Kerry to Reach Out to 'People on the Right'

[Q]

Published on Sunday, July 11, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times

Kerry to Reach Out to 'People on the Right'
Candidate's new strategy embraces conservatives. He seems unconcerned about ruffling liberals.

by Matea Gold and Mark Z. Barabak

"This campaign is building on Clintonism," Al From, head of the Democratic Leadership Council, said approvingly."

ALBUQUERQUE — Counting on his liberal base to stick by him, Sen. John F. Kerry plans to aggressively court more conservative voters with a message that emphasizes traditional values of service, faith and family. Following his pick last week of a running mate with potential appeal to rural communities, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee said he was not content to target the narrow band of swing voters that the two parties were expected to fight over in roughly 20 swing states.

"I'm going to talk to people on the right," Kerry told The Times on Friday during a joint interview with his vice presidential pick, Sen. John Edwards. "I want to talk to conservatives."

As for rank-and-file party members, Kerry said his record of strong support for environmental protection, gun control and abortion rights — all core Democratic issues — "speaks for itself about my priorities in policy terms."

Indeed, Kerry seemed unconcerned about antagonizing his liberal supporters.

"I'm a hunter. I'm a gun owner. A lot of people on the left don't like that, but that's who I am," he said.

The Massachusetts senator has already begun his effort to broaden his political reach. During a recent swing through the Midwest, where he tramped around farms and toted a shotgun on a trap-shooting range, Kerry said that he represented "conservative values," and emphasized his personal opposition to abortion. Last week, as he and Edwards made their joint debut, they spoke continually of their commitment to helping the middle class, which they said had been harmed by President Bush's policies.

Kerry's strategy is not without risks. By wooing moderates and conservatives, he could offend liberals in an election that could hinge on which side best galvanizes its base. And casting his values as conservative, despite his liberal voting record in the Senate, could reinforce Republican criticism that Kerry lacks convictions. --- http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0711-02.htm

---------

[WilliamPitt]

1. Heh, my timing was good today

When confronted by problems that cannot be immediately fixed - media bias, a broken election system, and the guy we once wanted dead or alive - the only solution is to focus upon the problems which can be fixed. Even without these wild cards, the election will be close. In such a narrow race, every vote and voter group counts enormously. Today, few groups have more power to throw the race one way or another than what could be deemed the 'Anti-War Left.'

There is no single description to encompass this voter bloc. They are the people who were against the Iraq invasion from day one, the people who know the 'War on Terra' is an advertisement for incalculable profiteering by corporations in the business of war. They are the people who see corporate supremacy in America as a cancer affecting the air, water, soil and soul of the nation and the world entire.

They are also the most undependable voter bloc in the country. They are nobody's base, because they hold principle above all else when it comes to politics. They will not cast a ballot for someone who has acted against the principles which are at the core of that anti-war sentiment. If a candidate appears to have gone against those principles, that bloc will bolt. In many respects, this is what politics in America should be about. Pragmatism should take a back seat to virtue, and people should be encouraged to vote their hearts instead of their fears and prejudices.

Unfortunately, in this corrupted age, voting on the basis of principle alone allows the unprincipled to win the day. Voting with a strict moral code solely in mind allows those without morals to kick down the door and pillage at will. When confronted by problems that cannot be immediately fixed, the only solution is to focus upon the problems which can be fixed. In the matter of the 'Anti-War Left,' the problem which must be fixed is this: The idea that American elections are not about morals, or ethics, or principles, but power, must be seated firmly in the mind of any and all who see the country charging towards dissolution.

It comes down to power. Not who is good, or bad, or evil, or right, or wrong, or who fits a particular code of principled leadership. 'Who rules?' is the only question that matters today. If you doubt this, if the very idea sends you surging into a rage, consider the reality.

We are currently ruled by a group of people who saw nothing wrong with using September 11 against the American people to start a for-profit war. They saw nothing wrong with destroying a deep-cover CIA agent according to the "Kill one, warn one thousand" rule they needed to enforce to keep any other analysts who might blow the whistle in line. They authorize the use of brutal torture against innocent civilians.

They fire out frighteningly nebulous terror warnings to distract Americans from stories that do not help them politically; a day after Kerry announced Edwards as his VP pick, for one example, Tom Ridge charged out before the cameras to shout yet another scary screed with no basis in fact. When Ashcroft came under fire for his handling of the Jose Padilla case, he told the people of Ohio that their malls were going to get bombed. Yes, Ohio again.

These people are absolutely counting on a segment of the Left electorate to go sideways in November, to stand on their principles and vote third party or not at all. It is a central part of the game plan, one that has proven its effectiveness time and again. Water is wet, the sky is blue, up is above you, and the Left cannot put forth a cohesive front in any national election. There are axioms, and there are axioms.

In an election like this, with the leadership we have, the more an absolute moral code becomes involved, the easier pickings you are for the ruthless. This election is not about morals, about principles, but simply about who rules. This is how our leaders and their corporate masters think of it, and so we must. There is so much to worry about beyond control. When confronted by problems that cannot be immediately fixed, the only solution is to focus upon the problems which can be fixed. How about this for a solution: Win first. Then be good.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/071204A.shtml

[Old and In the Way]

2. Thanks Will!

Clears the Monster and lands on Causeway.... :-)

[Q]

3. Is there really any doubt that the 'anti-war left' will vote for Kerry?

...Of course they will. Kerry knows this...which is why he is taking liberals and progressives for granted and brandishing his 'conservative credentials'. He doesn't CARE if he pisses off liberals because he knows they'll vote Anybody But Bush* in November.

[WilliamPitt]

6. ...and that's a pretty smart strategy

What percentage of the electorate do you think the 'anti-war left' makes up? I don't think it is much higher than 10% nationally; Kucinich's numbers nationally (until the point he was the only one running in primaries, opf course) bear this out. What percentage of that do you think is locked in? Most of them, I'd say.

The voter pool Kery can plumb talkinbg about values, God and guns is vast - somewhere between 25% and 40% nationally. Given how close this thing will probably be, that's huge.

I was writing to shore up that which Kerry would take for granted. Given this new push, more than a few on the Left are going to want to bolt before long. We can watch the hyperactive microcosm of it here. :)

[Classical_Liberal]

9. It isn't just the antiwar left

He has betrayed me on a number of issues. I think he'll govern this way too.

[Q]

10. Ten percent? So they ARE a 'focus group'?

- I think you're 'misunderestimating' the anti-war vote. In essense...Kerry is telling those against the ILLEGAL war to FUCK OFF while he courts the conservatives. Right now it's ABB...but Kerry could actually piss off enough voters to make a difference.

- Most of us will vote against Bush* in November. But if Kerry continues to rub shit into the faces of progressive and liberals...he may just find that many of them will stay home in protest.

[WilliamPitt]

11. See post 1

[Q]

12. I read it...

...and it's great reading. I understand your premise...but I don't believe that justice can wait for political expediency.

- Our government is the way it is BECAUSE we've ignored corruption and malfeasance one too many times in order to 'win'. That puts us in a position of losing our 'moral authority' when we do the things we SAY we hate when the other side does them.

[kwolf68]

17. And guess what

If Kerry moves right and keeps progressives home and loses the election, the reason he lost will become "he was too Liberal."

[xray s]

15. Is Kerry trying to appeal to these conservatives?

I think the tide is turning against the Iraq war in a bigger way than we realize. If Kerry is just trying to dull the blade of Rove's "Massachusetts liberal" knife, maybe we could see a..ahem... landslide in November?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/07/11/politics1256EDT0476.DTL

Conservatives crucial to Bush's re-election restive about Iraq war

SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer
Sunday, July 11, 2004

When an influential group of conservatives gathers in downtown Washington each week, they often get a political pep talk from a senior Bush administration official or campaign aide. They don't expect a fellow Republican to deliver a blistering critique of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war.

(snip)
"This war is not going well," said Stefan Halper, a deputy assistant secretary of state under President Reagan. "It's costing us a lot of money, isolating us from our allies and friends," said Halper, who gave $1,000 to George W. Bush's campaign and more than $83,000 to other GOP causes in 2000. "This is not the cakewalk the neoconservatives predicted. We were not greeted with flowers in the streets."

Conservatives, the backbone of Bush's political base, are increasingly uneasy about the Iraq conflict and the steady drumbeat of violence in postwar Iraq, Halper and some of his fellow Republicans say. The conservatives' anxiety was fueled by the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal and has not abated with the transfer of political power to the interim Iraqi government.

Some Republicans fear angry conservatives will stay home in November, undercutting Bush's re-election bid. (edit, Well...what do you think about THAT!):)

"I don't think there's any question that there is growing restiveness in the Republican base about this war," said Halper, the co-author of a new book, "America Alone: The Neoconservatives and the Global Order."

[Pastiche423]

32. Yes, there is doubt

that all of the anti-war left will vote for kerry.

I do not know the percentage, but there are quite a number of anti-war people of all political persuasions that do not feel that he is entitled to our votes.

It will be an interesting election.

[Classical_Liberal]

8. How do I get power by supporting a prowar candidate?

I acknowledge the problems of the electoral college, so I advocate strategic voting, but I gain nothing with Kerry. I really don't. I also gain nothing with 90% of the other Dems.

[kiahzero]

13. Well, you could recognize that your assertion

that Kerry is a "prowar candidate" is flat-out wrong, but that would require too much thought. It's much better that you complain about your false premise.

[Classical_Liberal]

14. I knew the IWR was a blank check then

He doesn't actually advocate leaving Iraq. His advisors are prowar and many were actually pnac. That is just a fact. He is prowar. He isn't going to get us out of the war or move away from neoconservative policies. He is trying to appeal to voters who supported the war. To do this you must be prowar yourself. Sorry.

[kiahzero]

16. Come on.

He doesn't actually advocate leaving Iraq.

I was against this war, too, but that doesn't mean that I'm so callous as to recommend fucking over the Iraqi people for the third time in some naive desire to make it all go away.

His advisors are prowar and many were actually pnac.

Names, please.

He isn't going to get us out of the war

Do you have a time machine that you would like to make available to the Kerry campaign, so he can do so?

move away from neoconservative policies.

Now, that's just bullshit. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Kerry is a neocon, or are you just making stuff up now?

Let's take a look at some of the foreign policy positions Kerry has put on his website:

“I come here today to make the case that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger,” Senator Kerry said in introducing his broad new vision for American foreign policy, a progressive internationalism designed to address the challenges we face in promoting America’s national security interests while leading the world in the 21st Century. “This is a time for new American leadership in the world” he said, “with a progressive internationalism, shaped by our bedrock values and quiet confidence in our strength and in our cause, we must once again demonstrate America’s resolve.” Rejecting the Administration’s “erratic unilateralism,” Senator Kerry called on America to engage diplomatically in creating alliances that enhance collective security. "America’s safety depends on rallying the forces of freedom,” he said, “engagement to shape a safer world is the urgent imperative of our time.”

...

Senator Kerry has consistently supported programs that promote democracy and respect for human rights. He sponsored the Code of Conduct of Arms Transfers Act, legislation that would prohibit U.S. military assistance and arms transfers to nations that are undemocratic, do not adequately protect the human rights of their citizens, or engage in acts of armed aggression. He was also instrumental in facilitating the creation of the UN genocide tribunal in Cambodia, travelling to the country several times to mediate negotiation of its governing statute, and was a strong proponent of U.S. participation in the NATO intervention that put an end to the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. A longtime supporter of the pro-democracy efforts of Burma’s Aung San Suu Kyi, whom he has met with personally, Kerry recently co-sponsored bipartisan legislation imposing sanctions on that country’s military regime for detaining the activist and repressing her National League for Democracy party.

Sure sounds like a neocon to me... if your definition of neocon is in no way related to the definition used by everyone else. :eyes:

[Classical_Liberal]

19. Will Marshall is a PNAC signatory

Those snippets you included said nothing about the war. They mentioned the war in Kosovo, which most neocons supported so it isn't proof that he is not neocon.

He supports the Israeli settlements on the West Bank and their annexation. He supports an undivided Jerusalem. He supports the wall not being built on the green line. Yesterday, he said the ICJ court decision that the wall should be built on the green line was bad for peace. He wants to bantustanize the Palestinians. He also wants to get rid of Hugo Chavez and replace him with neoliberals just like Bush. He has supported the Syria accountability act which is the next target on the PNAC plan for world domination. Progressive internationalism is just the DLC kinder, gentler form of PNACism. It isn't anything special or non-neocon. The neocons claim they want to spread democracy too.

I don't think we can make Iraq a democracy, or that Iraq will be worse off without us.

[kiahzero]

23. Are you kidding me?

Most neocons supported Kosovo? This I've got to see... where do you get that from? Neocon foreign policy generally does not support any sort of military action, unless it's cast as a matter of national security... hence the hesitance in sending troops to Liberia.

I guess you're OK with genocide going on with impunity, since you're against progressive intervention? Wouldn't suprise me... you wouldn't be the first 'progressive' to be against stopping genocide. Guess the whole idea of "never again" didn't catch on with you?

I/P policy is not my forte, so I'm not going to touch those for now.

If I recall correctly, his actual position on Chavez is that if the signatures are valid, then the recall needs to go forward. That's hardly "want to get rid of Hugo Chavez and replace him with neoliberals." He's calling for the rule of law to be followed.

On Syria, what do you suggest be done to stop its support of terrorism? Sanctions, when properly structured, are a good alternative to open war, and can sometimes achieve their goals without requiring the use of force.

I don't think we can make Iraq a democracy

Neither do I.

or that Iraq will be worse off without us

I guess sticking your fingers in your ears and covering your eyes will make the power vacuum go away?

[Classical_Liberal]

25. The neoconservatives supported the war in Kosovo

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=9&q=http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/analysis/2004/02thinkagain.htm&e=747

Probably because they thought it might piss Russia off enough to renew the cold war. Particularly given that we used Nato instead of the UN.


I am not against progressive intervention, or the war Kosovo. I was opposed to making it a Nato instead of a UN war.

Syrians supported Hizbolla which successfully kicked Israel out of Lebanon. Lebanon is much better off since they did it. Hizbolla has nothing to do with terrorism inside the West Bank. The Syria accountability act is just designed to punish Syria for stopping Israel from creating settlements in Lebanon too, and to punish them for retaining claims on the Golan Heights.

Kerry also accused Chavez of supporting narcoterrism in Columbia. All Chavez demanded was that the sigs be valid as well. Kerry assumed that they were, and that Chavez was obstructionist.

I believe Iraq is America's Lebanon, and our presents there is actually creating the instability. The power vaccuum won't go away if we gerrymander ourselves as the only power there either.

[JohnLocke]

31. BULLSHIT!

Advisors are prowar and many were actually pnac

NAMES??

[Seth Gecko]

28. your premise is horribly flawed

or you just willfully ignore human history.
We are supposed to think Kerry will be the first politician in history to be LESS corrupt after attaining MORE power?
You must be new to politics.

[xray s]

4. "...Republican criticism that Kerry lacks convictions. "

Convictions are something that will define the Bush administration (after President Kerry's Justice Department is done with them)

[Classical_Liberal]

5. This is news

He is already doing it. If I were in a sure thing state, I would vote Cobb.

If he governs like this and the Deaniacs don't become the Goldwater contingent of the Dems, I will leave the Dems for good.

[Q]

7. So then...Kerry is a 'gun owner' with a 'personal opposition' to abortion?

- If you read the DLC website...it's clear this 'strategy' comes straight from the likes of Al From...the Democratic party's answer to Karl Rove.

- But why in the hell would a 'conservative' vote for Kerry unless they KNEW he would give them what they want? What they want is an END to abortion and any kind of gun control. They already HAVE this with Bush*...with the added bonus of the tearing down of the wall of separation of church and state.

- Conservatives won't vote for Kerry. He would do better to shore up the Democratic base and the liberals and progressives ready to jump to third parties after November.

[hansolsen]

26. There is room to move to the right, IMO

I do think there is room to move to the "right" on certain cultural issues. Here are some "conservative" ideas I harbor, and still consdier myself a "liberal". I hope Kerry / Edwards does move to the right on these issues. It would be healthy for the Democratic Party, and would pay huge dividends in votes.

1. I think there is way too much violence in Hollywood movies, and I would stop it if I could. I refuse to accept the idea that nothing can be done about it. It is insufficent just to say people can turn it off if they want.

2. I think sex is the rightful provence of adults, and the celebration of child sexuality in Hollywood disturbs me. I don't want my young grandaughters to be giving their first blow job at age 13. I am angry about it.

3. Smokin a little pot is fine with me, but doing hard drugs isn't. And I don't think it's funny -- I am not amused. This doesn't mean I support the "war on drugs" as it is presently being fought, but it does mean I have no love lost or sympathy wasted for drug users. My motto: piss on 'em. (or tough love, if you insist).

4. I oppose "reparations" for being black. I might consider "reparations" for being a decendent of slaves, but that is not what I hear being proposed in "liberal" circles.

5. We need to embrace big, bold, dramatic environmental programs that you can see through a telescope or through a binoculars. You can tell these programs -- they all require a map.

6. We need to reject many (not all, but many) well meaning, candy ass environmental regulations, that are mostly a pain in the ass and not much help to the environment. You need a microscope to see these programs. You can tell them by the fact they come with a rule book.

7. We need to throw out 90% of the hogwash that "liberals" have been shoveling on gun control. This has been a disater for the Dempocratic Party, and all the gun control laws passed in the last 20 years have ended up selling more guns and killing more people. Kerry is right on to support hunting and gun ownership. The worm turns.

I could go on -- get the drift?

[JayS]

34. Conservatives want gun control, just not the brand that we are...

...selling. They got their version of gun control started and I like the results so far.

[Lex]

18. It's called "triangulating" and it's what Clinton did too, isn't it?

You campaign and try to appeal to the moderates and those that can be cultivated to vote for you from the right.

You count on your base to vote for you anyway.

[Classical_Liberal]

20. Clinton also governed centrist

It isn't just a strategy to win votes, it is how DLCers govern. It is what they believe. Kerry is actually to the right of Clinton.

[Lex]

21. I was glad to have Clinton in the White House for 8 years.

I can't imagine what havoc the cons would've caused had it been their guy in the White House.

[Classical_Liberal]

22. I would like to actually accomplish things

I don't want somebody that is just better than Bush. I want someone who is good. Clinton wasn't actually any better for the poor and the working poor than Bush. In some ways Bush is better for me, because now the middle class are on my side instead of against me. Neoliberals through a few more bones to the middle class than the neocons, but are just as callous toward those who would like to work for better benefits and have more job security.

[ReaderSushi]

24. Good tactic.

It's no secret that there is a rift in the Republican party right now and it is growing.
It would be foolish for Kerry to not take advantage of it.
The libertartian wing despises the Patriot Act; there is no reason we can't nudge them into the Democratic party or at least away from the GOP.

[monchie]

27. Personally, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the "antiwar left"...

...because while I am left of center, I'm not antiwar--I'm anti-the-Iraq-War.

Wars are sometimes necessary, but you'd better have a) a damn good reason for it, and b) a workable, pragmatic strategy for winning it.

The Iraq War does not meet either standard.

[Norquist Nemesis]

29. We've been reaching out to them for some time now

It's just those pesky far right-wingers wearing blinders that are a waste of time. ;)

Seriously, Dems have been reaching out for some time through discussions with others. There have been many posts right here on DU from people who have done so and been successful.

There's nothing wrong with reaching out to them...and the timing is right while he has their attention.

[gumby]

30. Bottom of the thread?

Here's my response:

Al From notwithstanding, why shouldn’t Kerry reach out to others, including the “right?” Many on the “right” are there because no one has really talked to them for many years except Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and the “Compassionate Conservative.” The media has become the mouthpiece of corporate power. They no longer provide the information necessary for a democratic populace to make reasonable conclusions.

The media notwithstanding, why shouldn’t a Democratic candidate reach out and challenge the stereotype? Democrats and Liberals have moral values. They are patriotic and care about national security. Democrats and Liberals care about fiscal responsibility. They also care about family and family supporting jobs and institutions. So why shouldn’t Democrats and Liberals want to inform and include “others” in forging a general agreement in the “values” most people on this planet share?

Skull and Bones notwithstanding, most of us will never have enough information to make a reasonable conclusion about what is really happening in the echelons of power. However, we plebes must certainly make strides to enlarge the tent of “values,” because most of us share pretty much the same ones. Our shared intents vastly outweigh the phony differences forced upon us by the extremists who now wield power in our government and our media.

My Leftist belligerence notwithstanding, I’ve spent two days in a very large public interaction. It is the very act of seeing and interacting with the public, in all its vastness, that takes the edge off my stridency. Reaching out is good. The People do indeed need a Big Tent to fight what we are facing now. It is the results that count and Democracy depends on The People. We, and they, are them.

[NightOwwl]

33. Give him a break, please.

He wants to beat Bush* as much as we do. We are making compromises in order to get him into office; he should be able to do the same. I haven't been at DU too long, but long enough see that the overall message is for everyone to stick together and vote for Kerry, no matter who you supported in the past. He should court anyone he wants because he's going to need all the votes he can get. Especially with this immoral administration who will lie and cheat in order to steal this election. It doesn't mean he's moving to the right, it means he is fighting hard to beat Bush, and I have no problem with that.

[Q]

35. This isn't a high school coach we're talking about...

...he's potentially the president of the US. And on another level...he's running for office in MY party. Cerainly you're not saying that we can't debate the direction OUR PARTY is taking?

- It seems that PUBLIC DEBATE is another victim of the Bush* years. It appears as if some Democrats have taken advantage of the 'debate blackout' to avoid the difficult questions about their OWN party.

- This isn't about WHO we're voting for...everyone on the left will vote for Kerry. It's about not giving Kerry a BLANK CHECK like the Republicans gave Bush*.

[porphyrian]

36. Fucking DLC. Can we take money out of politics now? - n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. If Keery Needs To Wear A Sheet To Remove This Detritus From The White

House it's fine with me....


If the Simian In Chief can masquerade as a human Kerry can masquerade as a conservative....