Those who are utterly unenthused by Kerry, come on in

I want your opinions on this. The thread about Epstein's 'Kerry should apologize' article for Common Dreams is good reading for anybody interested in this race and in what different DUers are thinking leading up to this election. I'm going to try to describe my thinking on 2004, Kerry, and what progressives should be doing.

I'm of the Molly Ivins school of thought that there are three ways to judge a politician: the record, the record and the record. I do not particularly care about what a candidate says in a campaign if his/her record is superior, though obviously being an able and sympathetic speaker helps inspire voters, and being a duplicitous panderer does not.

Looking all over the board for the duration of the campaign, the focus of criticism on Kerry at DU has been on campaign statements and minutiae rather than on his record. This is totally opposed to my way of thinking, so I have a real hard time taking people seriously when their arguments amount to: 'but look at what he SAID during the campaign!' Politicians say whatever the hell they think is going to help them win in a campaign--there are no 'straight shooters' who win national elections unless the 'straight shooting' itself is a lie. As David Brenner would say, 'once you learn to fake that, you've made it.' Going by the 2000 GOP 'platform', for example--espousing no nation building, no wasteful peacekeeping stretching our armed services, no meddling in other nations' politics, &c--we wouldn't be in Iraq right now. These campaign statements are useless for determining how one will behave in office; the record is key.

Now you may be saying 'but I think Kerry's record sucks.' There's no question there are superior records out there (DK), but you have to remember this is a national election, and as such it is a choice between making the base feel really good and losing, or pissing off the base during the campaign by pandering to the center while winning the election. I watched the candidates that progressives here got really excited about, and I particularly liked Dean and Kucinich. I thought Dean had excellent stances and ideas and a great campaign. Kucinich beat out everyone as far as record and positions, and it was an honor to caucus for him. What happened to these guys in the primary? They were crushed as soon as the voting started. Dean was a particularly energizing candidate who had a good mix of establishment electability and grassroots panache, but his impressive organization collapsed when he had to rely on voters, because voters do not think at ALL the way we do. They do not agree with or even sympathize with most of our positions on most issues. Take a look at the polls that have Bush still in the %40s. It is inconceivable to me that anyone would 'support' this lunatic, but that's the reality of this country.

Those who say they could never vote for Kerry based on his record would have a hard time voting for Democratic candidates over the last seventy years. Were we a great liberal party when we started imperialist wars for investors and Standard Oil? Maybe it was when we interned the Japanese, plotted to overthrow the government of Cuba, went to war in Viet Nam? Either you compromise your values to some degree, or you cannot vote for any major candidate--only someone with little extant record can lay a claim to purity, and then only if you believe the campaign rhetoric, which only a fool would do. Even Dennis has his flag vote, and his past abortion stances to remove him from the ideologically 'pure' column.

People always are saying 'if Kerry would only (insert Common Dreams editorial), then we would be landsliding Bush!' This is a lot of unfounded nonsense. There were many candidates that espoused the Common Dreams line in the primary, and there will be one who does so in the general election. Kerry handily defeated those in the primary without being 'landslided,' and Nader has often been on the receiving end of the 'landsliding' himself. What these people try to bolster their arguments with is the 50% of Americans who don't vote, portraying them as sage people who refuse to enter the dirtiness of the current political world, waiting instead for a straight talking progressive hero, whose arrival will cause them to rise up and all vote to a woman/man. This is a fantasy, since no significant bloc of non-voters showed up for the progressive primary candidates, and Nader's 3% in presidential elections is hardly indicative of a vast non-voter movement waiting for progressive views--the evidence simply isn't there for this claim.

To sum up, all we have to decide is who we want in office--Bush or Kerry. They are the only two who have a chance at winning. It's fine to rail against the 'one party corporate plutocracy,' but as Chomsky says, the insignificant differences between these two will be magnified by the awesome power of the office, and the executive branch has done these things so far under Bush:

-Detaining of Green party leaders by Secret Service as a part of the 'no-fly list'

-FCC consolidation of the media, slowly turning it into state/corporate propaganda.

-Curtailing of civil rights under DoJ, illegal internment of untold thousands.

-Filling courts with right wing justices, often in defiance of Congressional disapproval.

-Flouting the International Court and the Geneva Convention, illegally invading a nation and committing DoD approved atrocities.

-Dehumanizing bigoted propaganda, use of 'shadowy outsider' as scapegoat for problems and an excuse for starting an endless war on 'terror', which has an unlimited capacity to advance an authoritarian hold on the government.

Kerry's executive branch will be far superior in every field, based on his record. If he truly runs the country in the way his centrist campaign rhetoric would indicate, the base will righteously kick him out in 2004, and I will not be making this kind of argument in his favor. But this is a national campaign, and most of the country does not agree with or even sympathize with the prevailing views on this site. I wish to hell it did, but that's where we stand. Kerry can make us feel warm and fuzzy and lose, or he can piss us off for the next few months and win. Based on his record, he is superior to Bush in every way and deserves our vote and our hard work.

But I think that he will make an excellent President.

He compiled his great record in Massachusetts and only answering to Massachusetts voters. His turn around, in both record and rhetoric, coincides with his need to answer to the nation as a whole. Now some, like you, are saying that we should look at his early record and dismiss the current stuff as just pandering to the middle. But what if all of his record is pandering? Then all he is is pander and thus it is very fair to judge him by his latest pandering. The fact is, I honestly don't know what the truth is.

Did he really say that? :)

Most people would translate that as "right wing". Though Dennis Kucinich and Al Gore were both "pro-lifers" earlier in their political careers.

pro-choice judges.

Not exactly encouraging to those of us who are usually single issue voters.

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

I always try to treat his critics with respect--there is plenty to be critical about.

don't have any self-confidence in their ideology. Didn't anyone else read the chapter in Dude, Where's my Country? where Moore lists all the polls showing that a majority of Americans hold liberal views on most issues?

We don't have to sacrifice our values to win elections if we show conviction and organize well. We need to use the Wellstone model instead of giving in to conservatives.

He started late and was not well known prior to running. The corporate media blacked out coverage of Kucinich and pretended Dean war just like DK but more electable. He had a campaign manager who had never worked on an election campaign before and some of his most experienced staff quit in November.

Why does one liberal doing badly mean that no liberal can do well? Clinton never won a full majority of the votes in either election. Gore going to the middle wasn't enough to become President, but his poll numbers did go up when he used the economic populist themes. Carter's moderate approach couldn't win him a second term. Moderate's don't have a such a great track record either.

...all of which Kerry is completely in line with.

He sees the U.S. in a global context. He sees our role as leader of the world through strength, trust, and responsibility.

His election races are normally well planned. He gives voters his views and plans and let them reflect on them. Then in the last few months he shows his effective passion. I am proud to support Kerry!

You've done your homework.

If Kerry wants to run centrist and govern leftist, I can live with that. I am desperately hoping to be pleasantly surprised by President Kerry's term, but I am not holding my breath.

To those Greenies and Kucinich supporters, you will not be displeased with Kerry. He's stood solid on pro-environment and pro-choice and withdrawal from Iraq. I believe he's fully aware that the left part of the democrats were pretty well deserted in the recent past. Sharpton and Dean will also be forming the planks.

to back a Palestinian state, crack down on corporate crime, plug up the holes that allow jobs to gush away, introduce universal healthcare and pre-K-through-college public education, cut back on military spending,etc etc

He is not bad in many ways, and seems pretty soild on the environment. But he is still pretty far off from Dennis, who I think has a world of great ideas.

"because voters do not think at ALL the way we do. They do not agree with or even sympathize with most of our positions on most issues." I talk with a lot of people, with various politcal leanings, and most acutally agree about the basic issues. They just don't necessarily vote that way; get swayed by other "issues". And I think your analysis of how candidates fared is incomplete.
However, I am not arguing with you either. I am not anti-Kerry and I will definitely be voting for him come Nov.
However, I don't want Bush to just lose; I want Kerry to have a mandate, in order to actually put social justice policies into practice. I think this is possible; but not as the campaign is now being run. That said, there is still a LONG time to go, and much still to be done.
I also wouldn't be so dismissive of the possibilites with regards to the non-voting bloc.
BUT, just capturing the White House will not get us there. The real power is in Congress, as that is where the laws are approved or defeated, as are appointments. If the present Republican leadership (and I use the term loosely, sort of like the Lead Lemming) stays in power, we will have at best, veto power; and that, only if some of those wayward Democrats can be kept from voting with the other side. I am somewhat alarmed that there seems to be so little attention being paid to the Congressional races.

When I say I'm not enthusiastic about Kerry, it's not because I don't recognize the positive things in his record; it's not because I dislike him, because I don't. He was running between 3 and 5 on my personal primary "rankings" before Iowa.

I have some particular concerns with some of his votes during the * admin, and with one of his positions in regards to my profession, which I've dealt with elsewhere. I don't think he will be a "bad" president. I disagreed with some of Bill Clinton's policies, too, but have a world of respect for his accomplishments, a world of gratitude for his providing us with 8 bushless years, and would go back to the America we had during the Clinton era in a heartbeat. And work for my personal progressive issues from there. I hope to do the same during the John Kerry administration.

I would love to be campaigning for my first choice, of course, but I'm willing to campaign for any decent democrat who will get * out of office, and that includes John Kerry.

He is superior to GWB in every respect, and he will have my vote in November. He'll have my hard work and donations after the convention, whether he formally "declares" at that point or not. Meanwhile, I'd still like to hear some voices raised in support at the convention for a couple of the top issues I think are broad-based enough to deserve notice; universal, single-payer health care, and that weapon of mass public ed distruction, NCLB.

:hi:

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

If your way is a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

If your way is not launching attacks on the next two nations in The Axis of Evil.

If your way is balancing the budget (remember when we had a bugdet surplus - just a few years ago.)

If your way is regaining the respect we had as a nation before * took over.

I don't want to read about Kerry; I don't want to talk about Kerry; I don't want to hear about him; I don't want to see him; I don't want to listen to him; I don't want to vote for him; and I for damn sure don't want him to be President.

Happily for Kerry, I want Bush less.

Why can't this be in GD2004? Why do I have to see threads about Kerry here? I don't go to GD2004 for a reason (see first paragraph). And I'm sick of being lectured to about Kerry. I couldn't even read your post -- got as far as your mention of the phrase "his record" and bailed, fast. I CAN'T STAND THE MAN AND PROBABLY NEVER WILL. Got it?

Edited to add: And I REALLY resent your manipulative thread title -- designed to lure people in just so you can spin your speil. Barf.

Oh, don't tell me...the DLC?

It's odd that you "don't want to read about Kerry", but you were "lured in" even though Kerry's name was in the thread title. Hmmm...
Sorry that it wasn't the bitchfest that you expected.

(other than closeted Freepers). Jeezus, I can damn well dislike Kerry and still vote for him because he ISN'T BUSH! I don't need a fucking lecture on his merits or Bush's* evils; ANYONE running in the Dem primaries would be a huge step up from Bush* based on their record. I dislike Kerry because I think he's a bad CANDIDATE; he's boring (reached that conclusion on my own while attending one of his speeches; I had never heard him speak before then and he had been my second choice. After the speech he fell to #4), he doesn't inspire me, his campaign is weak and lacks vision-to hell with his record; we all KNOW his record but the majority of people NEVER WILL. They simply don't care about politics or follow such things as DUers do. This is why I'm upset; to reach out to those voters-the majority of voters- Kerry has to have charisma, vision, a clear message, he has to be likable...THAT'S what wins elections, like it or not. People "just liked" Reagan, and they "just liked" Clinton, but they don't "just like" Kerry. It's not to late; he could change his campaign and come to the convention with a bold plan for America's future. He could pick someone like Edwards for VP who has those traits to balance out the ticket. He could tune out the DLC. But so far all I see is the same game plan Democrats used in 2002, and that scares the hell out of me.

Often it can be difficult when our ideals conflict with the political realities of this two party system. I think you make some very salient points and it is nice to see others that understand that compromise is part and parcel to democracy.

The Electoral Conditions are harsh here:

*3 Electoral Votes- We're almost worthless, even compared to Michigan and Florida

* A Bush "safe" state: The trends makers say that Bush should walk through here easily.

I will work very hard to bring North Dakota's 3 electoral votes over to the Kerry camp, but if it looks like Bush will romp again here-- i.e., the reason for the "Anybody but Bush" jockeying goes away-- I will allow myself to consider my conscience when making my vote. No one else in on the ballot yet, but I'd like to vote for Green Party hopeful David Cobb, who will only campaign in "safe" states. Since ND has no Green party here, It'll be a challenge. If Nader makes it, I would be divided between punishing him for campaining in "battleground" states from afar and just saying "What the Hell? He's right on all the issues."

"During the primaries, you fall in love. In the general
election, you fall in line. (Emphasis mine.)

That's the whole thing, right there. I'll do everything I
can to help get Kerry elected this fall. He wasn't my guy,
I'm still in love with Dean. But he's the nominee, and I'm
seeing real signs that he can beat Bush.

A rock should be able to beat Bush at this point, but that's
another story.

I'm not calling Kerry, Goldwater....but this can happen to a party who "falls in line"......I was, am, and will be a Deanie.

I think Barry said something like "I would remind you that
extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Goldwater
did not represent the interests of the majority.

Kerry does.

(I'm glad to see The Doctor speaking out in the media
again. I've sure missed him.)

but heck, it's your post ;)

I tried to explain to you http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1645662#1647842">here why I loathe Kerry so much but even there I can't go into too much depth because, believe it or not, my mission at DU isn't to destroy Kerry.

Your effort is noble but JP no words, no matter how eloquently written, can help me forget that both Kerry and Bush are working on the same imperialistic agenda of war, occupation, exploitation, and corporate globalization; they only differ in their manner of going about it. Skull and Bones vs Skull and Bones. As a Christian woman, there are things about Skull and Bones- especially during these apocalyptic times that send a lasting CHILL down my spine.
Is this what I have to vote for JP? My back is against a wall but I am so disgusted with the Satanic aspect of S&B, certain evils taking place right now and my firm belief that we shall see things under the next adminstration that will curdle our blood; much of it will revolve around the rebuilding of the Third Temple and certain occult ceremonies for which certain people have already prepared (needed items were looted from the Baghdad museum as soon as we got there). You cannot possibly imagine how deep my loathing is and I try very hard not to discuss it unless the thread ends up in GD because, like Eloriel, I try very hard to avoid Kerry.

If the opponent were anyone but Bush, I would be actively working against Kerry. As it is, I'm just in neutral right now because I hate Bush more and want to see him defeated.

Your posts don't make me angry because they don't shill but there are Kerry supporters here who outright insult the intelligence of people who for 3 years kept a very close eye on him, certain votes, certain organizations, and certain people in his entourage. I do not like what I find when I connect the dots. We're not stupid, we're not uniformed and we're not purists- but we are disgusted.

This election will be the last time I vote Dem because it's no longer my party. It's been infiltrated and being destroyed by the same neo-cancer that destroyed the Republican party.

Wake me up when the Democratic Party gets off the Sharon band-wagon and starts standing up for human rights. Wake me up when they side with the people against corporate exploitation because the wedge issues they keep squawking about don't mean much to me in the grand scheme of things.

We warned Kerry long ago. Warned the Democratic Party and warned the DLC- it seems they thought we were joking. We weren't. It's time they started taking the voters seriously. If Kerry loses, I won't blame Nader, I won't blame the Greens- I'll blame Kerry & the DLC for foisting themselves on us.

Anyway, your post is a noble effort, the best done and one of the RARE decent ones of its kind that I've seen here, but don't be disappointed if it doesn't resonate with people who have years worth of reasons to mistrust Kerry. You're a good person to be so forgiving, I can't be.

Nader, the Greens, the media--these are all part of what a campaign must manage, and it is the worst kind of irresponsibility to blame the playing field for a poor performance. Competitors ought to have examined the field pretty thoroughly before agreeing to play the game, and certainly should have accounted for any imbalances before putting on the spikes.

I don't particularly disagree with anything in your post. I will say, however, that I posted this in GD to get attention (of course), but also because I had just read the Epstein column--which obviously spawned this ramble--in this forum.

The last thing I would want to suggest is that DUers are stupid or uninformed--there was a great discussion a while back of Kerry's vote on Byrd/Levin amendments to the IWR, and one of those amendments I had never even heard of. DUers know Kerry's history, they know the history of the people around him, and that's very good.

I fully respect and understand that people would disagree with the premise that Kerry deserves effort, and the point of this post was to get the views of DUers I respect, having put my piece out there. There are very few DUers I don't respect, and I don't believe any have posted so far in this thread. Thanks for the insightful response, but I don't have any answers for your concerns, many of which I share myself. I'm no smarter than you or others who responded here, the most I might claim to is a marginally different perspective.

People should know Kerry for who he is, but it's my contention that the awful political context he's in makes him much worthier of time and effort (in my opinion) than he otherwise would be. Objectively, he's not near my top choice, but knowing the state of the country, I'm surprised we did as well as we did. :(

edit: And I don't believe you are out to 'destroy' Kerry. I haven't really seen many instances of totally groundless Kerry criticism here at DU. Your arguments are well-supported with links and citations.

You've always treated everyone with respect and I didn't mean to suggest that you think DUers are stupid or uninformed.

For the record, it breaks my heart that I can't be excited about Kerry's candidature. Everytime I try, everytime I manage to force myself to recapture a little of the enthusiasm I had for him, he says something incredibly off-putting. Thanks for not thinking I'm out to destroy him.

I would give almost anything right now to go back to 6 years when I knew little about these guys, barely paid any attention to the Primaries and just voted straight D on election days. Your approach is so much more reasonable and I envy your pragmatism; if someone could give me a Kerry pill- I'd swallow it in a heart-beat.

Peace

It's so nice to read your postings. I too feel the way you do but I don't often mention it here. I'm trying to "work on" my feeling toward Kerry and of course I will vote for him. Not sure it will do any good in this red state but I like the republicans to see the numbers itching up every election for the good guys.

To tell you a little secret, I mute the TV when both Bush and Kerry are on and they both need to work on their speaking styles. I have heard better preaching from the local preacher man who works in a shed church. Now I'm not completely insane and I know that it's mostly for show but damn it, it's part of their job descriptions and both should present better then they do. I guess I want a little passion with my lies.

Your last sentence went straight to my heart because that's the worse- there isn't even any passion with the lies- just monotonous droning mindless lies that we're to swallow.

My back is so plastered against the wall, that I'll vote for Kerry unless a miracle happens and another Dem makes it (Kucinich is still in the running) but I can't can't quietly in front of the lies and shilling.

A little passion would go a long way into rousing people. No one likes cold lies for dinner. Sadly, I think that idiot squatter in the White House shows more passion- it may be the passion of evil but it speaks to many Americans.

Like you, I mute the TV. I mute the TV and totally ignore GD2004 because I feel it's enough that Kerry will probably get my vote- there's no need to put me to sleep before I get to the polls. kerry would do better to make Al Shaprton his spokesman because Al could turn this thing around for him and wake enough people up. Trouble is, Al might say something against globalization or the war.

Peace...

not.

This "Kerry's record sucks" crowd is either sadly misinformed or they base their opinion on two issues.

But excellent post. My thoughts exactly.