Note from someone who tried to beat Kerry...and failed (Kerry v. Weld '96)

http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=385&format=

Kerry's one tough foe for anyone to shake
By Virginia Buckingham
Monday, March 8, 2004

John Kerry won't be easy to beat. I should know since I ran Gov. Bill Weld's campaign against him for U.S. Senate in 1996. We threw everything we had at him. Nothing stuck. Kerry was as resilient as a Weeble. He wobbled but he didn't fall down.

(snip)

Kerry voted for Clinton's welfare reform bill in 1995, even though he voted against a workfare requirement in 1988, saying it was ``troublesome to me.'' For Weld, the vote switch meant bye-bye welfare wedge.

As a former prosecutor, Kerry could lay claim to taking bad guys off the streets to defend votes against mandatory minimum sentences for drug pushers and gang members. And Kerry now supports the death penalty for terrorists. Bye-bye crime wedge.

(snip)

Unlike now, national security was not a pressing issue in 1996. Still, Kerry's Vietnam service was always like a Sword of Damacles held over our heads. And he wielded it at every opportunity. Kerry's early ads showed footage from Vietnam and linked his heroic service to his commitment to ``fight for us'' on education, child care and the minimum wage.

The re-telling of Kerry's Vietnam history filled in blanks in the minds of voters, who had had trouble in focus groups naming one Kerry accomplishment.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

He has fought many battles in his life, many of which have had more meaning than the ones Bush has fought.

They give me hope. :thumbsup:

He's fearless. He is the Bush antidote.

then, i was AJA, and i opioned that kerry's liberal credentials would get in the way of his chances for president.

they dont seem to be now. let us hope so in novemeber too.

still miss your mullet though

Confuzzed...

.

this "liberal" thing. What is so wrong with:

1)suitable for a "free" man; not restricited
2)giving freely;generous
3)large or plentiful;abundant
4)not restricted to the "literal" meaning;not strict
5)TOLERANT OF VIEWS DIFFERING FROM ONE'S OWN; BROADMINDED
6) of democratic or republican forms of government as distinguished from monarchies, aristocacies, etc.
7)favoring REFORM or PROGRESS, as in religion, education, etc.

Liberal Definition--Source: Websters New World College Dictionary...

_____________________

Someone please tell me what is so wrong with being considered "liberal"?

why are you acting confused when you know perfectly well that the use of the term is considered a code word for opposition to all things conservative, and yes especially the reactionary streak of so-called conservatives.

if you want a break down how they have twisted Webster's definition or why they consider the term a pejorative here goes, because it will be upon their suppositions that the battles must be fought and it is useless to rend one's garments about how they have hijacked the word

1)suitable for a "free" man; not restricited

the Right values or considers a "free man" suspect in relation to social convention and popular mores.

2)giving freely;generous

they consider that "giving freely" means their money from their taxes going to people and projects they don't consider like them or programs they don't want.


3)large or plentiful;abundant

that "large" is a term to define the US government after the New Deal and the abundance is what they consider is their tax money used for what they don't want

4)not restricted to the "literal" meaning;not strict

they don't like that squishiness of not being objectively definable, as in "subjective" in nature, especially when it comes to the subjectivity of terms and ideas like "quality of life" the environment, and personal rights superseding the rights of the community (regardless of the objective fact that they themselves hypocritically use the term to support their own subjective concepts of rights in other areas, i.e, 2nd amendment rights, rights of the fetus, taxpayer rights) and they reject as subjective ideas from the Left that are not quantifiable according to their standards.

5)TOLERANT OF VIEWS DIFFERING FROM ONE'S OWN; BROADMINDED

the tolerance of ideas, actions and people that are outside their morality is not tolerance to them, it is rejection of the essence of their beliefs, and they do not have the security to accept that others are not like them. there is no doubt that such rejection forces them to re-examine their own beliefs, but they feel with an absolute certainty the righteousness of their position, so the liberal goes against their personal morality and by extension, their gods. this devolution makes people with other views heretics....and they burn heretics.

6) of democratic or republican forms of government as distinguished from monarchies, aristocacies, etc.

like #5, they are bound in a world view of an authoritarian hierarchy that stems from their morality which itself springs from a Judeo-Christian metaphor of a Lord on High who must be obeyed. Christ, even that peakerhead Fat Tony Scalia talks about the Divine Right of Kings in reference to questioning democracy and actions based upon popular will, and that like Lucifer against God, anyone who goes against their morality must be attacked

7)favoring REFORM or PROGRESS, as in religion, education, etc.

they are incapable of accepting "reform" or social "progress" (as opposed to material progress) because it undermines their concepts of morality, and thus the gods of their morality. they consider liberals those who go against their God.

to fight the Right it is essential that those on the Left understand the basis of why the Right uses the term "liberal" as a negative if we expect to defeat them.

no...it was meant as cynical as I agree the right tries to change the "definition" to suit their cause...geeze...lighten up, it's gonna be a long 7 1/2 months

It's articles like this that give me hope that we'll win.
:toast:

but Mass. was a state where Clinton had coattails. In 1996 Clinton won Mass. by 61% to the 28% that Dole had, 9% Perot won, and 2% that others like Nader won.

In most races incumbency was an advantage, but against Weld it wasn't. The main advantage Clinton gave Kerry was to deliver the party base. However, nearly all of the Perot supporters and just as many moderates voted for Weld. Kerry could of won without Clinton's help..but that race would of been much closer!

It gave me a little hope to read that, but Mass is one of the most blue of the "blue states."

Kerry needs Clinton again. When I got that letter from Clinton it made me feel nostalgic for the prosperity of the 90s.

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you.

DU Moderator