned by appointing a judge who opposes Roe v Wade to SCOTUS when SCOTUS is 5-4.

IOW, your objection is based on a lie. Kerry did not say he would appoint judges opposed to Roe v Wade

I'm 100% behind the Kerry campaign and am not a threat to you.

I'm merely pointing that some issues like capital punishment and gun control we can get away with fuzzing up. In contrast, when our base is involved (minorities, working women, & professionals), it is strategically better to be unequivocal on the critical issue, e.g. abortion, affirmative action, etc. Otherwise shit happens like Illinois in 1998.

He's said he will not appoint judges who'd overturn Roe v. Wade. I have no reason not to believe him, as he's been staunchly pro-choice in his voting record for a long, long time.

I would think most liberals are smart enough to realize what his record is, and to recognize that if the Chimp gets four more years, reproductive rights will be even further undermined. The choice is a pro-choice Massachussetts Liberal and a fundamentalist theocratic anti-choice extreme rightwinger.... Yet my fellow liberals are getting hysterical! Helloooo?

while it may be a sad truth of the American electoral process, it rarely benefits a candidate to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth ...

surely it must be clear to all that we are locked in a life and death struggle to get rid of bush ... there is no alternative ... we have to say and do whatever is necessary to end the death and destruction he and his evil minions have caused ...

let us "keep the faith" that Kerry will run right and govern left ... it may or may not be so ... but we know all too well what we have with bush ...

as an agnostic, all i can say is "give it time" ... if Kerry cannot see the "left end of the big tent" after he gets elected, we'll address that issue soon enough ...

but today, my friends, is a day of unity at any cost ... and when the battlelines are between center and left, rather than right and left as they are today, we will deal with any missteps Mr. Kerry may make in due time ...

Yeah, I mean, what are we going to do, vote Bush? Voting Nader is as good as voting for Bush, so there you go. We don't have a choice on who we are voting for this election if we want to remove Bush. We have to vote for Kerry, no matter where he runs.

Instead of screaming that he's running towards the center and creating infighting within our base, shouldn't we instead focus on unifying to eject Bush from our White House?

AS LONG AS WE CAN STOP THE HEMORRHAGING OF OUR COUNTRY