Okay you Kerry dislikers- what do you think now after the debate?

[Redleg]

I know that he hasn't addressed all the concerns some of you had about him but you do have to admit he is a far sight better than Bush, right?

[judy]

1. Well, I never doubt that Kerry is a far sight better than Smirk.

However, I was impressed last night by his skills as a speaker, and his non hostile behavior toward the Smirking One.
I liked a lot of the things he said. After last night, I do feel more comfortable voting for him.

Still I wish I wish I wish:
1 - He did not participate in the "War on Terror" scam. There is no such thing as a "War on Terror".
2 - He had replied when Smirky kept repeating "Saddam wouldn't disarm": SADDAM DID DISARM! He not only had no WMD's, but he had no weapons at all! No planes, no tanks nuthin. The job was already done by the inspectors from UNSCOM.
3 - He stopped talking about OBL, and claiming that he would win the war against terror, or the war in Iraq. These claims will come to bite him youknowwhere if/when he is President.

[mike_c]

58. what she said...

...pretty accurately states most of my objections to Kerry, none of which were assuaged by the debate. On the contrary-- his consistent refusal to signal any real opposition to the worst repig policies of the last four years-- or to advocate any real alternatives-- only solidifies my dislike for him.

I think it's clear that Kerry did a far better job of "debating" than Bush did. However, he pushed more of the same old, same old in Iraq, the war on terror scam, and U.S. foreign policy.

[Selwynn]

2. He remains one of the least effective, worst choices of all....

...the former democratic candidates, standing firming in the grip of a party in love with the DLC agenda and the politics of the cowardice center, and he remains my candidate only by force - the force of our current President being so pathetically and terrifyingly horrible at his job that anything with a pulse would be better. And that's basically what Kerry is: something with a pulse that isn't Bush.

Hope that's clear enough.

If Bush wins the election, a tiny part of me will be relieved - because the DLC won't be able to spin it into a powerful victory for "new" democratic ideals and maybe - just maybe we could tear down the betrayal of our party that is its current leadership in the future. But probably not in 08, because if Bush won this year, that's when Clinton would run.

[Redleg]

3. Good for you.

I happen to diaagree but that's my opinion and your are entitled to your own. I guess one day the Democratic party will be pure enough for you.

[Andy_Stephenson]

4. The Democratic party will only be pure again

once we strangle the DLC out of existence.

Ah to dream.

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss...except the new boss is more cunning.

[blm]

36. Now, I have lost trust.

My faith in the goodness of your intentions has been destroyed by your post.

Anyone who claims that Kerry is the same as Bush but sneakier does not care about real democracy or MY little girl's future.

And it really hurts, Gbnc. I don't easily attach myself to others on boards.

Shame.

[Andy_Stephenson]

111. Notice the Avtar BLM

ABB.

But Kerry does not get a free pass when we elect him.

[Spider Jerusalem]

92. The idea that ANY political party can be "pure" is laughable.

No party can survive as a competitive force in national politics without cutting some truly monstrous deals, selling out many times over, and violating most of its supposed core principles along the way. It is the nature of the political game. It is a dirty, ugly, cutthroat business, where the first objective is to gain and hold power. All else follows from that, and the means used to achieve that end are often brutal indeed...from electoral fraud to accepting donations (read: bribes) from major corporations to lying to the public about what you stand for so more of the poor bastards vote for you...that's politics. Anyone who thinks the words "pure" and "political party" can be used in the same sentence with a straight face is at best naive.

[Kanary]

5. how.......... "liberal"

"I happen to diaagree but that's my opinion and your are entitled to your own."

Good. Finally we're ready to be adults.

"I guess one day the Democratic party will be pure enough for you."

Ah, yes. We had to end it with a SLAM. One-up-man-ship. Just what we see in the Blight House.

*MY* opinion is that people shouldn't ask for opinions if they don't want real opinions.

All else is Rovian.

Kanary

[Selwynn]

6. Kanary strikes again! hehe

:loveya:

[Redleg]

9. Yes, I had to end with a slam. I'm entitled to my opinion, right?

Look- the Democratic party appeals to a lot of people with differing ideas on what needs to be done to make things better. I get tired of people saying the party is not liberal enough or is too liberal. We should be able to work through our problems without having to purge the party of DLCers or extreme lefties or whatever. That purging shit sounds like what Stalin did.

[Kanary]

10. "We should be able to work through our problems....."

EXACTLY! The very future of our nation depends on it!

However, if you think "working through our problems" is done by slamming those on your side, then what, pray tell, makes the Democratic process any different from that of the RW, or the Stalin that you decry????? Only a difference of degree.

I would strongly suggest doing some reading in non-violent process, active listening, and conflict resolution.

And, yes, inviting opinion in order to SLAM those who accept your invitation is counter-productive, to say the least. Doing that creates the reputation for a dishonesty that causes people to become cynical and avoid interaction. *THAT* is not the basis for a true democracy.

Kanary

[Redleg]

28. And the tone of your initial post didn't encourage mutual understanding

so don't give me a fucking lecture. You slammed John Kerry- I suppose he is not on your side either.

By the way, you assume I don't know about conflict resolution- where do you get that idea from? You don't know me very well.

[Kanary]

31. that's what happens when you BAIT people.

I said NOTHING about John Kerry. Which shows how much you know about conflict resolution.

You started this thread with the express purpose of lecturing and slamming people. You got mad because several beat you to the punch, and called you on your game. Then you plead for understanding and "working through our problems".

As I said, read up on non-violent communication, conflict resolution, and concensus building. That will be a lot more constructive for the Party than continuuing this little spat.

Good luck.

byebye now....

Kanary

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Cheswick2.0]

52. this thread was started as flame bait

congratulations. What could possibly be your motive?

[Redleg]

53. How do you know my intentions? I wanted to hear what people had to say.

I guess I didn't expect the extent to which some folks were willing to slime Kerry.

[Djinn]

83. here's a tip

if people who have concerns about kerry, and when asked, explain those- referring to it as "sliming" Kerry will be seen by most a flame bait.

[Redleg]

148. I didn't accuse anyone of sliming Kerry.

Is that what you are suggesting?

[Djinn]

165. I was using your words

"I wanted to hear what people had to say. I guess I didn't expect the extent to which some folks were willing to slime Kerry."

If I misunderstood that remark I apologise but it seems fairly self explanatory to me - you wanted to hear - you heard and then said that response was "sliming"

[Redleg]

171. I thought you were referring to my original post.

I said nothing about sliming Kerry on that. I did comment later, as you pointed out, that some respondents had slimed Kerry.

I fail to see how calling a slime a slime is flame-bait, especially when I did not name any poster by name. Isn't sliming Kerry also flame-bait?

[Djinn]

201. nobody slimed Kerry

if anyone had repeated the swift boat stuff for example THAT's sliming - disagreeing with his policy statements and/or voting ercord is NOT sliming.

Eg:
Bush is an alcoholic, wife beating moron (is a slime)
Bush lied about Iraq's capacity to threaten ANYONE and the admin dishonestly associated Saddam with Al Qaeda (is TRUTH)

[Redleg]

205. Perhaps we have different definitions for "slime."

I'm not going to argue with you on this.

[wyldwolf]

65. so was that "DLC" thread. Why not call it that?

[noiretextatique]

57. indeed...great post, kanary

i was just explaining to someone else in another thread that callling people who criticize kerry at DU freepers is...well, freeperish.
this is after i asked how criticizing kerry at DU "helps" bush...still don't have an answer to that question.
i'm voting for kerry...i'm not particularly enthusiastic about the choice, but i will vote for him anyway.
i don't have to love him, or pretend to be impressed by every word he utters...i will just vote for him.

[Redleg]

67. Yeah- you can criticize Kerry but we can't criticize you for criticizing

Kerry. But- you can criticize us for supporting Kerry. You view our support as slavish followership.

That's brilliant.

[noiretextatique]

71. i am supporting kerry by voting for him

and i've never criticized him...but perhaps i will. is this what you call "criticism":
"people who criticize kerry are freepers"
"criticizing kerry only helps bush"
i call it hysteria...and silliness.
my only dog is this fight is that i hate the censorship that happens here before every election...i think it's childish and counter-productive.
and i don't like being told i need to be lockstepping conformist just because i am voting for a particular candidate.
having said that: i will have no problem voting for kerry come november.

[Redleg]

72. Peace.

I don't expect everyone to love Kerry or even like him. I do expect some non-comformity here at DU- it would be darn dull without it. I just get a bit mad when folks here (I don't mean you in particular) feel free to criticize others but then accuse their own critics of stifling opinions.

I think you are right about how things have gotten heated up here- I expect them to get hotter in the next month and then, with a Kerry victory, to cool down a bit.

I know I have lost my cool here lately and wish I hadn't. I am going to try to moderate my own posts so as to not promote dysfunctional conflict with fellow DUers.

Peace.

[noiretextatique]

197. it's a tense time

there is so much at stake. if kerry wins, democrats may also have an opportunity to regain the senate, among other things.
and trust me, i've been in a few actual shouting matches with dittohead lately...i understand your frustration.
i have faith in the people, even amidst all the bickering here. i just hope we have the wherewithall to confront the inevitable election-stealing attempt...that's my BIG concern.
and i tell you what: no matter how i feel about kerry, i will gladly call him my president, just as i call gore my president now :D
peace to you too.

[Hutzpa]

210. Amen!!!!!!!! EOM

[Kanary]

73. one quote that goes through my head much more often since

I got involved with DU:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
Teddy Roosevelt, 1913...

Sometimes I think this should be permanently tatooed on the front page!

People joyfully accept that quotation in terms of *, but get the vapors if it is applied to Kerry. What's hilarious to me is that I can't even begin to imagine Kerry even batting an eye, let alone getting upset at the comments that we have made! I mean, really, the man knows that he needs our votes, and he knows that he isn't pleasing anyone, and he knows that it's going to be very difficult for him to bring the broken and scattered bits of the Party back together. I really doubt that he entertains any illusions that he is taking on an easy task. He *KNOWS* our disagreements with him, and he is enough of a Patriot and historian of the founders of this country that he would NOT want our voices squelched. I seriously doubt that he would feel too kindly towards those who would go out of their way to alienate voters who have committed their vote to him, but disagree with him on various issues. I don't agree with him on some things, I'm very disappointed with him in other ways, but I really think he is a bigger person than someone who would give his OK to some of the trashing that goes on here.

I appreciate your kind words. If it wasn't for the outspoken people like you, and the support of others, I would have given up on the presidential campaign long ago!

Kanary

[Hutzpa]

107. There are Foxes and there even better Foxes

most post I have come across recently are IMHO phishing for something, now....what, that something is, is left to the individual or your imagination. In life we get something thats so good we don't even know it.

Pay close attention, nobody in DU is projecting to stop criticizing Kerry, hell I doubt that very much, what fellow DU'ers including myself are asking is this, a constructive criticism makes for a better debate, do not walk in here looking for gaps just because the man you call flip-flop has presented a better case than that moron over yonder,

Since the debate there has been more than the usual suspect browsing around looking for excuse to hit Kerry with, this time its not going to work Kanary, you should know better than anyone else whats at stake, unless I'm mistaken. There has been countless occasion where things have been said here on DU and has been interpreted on another site differently for the media to pick on.

This is my conclusion, if you want to criticize Kerry, make sure its a constructive criticism otherwise we will jump on you, thats for sure.

Whether you like it or not its past that time where we allowed the other side to dictate to us how to live and control what we say, this is the put up or shut up time and let the election roll over. CAPEEESSHH.

[Kanary]

116. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Accusing me of calling Kerry "FlipFlop!

What a clever way to try to get around the rules against calling me a "freeper".

This is all hilarious......... I'm called a commie and a freeper, all on the same day.

What else ya got?

"CAPEEESSHH."

Ya might wanna watch that anger level...... looks like a few veins are about to pop.

ROTFLOLASTC!!

Kanary

[Hutzpa]

118. Kanary....If you read my post...

I'm sure you will see I never once mention or called you a freeper. My point is Kerry is not untouchable, we are in a war not an election, we have to be very careful how people Critisize Kerry, what you don't want to do is to provide weapon for the opposition.

[Kanary]

125. Oh yes, you were very careful to tiptoe around the rules....as I said,

clever.

"what you don't want to do is to provide weapon for the opposition."

Aid and comfort? Ah, good, there's the commie bit again. Treason?

Y'know, I've been so innoculated against fear by the last four years of nonsense that it's just not having an effect on me anymore.

You dumped one tremendous shitload of anger on me in your post, and now it looks like you want to appear more reasonable. I suggest you look into some information about communication, as once you've dumped anger on someone that it doesn't belong on, you've pretty much turned that person off, ended any hope of true communication, and possibly ended any chance of ever having any relationship with that person again.

You might want to consider that the next time your free-floating anger needs someplace to go.

Kanary

[Selwynn]

186. You know, people who walk in here for 2 months make 200 posts and then...

...declare themselves and expert on the personal psychologies of DU and its members always crack me up. They are a dime a dozen, and I wish I had a dime for every time I've seen them.

Those of us who have been here for years feel we've earned the right not to take the "ear-pinning" of some young pups all that seriously. It's so hilarious because you have no idea about Kanary or how well established and respected kanary is in this community, and you know nothing about me or how well established (and I'll leave out respected because I'm sure that's debatable) I am, or others. You're grandiose evaluations and judgments that I have read in numerous posts now are laughable.

My advice to you, though I am absolutely positive that you will not take it, would be to take two steps back from all of your smug assumption making and judgmental know it all posts and spend a few months actually getting to know the community you've chosen to start being involved in before making a host of snap judgments. This is just advice some someone with over two years and 5,000 posts worth of time spend getting to know this place. I feel I've earned a right to say a thing or two. So has Kanary. Other people understand this. I don't mind argument and debate. BLM beat me on some evidence a few threads below, and even though his rhetoric isn't my favorite in terms of "tone" - I still acknowledged his point. I don't have a problem with people who disagree. I do have a problem with brand new kids who come in and assume they know shit from shinola when they haven't even broken above the 200s in posts who joined June 16, 2004.

[Hutzpa]

209. Its all good and dandy that you can use that.....

as a claim to fame,

"This is just advice some someone with over two years and 5,000 posts worth of time spend getting to know this place".

but still no substance, address the issue not the person..rule number one, don't do personal attack, you of all people should that, after all you have being here for 5,000 post and two years which makes you a GRAND-DADDY thats for sure, but it still does not give you the right to lambaste me, my post to Kanary was addressing the issues at hand not attacking him, further more I do not pass myself as an expert but to tell it like I see and know it, if that makes me judgmental then at least someone recognizes my input, so I'm not mad, I'll turn that into positive action.

"I do have a problem with brand new kids who come in and assume they know shit from shinola when they haven't even broken above the 200s in posts who joined June 16, 2004".

I'm not even going to justify your brand new kids theory. For me getting recognition from you tells me I must have made a point or two.....now you can address the point or pretend to Iggy it your call, but please act like someone that have been here for 5,000 posts and two years.

NB
Oh!! by the way I've been here longer than my post show or my sign on date show, I just started posting from that date....so give me credit.



:puffpiece:

[Fatima]

18. You are here to bait people and then beat them up.

[Redleg]

29. Who did I beat up?

I made a comment about making the party pure.

[Q]

37. Wanting the DLC out of the party...

...isn't about 'purity'. Why do you think the DLCers call themselves 'new democrats'? They don't want to join with us to make the party better...they want to start a whole NEW PARTY that rejects anyone or any policy to the left of Lieberman.

- We always hear about the party's 'big tent'...but the DLCers have put up their own tent and liberals/progressives aren't welcome.

- No one is looking for 'purity'. We're looking to work together. We don't want to be taken over by special interests like the GOP. But that's exactly what the DLC's all about.

[Redleg]

49. Isn't it all about special interests?

We care about labor and about working folks. They care about corporations and wealthy folks. Our special interests are better than theirs because ours are regular people who are trying their best to make it in life.

[Selwynn]

77. Who's we?

I disagree that the policy agenda of "new" democrats is about labor and working folks.

[Redleg]

149. Did I say I was a "new Democrat" or DLCer?

No I didn't.

[RapidCreek]

84. Our interests aren't special...they're fairly unspectacular

They are in fact about as un-special as can be. They are, in short, the basic necessities of life.

1. A Fair days pay for a fair days work.
2. Food to feed oneself and ones family
3. Affordable Medical care for oneself and ones family
4. A place to live.
5. Clean water to drink
6. Clean air to breath
7. A clean environment in which to live

What the hell is so special about these interests? Are they not the interests of every person on the face of the planet, regardless of income, social standing or race?

Exclusive interests are special interests. Generally they serve to preclude the interests listed above....at the expense of the many for the benefit of the few.

RC

[Redleg]

153. As I said, our interests are about working folks trying to make it in life

EOM

[RapidCreek]

159. I though you suggested politics is all about special interests.

and were attempting, like the GOP and DLC to equate special interests with common interests. They are not the same.....they are polar opposites.


RC

[Redleg]

162. It is a matter of semantics.

The Rethugs believe labor unions are special interests- most Dems believe the rights and power afforded through labor unions are a common interest. I do not believe we will ever be able to convince the Gordon Geckos of the world that labor unions (for example) are good for everyone or that affordable, available health care is good for everyone.

[RapidCreek]

195. It is a matter of intentionally blurring the distinction between two words

which possess contradictory definitions. The definition of the words Special and Common are what they are on their face. Semantics cannot be logically introduced as a means to blur the meaning of words which are clearly polar opposites.

The interests which I noted in my previous post are not special. Nor is the mission of any organization whose purpose it is to insure these interests are collectively enjoyed by its members; interests which can be described as the common objectives of all human beings.

Ask any Republican what he or she see's as the common objectives of himself or herself and that of every other human on the globe. In other words, what do they believe are the basic necessities of life. Ask them if these interests are special and apply only to themselves ,or common and applicable to everyone. Ask them how an organization who's purpose it is to insure these interests are met by it's members can logically be described as an organization who's collective interest is special.

To those you used Gordon Gecko to represent, I would ask this. What normal human being doesn't want available, affordable health care?

This discussion has nothing to do with what is "good" for everyone. What's "good" for everyone is a relative thing....and with relativity comes special interests. This discussion has to do with what is necessary for everyone. What is necessary and seeking what is necessary cuts across ALL boundries...it is common to us all, regardless of socio-economic standing, race, religion or politics. Those who suggest otherwise are expressing the ideology of a special interest group.

RC

[Redleg]

206. You seem to be confusing ends with means.

We (meaning us and them) may agree on "affordable health care" as a worthy goal but may very well disagree on the means to attain it.

I do not want to argue with you over what I consider to be a matter of semantics. You seem to be inconsistent when you stated in your third paragraph that common interests relate to the "basic necessities of life" but in your last paragraph you say the discussion "has nothing to do with what is 'good' for everyone." This seems inconsistent to me.

You and I probably do not disagree that the tradional democratic interests of economic fairness and democratic processes are common interests and are important foundations for democracy. People of all political stripes may agree on those but may very well disagree on what they mean or on how to achieve them.

I don't mean to imply that I disagree with what you are saying. I am to some extent playing devil's advocate on these issues. I do get what you mean by common interests versus special interests. I am just suggesting that what we believe to be common may not be what the other side sees as common interests.

[Q]

97. Some 'special interests' are more equal than others...

...which is why many politicians have spent their whole careers trying to get rid of unions. The working class can't compete with corporations when it comes to sending lobbyists with fistfulls of cash to DC to buy legislation.

- Democratic special interests tend to be OF the people...or at least used to be before corporations got their hands on the party through the DLC.

- Republicans have always ranted against unions as a special interest of the Left. But unions represent people and corporations represent only themselves and their profit margin. Corporate lobbyists don't hand out cash for the benefit of their workers...but for the benefit of the CEOs...like Bush* and Cheney.

- But even the Democratic party has abandoned the working class..which has left them entirely unrepresented in Washington.

[Hutzpa]

109. Oh Boy!!! A whole new can of worms have just opened n/t

:evilgrin:

[RapidCreek]

163. Common interests are not Special interests

Here is a fun little exercise in which I like to engage those who deceptively attempt to equate the two.

Take a look at the definition of the word common.

Now take a look at the definition of the word special

As you can these words are plainly distinguishable. As are the brands of interest they are used to describe.

RC

[camero]

147. Hahahahahaha

The DLC says in essence, "our corps are better than their corps", but don't mention the fact that they're still corps and some are the same corps.

The DLC are democrats of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. Just like the pubs. Since the DLC has taken over the party, noone speaks for us working people and the voters know it. Kerry just doesn't come across as quite so nasty as Bush.

If Kerry wants a second term (we know he'll get the first), he'll have to give the DLC a "Sister Soulija" moment.

[RapidCreek]

80. They don't want to start a new party.... they already have

The DLC is a third party....really no different from which ever one Nader is currently attaching himself to.

As far as the Big Tent....yea it's there....and pitched inside it like a parasite is the tent of the DLC. That is a tent I wouldn't step in even if I was welcome....I don't feed parasites.

RC

[Q]

98. Not exactly...the Christian Fundamentalists...

...couldn't start their own party because they knew it wouldn't be accepted by mainstream Republicans. So they gradually took over the GOP...replacing conservatives with RWingers with an a much different agenda than the 'real' conservatives that used work with Democrats for the good of ALL the people.

- The DLC can't start their own party either...because their agenda is far outside of mainstream Democratic values. Instead...they usurped the oldest political party in the US, drove out the liberals the 'real' progressives and are now pushing an agenda similar to that of the fundies...but without the religious overtones.

[Fatima]

17. I couldn't agree more.

The purpose of the original post was to bait people, nothing more. Real debate was not the goal.

[Kanary]

19. KA--CHING!!!

"Baiting" is a treasured part of our Democratic system.

NOT :thumbsdown:

Kanary

[Redleg]

158. Did you actually read the post I was responding too?

Here is a snippet of Selwynn's post:

"If Bush wins the election, a tiny part of me will be relieved - because the DLC won't be able to spin it into a powerful victory for "new" democratic ideals and maybe - just maybe we could tear down the betrayal of our party that is its current leadership in the future. But probably not in 08, because if Bush won this year, that's when Clinton would run."



You called my post a "slam?" Jeebus- what about Selwynn's post? How "adult" was that? Of course since you agree with Selwynn that behavior is all right but because you disagree with me, I'm all fucked up.

[Cheswick2.0]

50. hang on... I thought you were asking for opinions

why would you make a rude remark like that after getting what you asked for.
The democratic party doesn't need to be pure, it just needs to stop being the other corporate suck up party.
No doubt the party will be much more to my liking when DFA and other grassroots groups are finished taking it over and kicking DLC ass to the curb.

[Redleg]

54. And Selwynn's remark wasn't rude?

I guess Kerry detractors are permitted to be shitty but the rest of us have to play nice nice?

[noiretextatique]

59. what was rude about Selwynn's remark? eom

[Redleg]

66. I quote: "He remains one of the least effective, worst choices of all....

...the former democratic candidates, standing firming in the grip of a party in love with the DLC agenda and the politics of the cowardice center..."

That isn't rude towards those of us who think John Kerry is good for the party? I don't appreciate being referred to as a coward because I am a centrist.

[noiretextatique]

70. i fail to see how her opinion of kerry is rude to supporters

of kerry. she didn't mince any words, that's for sure, and you are certainly free to disagree with her in equally strong terms. but no...i don't think her comment was rude to people who believe kerry is good for the party. it was just her opinion.
as to the politics of cowardice, we will see what happens in november. i can understand why your feathers were ruffled, but surely you know there is a lot of criticism of the DLC here, and i think it's still allowed (may not be soon). i'm not sure that cowardice is a strong enough term. to be honest.
btw, i'm voting for kerry because he's the only viable (and sane) candidate

[The Magistrate]

88. However, Ms. Blu

It is an opinion that, in my view, is very sadly mistaken. Sen. Kerry was the strongest of the candidates fielded during the primaries; the only possible superior to him being Gen. Clark. Any of the others on offer would have been ground into dust, with Sen. Erdwards perhaps doing a bit better than would the rest of those who failed to get sufficient votes during the primaries.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[noiretextatique]

100. obviously, she disagrees with you, Sir

and of course, you have the option to disagree with her.
the topic at hand: does she have the option to disagree with you?
and if she does, how does that hurt kerry?
everyone i know is voting for kerry because they despise bush, btw.
no one is particularly enthusiastic about kerry, and that could work in his favor after he's elected.
if he doesn't win this election, it won't be because Selwynn thinks he's a weak candidate. it will probably be because of another election theft.

[The Magistrate]

105. Indeed, Ma'am

Anyone is free to disagree with me, though generally they will be in error to do so....

In this matter, a person's declaration they will vote for Sen. Kerry is sufficient for me, and it does not matter whether that vote is done eagerly or with great distaste for the act: it will count just the same. Even votes cast just because he is the taller man are welcome.

What will arouse my ire in some degree are expressions of defeatism, roundabout attempts to electioneer for splinterist wreckers, and the shriller urgings that positions anathema to large portions of the populace be adopted by a candidate. These will be engaged directly, and if no mention of these things is made, then there is no need to read them into any comments of mine.

[Hutzpa]

112. Someone must have touch that pulse

What will arouse my ire in some degree are expressions of defeatism, roundabout attempts to electioneer for splinterist wreckers, and the shriller urgings that positions anathema to large portions of the populace be adopted by a candidate.

now thats book speaking, no disrespect meant Sir, but sometimes people need their asses kicked once or twice.

Its the external electro pulse that us human understand.

[The Magistrate]

113. Oh, My....

Once the Sage wrote: "The King has his executioner, but you are not that man. If you try and be him, it would be like trying to cut wood like a master carpenter. If you try and cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Hutzpa]

117. This is exactly the

reason why some of you folks are deemed extreme right, I was merely siding with you rather than securing, you know.....sometimes its good for people like yourself to get their head out of the below area so they can see clearly and get a breath of fresh air.

Instead of standing on that pedestal of yours, calm yourself down.....take a deep breath and just maybe you might understand what is going on.

[The Magistrate]

120. Welome To The Forum, Old Darling

"Get'cher score-cards! Can't tell the players without a score-card!"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[noiretextatique]

200. defeatism is presuming to know what postions

large portions of the population will and ill not accept. the "vision thing" can be quite a powerful motivator. a real vision (one that resonates deeply with people, the way the original JFK's did) may actually inspire that large, non-voting portion of the population.
first things first, though...first: bush, inc must go.

[merh]

177. There are plenty of people that are enthusiast about Kerry

just because you are not one of them, doesn't mean you have the right to make such a generalized statement!

"no one is particularly enthusiastic about kerry, and that could work in his favor after he's elected."

And who was your favorite?? Why haven't you run for office??

[noiretextatique]

199. if you read my post *without defensiveness* you would have noticed

that i was actually talking about people *i know personally*. as i said, none of them are particularly enthusiatic about kerry...but they detest bush. of course, since i don't know you, i don't know who you know or how they feel about kerry :eyes:
as to the rest :hurts:

[merh]

202. Sorry for the misread, pleas accept my apologies.

You are right, as to the rest :hurts:

Peace!

[noiretextatique]

207. LMAO...thanks, and peace. eom

[blm]

95. But Kerry is NOT the DLC. He maintained a record way to the left of most

every other member of the DLC and actually provided balance to those centrists who would have pulled the party further right.

How does one maintain the closest lifetime voting record to Wellstone, closer than even Dennis Kucinich's record and still somehow be the face of the DLC to people here?

It's ABSURD and worse, it's ignorant of the facts of the record. We have every right to call out those who keep repeating their unstudied mantras against Kerry.

[noiretextatique]

101. the DLC is a force in the party

kerry's voting record, notwithstanding. i'm sure you aren't suggesting that the DLC has no influence in this campaign.

[blm]

110. i KNOW they aren't a big influence in Kerry's campaign.

.

[Selwynn]

121. Also untrue.

[blm]

127. HAH. Al From never liked Kerry. He supported Lieberman.

Kerry stayed well to the left THROUGHOUT his membership with the DLC, pulling left against centrist Dems like YOUR favorite candidate.

Do you REALLY believe only in the candidates' campaign positioning and NOT in their actual records of governance?


Have you ever tried dumping on Kerry with actual FACTS and not your ill-conceived conclusions?

[Selwynn]

133. Yawn.

You have an interesting definition of "well to the left" that I was previously unaware of.

There is one thing I am refering to, and one thing only. It was the often repreated talking point that John Kerry was the and I quote, "number one most liberal senator" with John Edwards being called number two.

I realize that the daily show is comedy, however I think a lot of us have some respect for John Stewart. He had a republican senator on whose name I've now forgotten, asking him about this statistic. It was a hilarious segment, becuase Jon Stewart kept asking how they came up with these numbers, and who they "were" and really painted the guy into a hiarlous corner.

Jon Stewart finally recued him by pointing out that the source often sited is a list from the National Journal. And that the statistic referring to Kerry is for a single year:

I have the rankings here:

Average: Kerry - 12th (85.9) Edwards - 24th (75.7)

2003: Kerry - 1st (96.5) Edwards - 4th (94.5)
2002: Kerry - 9th (87.3) Edwards - 31st (63.0)
2001: Kerry - 11th (87.7) Edwards - 35th (68.2)
2000: Kerry - 20th (77) Edwards - 19th (80.8)
1999: Kerry - 16th (80.8) Edwards - 31st (72.2)

The National Journal also has rankings of the senators over a life time. Neither John Kerry or John Edwards is even in the top ten:

National Journal: Most liberal senators, lifetime voting
1. Mark Dayton, D-Minn.
2. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md.
3. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
4. Jon Corzine, D-N.J.
5. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
6. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
7. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
8. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
9. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
10. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt

So I guess its just your word vs. mine. To me that looks a lot more like "well in the middle" than "well to the left."

[blm]

136. you don't know the difference between PRIMARY CANDIDATES and the Senate?

Tsk.

[Selwynn]

139. I did say I stand corrected on this above, I also apologize

for the "yawn" subject line. I should be more polite, I just get sick of being fucking screamed at in all caps and over the top languge by people just because they don't agree.

[noiretextatique]

196. perhaps Selwynn doesn't know that

and i hope you are right. i think kerry will have the opportunity to do great things.

[Selwynn]

119. Thank you Jon Stewart for debunking this...

actually.. his "record" as the number one most liberal senator is a pretty huge distortion.

The journal that publishes this "ranking" has both individual year statistics and lifetime statistics. In an individual year, Kerry happened to be ranked number one. Over the course of his career, he is nowhere near that, and is a clear centrists, with Edwards even further to the middle.

[blm]

126. LIFETIME record for Kerry and Wellstone, at the time of his death

was Wellstone 3% and Kerry 6%. The next closest primary candidate LIFETIME rating was Gephardt 12% and THEN Kucinich 13%.

Try bringing some FACTS to the table, Selwynn, and stop trying to use CAMPAIGN posturing as facts. LIFETIME RATINGS tell you the TRUTH about a person's commitment to progressive governance while too many here want to cling to PRIMARY CAMPAIGN POSITIONING AND POPULIST RHETORIC.



American Conservative Union Ranking of Dem Canidates
Of course, lower is better. Congressional rankings are 2002, 2001 and lifetime. Numbers indicate the percentage of the time that the canidate voted "conservative".

Dennis Kucinich 2002-0%, 2001-20%, Lifetime-13%

John Kerry 2002-20%, 2001-4%, Lifetime-6%

John Edwards 2002-30%, 2001-16%, Lifetime-15%

Dick Gephardt 2002-8%, 2001-13%, Lifetime-12%

Joe Lieberman 2002-20%, 2001-28%, Lifetime-20%

Bob Graham 2002-20%, 2001-16%, Lifetime-18%


http://www.conservative.org/default.asp

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

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

[blm]

134. Those aren't the CANDIDATES, Selwynn. "of ALL the primary candidates"

Try sticking to the equation and use FACTS.

[Selwynn]

135. NOT YOUR STATEMENT

You're statement, and I quote:

"every other member of the DLC and actually provided balance to those centrists who would have pulled the party further right."

You're statement here says nothing about restricting this to candidates only. You've actually got a couple different statments. Two places you refer specifically to "of all the candidates" and a third place you don't make that distinction.

I must say that being thrilled and excited with some piece of data that says that Kerry is the most liberal of all the candidates we've seen evokes two responses in me: 1) extreme skepticism, becuase what I saw on the campaign trail and what I've seen of these people over the course of their careers (I've only followed Kerry, Kucinich and Gephardt and unfortunately Lieberman long term however) doesn't seem to jive with that. 2) Huge disappointment - its pretty sad if it is really true that Kerry is the most liberal of all the candidates. Boy if that isn't a sad commentary on things I don't know what is.

[Redleg]

151. And only far leftists need apply for the job, right?

That's a smug attitude to have. Of course I have pointed that out before.

[Selwynn]

167. Only people who stand for what is morally right need apply.

You can call it smug all you like. It matters little to me.

[Redleg]

168. You are entitled to vote on YOUR morals but recognize that

your moral reasoning is not the same as everyone else's. We can certainly debate whether Kerry's positions and actions are moral but to debate on whether he is liberal enough is counterproductive, don't you think?

[Selwynn]

176. I don't accept the concept of "absolute' moral relativism

For one thing, it is a contradiction.

For another thing, I do not believe that all morals are relative. I think it is possible to make a fairly compelling case on many different planes: utilitarian, pragmatic, sociological, even biological, scientific or even metaphysical for certain foundational principles of right.

I do believe that these foundational basics are very frequently distorted into a large and legalistic string of illicit absolutes, i.e. relative and context-driven ideas that are inappropriately elevated to absolute status. But that is not the same as a wholesale denial of any shared moral basis.

You know we could say that we should have opposed Hitler during world war two at least partially because what he was doing and advocating was morally wrong. A Nazi could tell me that that is just my relative opinion and my moral reasoning is not the same as everyone else's. That wouldn't change the fact that it was still wrong. I was right to identify it was morally wrong, and the Nazi would be wrong to argue that it was morally justifiable. On what grounds? On numerous groups, though my personal favorite are on the very grounds of the fundamental structure of evolutionary life which includes at its essence a basic drive to live and flourish. Things which undercut or directly strive to destroy life literally contradict the essence of life - that's as good of a definition of "wrong" as anything.

Anyway, the basis for evaluation of a candidate or a political party should be the criteria of morality, one of the chief cornerstones of which is the principle of Justice. In other words a candidate should both show him or herself to be just and also promote ever-increasing justice. Justice in part really must include striving toward greater equality socially and economically, the protection of liberty on all planes and most important, the protection and empowerment of the very lowest persons in society. To whatever degree candidates and political organizations fail to honor those aims, whether through deliberate support of their opposites, or a blindness to real need - it is fair and appropriate to question the just-ness of that action, and also the fit-ness of that candidate or political organization to integritously wield political power.

Whether you agree with my expression of moral foundations for political actions or not is, frankly, irrelevant. This is what I believe to be right. Not just right for me, right for humanity. You are of course free to disagree, and I am in return free to tell you that I think you're wrong. And therefore these are the kinds of things I will continue to be concerned about and continue to speak of as moral matters and the kinds of things I will continue to care about.

And of course it is not counterproductive to debate whether a candidate is "liberal" enough, as healthy progressivism/traditional liberalism is what is more about justice and less about money.

[Redleg]

185. I'm not advocating "moral relativism."

I do believe most moral questions or dilemmas do not easily resolve themselves- hence they are truly dilemmas. These dilemmas exist because different bases of moral reasoning may conflict with each other. For example, utilitarian moral reasoning may be seen to contradict the notion of individual rights or justice (distributive justice) in some circumstances.

I also believe that we, as boundedly rational decision-makers, have great difficulty calculating the various costs and benefits and counterbalancing the various rights when weighing ethical decisions. We process information in idiosyncratic ways- the consequence being that we sometimes distort or ignore information that goes against what we believe. And so on....

You suggesting the justice principle as the cornerstone- I agree justice (both distributive and procedural) is important, but we must also consider other bases (e.g., rights, utilitarian, etc.) and our solutions to the problems must consider each of those principles.

I am not sure whether it is worthwhile to judge the morality of a political party. That would be to suggest the party members are all of one mind.

I appreciate you taking the time to write such a thoughtful and interesting reply. I wish I had more time to respond but just have to finish some grading for class tomorrow!

[Selwynn]

191. Very well said.

I can tell I would enjoy discussing this more philosphically with you in the future.

I especially agree with this:

I also believe that we, as boundedly rational decision-makers, have great difficulty calculating the various costs and benefits and counterbalancing the various rights when weighing ethical decisions. We process information in idiosyncratic ways- the consequence being that we sometimes distort or ignore information that goes against what we believe.


That is certainly true. The question is really, do these and the other obstacles you mention completely take away the possibilty of any agreed upon more objectivity, or more objective foundations (a sort of, all things being equal, x action or philosophy is generally "right")? I don't think so.

I agree to an extend about judging the morality of a party - however, I do think that you have to be able to notice trends. Like for example, take the Republican party. We might be able to see a specific Republcian party member who was a decent person. But that doesn't change the fact that we can note larger very disturbing trends in the party as a whole?

I think the same kind of trend awareness is possible for the democratic party as well.

[Redleg]

203. Agreed- a thoughtful discussion- I wish I had more time right now!

I am in the middle of the semester and have been selected for jury duty as well. I probably shouldn't even be posting now but I need to take a break sometime.

I look forward to more sustantive talks with you!

[merh]

180. You have to understand blm - some folks are so small minded

they believe that rich folks can't be liberals and must be tied to corporations. They don't want to see the "true picture", they just allow their ignorance and jealousy to cloud the facts.

Thanks for posting the facts you have posted. But, just like arguing with some repukes, arguing with "pure democratic party" members gets you nowhere because they know it all. ;-)

[Selwynn]

182. .

Average: Kerry - 12th (85.9) Edwards - 24th (75.7)

2003: Kerry - 1st (96.5) Edwards - 4th (94.5)
2002: Kerry - 9th (87.3) Edwards - 31st (63.0)
2001: Kerry - 11th (87.7) Edwards - 35th (68.2)
2000: Kerry - 20th (77) Edwards - 19th (80.8)
1999: Kerry - 16th (80.8) Edwards - 31st (72.2)

The National Journal also has rankings of the senators over a life time. Neither John Kerry or John Edwards is even in the top ten:

National Journal: Most liberal senators, lifetime voting
1. Mark Dayton, D-Minn.
2. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md.
3. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
4. Jon Corzine, D-N.J.
5. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
6. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
7. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
8. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
9. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
10. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt

[merh]

184. You are quick to repeat posts - but you are wrong on your

closed minded beliefs. Pray tell who is your candidate of choice and when will your run for office?

[Selwynn]

189. god I love posts like these ...

No, you are wrong in your closed-minded beliefs, so there! Neener neener neener!

It has all the force and merit of your post.

[merh]

192. Who is your candidate of choice?

Stop your petty attacks and answer questions presented.

[merh]

187. Citing your own source!

Kerry has compiled a generally more liberal voting record. After winning election to the Senate in 1984, he ranked among the most-liberal senators during three years of his first term, according to National Journal's vote ratings. In those years -- 1986, 1988, and 1990 -- Kerry did not vote with Senate conservatives a single time out of the total of 138 votes used to prepare those ratings.

(snip)

As a result, in the 2003 vote ratings, Kerry received a rating only in the economic policy category, earning a perfect liberal score. Edwards received ratings in the categories of economic and social issues, also putting up perfect liberal scores.

A separate analysis showed that of the votes that Kerry cast in the two categories in which he did not receive scores in 2003 -- social policy and foreign policy -- he consistently took the liberal view within the Senate. Edwards did not receive a score in the foreign-policy category; he sided with the liberals on five votes in that area, and with the conservatives on one vote. On foreign policy, Kerry and Edwards -- both of whom supported the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq -- last year joined most Senate Democrats in voting that half of the U.S. reconstruction aid to Iraq be provided as loans, a provision that ultimately was dropped.

To be sure, Kerry's ranking as the No. 1 Senate liberal in 2003 -- and his earning of similar honors three times during his first term, from 1985 to 1990 -- will probably have opposition researchers licking their chops. As shown in the accompanying chart, Kerry had a perfect liberal rating on social issues during 10 of the 18 years in which he received a score, meaning that he did not side with conservatives on a single vote in those years. That included his 1996 vote, with 13 other Senate Democrats, against the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited federal recognition of states' same-sex marriage laws. Along the campaign trail, Republicans likely will remind voters of Kerry's stance on that issue.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/022704nj1.htm

[Selwynn]

188. I don't see anything inconsistent with that and with what I posted?

He's had years where he's voted more liberally - super! :)

However, I'm more interested in lifetime senate statistics, which I believe paint a more honest picture. Not being in even the top 10 is a relevant stat, I believe.

[merh]

193. You reference Clinton in '08 - now there is a liberal (NOT) if

I have ever heard of one. Neither HC or her husband are liberals, they are moderates.

[Djinn]

82. nothing to do with "purity"

it's about standing for a set of values, it's about having trust that a government/party will advocate for ALL not narrow sectional interests. In short it's about democracy.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

7. Oh, brother. Simply incredible.

[Selwynn]

11. It's not necessary for you to tell me that you think I'm incredible...

...we'll just assume it. ;)

:headbang:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

42. Does "not credible" work for you? It certainly works for me.

[Forkboy]

43. as compared to who?

[Selwynn]

78. Whatever floats your boat. :)

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[blm]

34. Horseshit. Kerry was the furthest LEFT of all the candidates

and was a pain in the ass to the other DLC members for so many years because he pulled AGAINST them for so long.

Check the decades long record odf Gov. Dean and Sen. kerry while both were DLC members and see EXACTLY who was pushing Dems to the center while governing.

It was Dean's SUPPORTERS who pulled him left where he is (thakfully) today.

Kerry acted more moderate for a primary knowing full well his 20 year record was one that was further left than any of the other candidates by varying degrees. That was political maneuvering that MUST occur to go for a win. You might not like it, but ANY successful nominee does it. Carter won because he was a conservative Democrat. Clinton, by being a moderate Democrat.

At this point, only those ignorant of Kerry's lifetime record would consider him less than progressive and complain about his nomination. I have no patience for that type of bs anymore. You can go spin yourself silly with your own uninformed beliefs about Kerry.

I am in this to WIN and beat back the worst president of our lifetime and feel fortunate that we are replacing him with the most progressive Democratic nominee of our lifetime - John Kerry.

[liberalcanuck]

44. Here, Here. Thanks for the dose of reality and common sense. My

dead grandfather used to say the problem with common sense is that it's not so common.

[Cheswick2.0]

47. are you still trying to sell that horseshit

whatever Kerry may be it is not the most liberal of the candidates. Depending on the issue that would have been DK. As for ass kicking progressive populist, that would be Dean dispite his budget balancing plans.

[blm]

62. dupe

.

[blm]

64. And despite the governor's appointments of conservative judges?

And despite his probusiness record?

DK's lifetime record was NOT as liberal as Kerry's. DK had too many prolife votes and anti-flagburning votes on his overall record. Kerry was consistently to his left on those issues. The overall lifetime ratings scored Kerry closest to Wellstone of all the candidates. If you didn't pay any attention to DK's entire record it is easy to come up with the idea that he was the most liberal in the PRIMARY race. I would judge him as the most liberal candidate if you only judged him from 2002-2004. But, I SPECIFICALLY point to LIFETIME records.

You are welcome to your own druthers but facts are facts.

[RapidCreek]

86. Gee supporting legislation to make flag burning illegal

Or supporting the WTO....yea boy, Denny is a real righty. Yep, I just Gotta admit, Kerry's support of the WTO hardly effects me at all. Lucky for me I can still burn a flag as I watch my job sail off to Bangladesh. Maybe I can heat my house with them this winter...if I still have a house.

Jesus Christ...give me a fucking break.

RC

[blm]

94. Like it or not it's a First Amendment issue.

And I point out SOME issues he's to Kerry's right and SOME issues Kerry is to Kucinich's right. Shouldn't be TOO difficult to understand.

The point is that LIFETIME records MEAN something. The revisionist history posted by some for so long in regard to Kerry's LIFETIME record as a progressive just because it makes people feel better about hating him is what we all need a break from.

[Ron Green]

108. The US does not deserved a pres. as good as Kucinich.....

but we deserve someone as good as Kerry, and I hope we'll have him soon.

[RapidCreek]

155. It's a first amendment issue of little import

and that's where the fallacy lies in your argument. Facile gestures to specious causes do not a left of center candidate make.

Aside from issues of character I don't particularly care what anyones lifetime record is...times change...the situations we face as citizens change. I care about the here and now. What are a candidates positions on those issues which immediately effect the welfare of my country, my community, my family and myself. Within that context DK most certainly stands to the left of Kerry.

RC

[Cheswick2.0]

104. Is Kerry anti business?

Instead of a few dishonest spin points about who Dean appointed to judgeships, look at his record in VT. It is and continued to be one of the most liberal states in the Union.
He balanced the budget and made the lives of poor people better at the same time. He lowered child abuse rates and improved the employment rates. He provided healthcare for 98 percent of children and most adults, a better record than any other state. That's my kind of liberal.

[bicentennial_baby]

48. Um....Dennis Kucinich might disagree with ya there

Utter horseshit...

[blm]

61. Wrong. Kerry was to the left of DK on environmental record, 1st Amendment

issues and lifetime prochoice record. Surprisingly to those who think they are experts, Kerry had the LIFETIME record closest to Wellstone of all the primary candidates. Even Kucinich. Any honest Kucinich supporter who recognizes DK's lifetime record knows it's true.

There are few issues where Dennis is to the left of Kerry and vice-versa, but, there is no denying it.

[Selwynn]

122. This is an untruth. See my respose above to your previous post.

[blm]

129. HERE'S TRUTH. Now YOU try putting up some FACTS for a change.

Do you even KNOW that Kerry had the best environmental record of ALL THE CANDIDATES? Have you ever RESEARCHED your own claims against him, Selwynn?

PROVE your claim for a change. See all their LIFETIME environmental ratings, prochoice ratings and first amendment ratings and PROVE ME WRONG. I'd really like to see you try instead of saying so with ZERO proof.

American Conservative Union Ranking of Dem Canidates
Of course, lower is better. Congressional rankings are 2002, 2001 and lifetime. Numbers indicate the percentage of the time that the canidate voted "conservative".

Dennis Kucinich 2002-0%, 2001-20%, Lifetime-13%

John Kerry 2002-20%, 2001-4%, Lifetime-6%

John Edwards 2002-30%, 2001-16%, Lifetime-15%

Dick Gephardt 2002-8%, 2001-13%, Lifetime-12%

Joe Lieberman 2002-20%, 2001-28%, Lifetime-20%

Bob Graham 2002-20%, 2001-16%, Lifetime-18%


http://www.conservative.org/default.asp

[Selwynn]

131. Bring it on.

There is one thing I am refering to, and one thing only. It was the often repreated talking point that John Kerry was the and I quote, "number one most liberal senator" with John Edwards being called number two.

I realize that the daily show is comedy, however I think a lot of us have some respect for John Stewart. He had a republican senator on whose name I've now forgotten, asking him about this statistic. It was a hilarious segment, becuase Jon Stewart kept asking how they came up with these numbers, and who they "were" and really painted the guy into a hiarlous corner.

Jon Stewart finally recued him by pointing out that the source often sited is a list from the National Journal. And that the statistic referring to Kerry is for a single year:

I have the rankings here:

Average: Kerry - 12th (85.9) Edwards - 24th (75.7)

2003: Kerry - 1st (96.5) Edwards - 4th (94.5)
2002: Kerry - 9th (87.3) Edwards - 31st (63.0)
2001: Kerry - 11th (87.7) Edwards - 35th (68.2)
2000: Kerry - 20th (77) Edwards - 19th (80.8)
1999: Kerry - 16th (80.8) Edwards - 31st (72.2)

The National Journal also has rankings of the senators over a life time. Neither John Kerry or John Edwards is even in the top ten:

National Journal: Most liberal senators, lifetime voting
1. Mark Dayton, D-Minn.
2. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md.
3. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
4. Jon Corzine, D-N.J.
5. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
6. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
7. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
8. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
9. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
10. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt

So I guess its just your word vs. mine.

[Selwynn]

138. I'll stand corrected on the "all the candidates" part in this thread

I was thinking in terms of how "liberal" a candidate's record was on the whole, not restricted only to a group of not particularly liberal candidates.

But, I can't provide evidence to challenge that, though I must say - from hearing the platform and positions of Dennis Kucinich and John Kerry I struggle with the claim.

[Hutzpa]

132. Selwyn's post was the bait....

he is creating unrest just like chief moron himself.

By the way, Selwyn does it mean sell out.

Just wondering.

[Selwynn]

137. Yes, you know me so, so well

:eyes:

[Hutzpa]

114. Thats why those SUCKERS pass over his

voting records to the neo-cons, and now they are back in droves, searching for more.

how evil can one becomes for ones greed



:grr:

[wyldwolf]

63. well well, finally one of you admits it

There is a part of you that wants Bush to win so the DLC can't claim victory.

[camero]

75. Not exactly

But cheap labor centrists certainly aren't good for the party.

[wyldwolf]

93. was I talking to you?

I believe I was responding to Selwynn in post #2 where he said exactly what I said he said.

Anyway, wacked out fringe lefties aren't good for the party.

[Selwynn]

141. Exactly what I said my ass.

Saying that if Bush wins a tiny part of me would be relieved is not the same thing as saying there is a part of me that wants Bush to win.

A feeling of relief and a desire for victory are not the same thing.

My full comment was:

If Bush wins the election, a tiny part of me will be relieved - because the DLC won't be able to spin it into a powerful victory for "new" democratic ideals and maybe - just maybe we could tear down the betrayal of our party that is its current leadership in the future. But probably not in 08, because if Bush won this year, that's when Clinton would run.

[wyldwolf]

142. oh, come on!

Saying that if Bush wins a tiny part of me would be relieved is not the same thing as saying there is a part of me that wants Bush to win.

Exact same thing - a "tiny part of you" is a "part of you." Relieved you will be if Bush wins.

[Selwynn]

143. It's not the same thing as wanting it to happen..

..seeing a tiny bit of good out of a terrible thing is not the same thing as wishing for the terrible thing to happen.

[wyldwolf]

144. oh, OK!

You don't want good health, but you're relieved when it happens!

[Selwynn]

156. No more like....

You don't want your loved ones to do things that will cause them pain, but sometimes you also know its the only way they will learn.

Sometimes bad things happen but out of it can come a greater and more lasting good. However, because I can't no for sure that would happen, I can't find myself actively wishing for Bush's reelection. And I'll be voting for Kerry as well because I mean that.

If however, it were to happen, I could imagine one good thing that might possibly come of it long term.

No matter who polarized or dismissive your comments are to me, the fact remains that this is really not all that outlandish of a sentiment.

[wyldwolf]

157. It is a very outlandish sentiment

[Selwynn]

164. No it isn't.

:P

[wyldwolf]

166. ok, whatever

Come November 3rd, you'll either be happy or relieved.

[Djinn]

174. My take

tho I can't speak for Selwynn:

you have a relative who's been very sick for a long time - when they die part of you is relieved - not happy, it's not what you wanted it's not the outcome you'd have chosen or hoped for but part of you is relieved.

[camero]

145. No, so what of it?

If ever there was proof that the DLC wasn't for social justice, that last post was it.

Repubs in sheep's clothing such as the DLC aren't good for the party.

[wyldwolf]

146. this

Conspiracy loons in sheep's clothing such as the far left fringe aren't good for the party.

[camero]

150. Alot better than the far right in disguise

Of course, to the DLC, anyone to the left of Lieberman and Zell are considered "far left". Come on, is that all you got?

[wyldwolf]

154. nah

Clinton, Gore, Edwards, Kerry, countless others. DLC.

You merely parrot what you've read written by others.

[camero]

160. You mean the Clinton of NAFTA, GATT, and welfare deform?

The Gore of Occidental Petroleum and Big Tobacco? Who the DLC abandoned after starting to campaign on populist rhetoric? Not one DLC senator came to his rescue when he needed it and the DLC speaks for Americans?

Nah, others just see what I see. A pig is a pig no matter what clothes he puts on.

[wyldwolf]

161. There was only one Bill Clinton

Not one DLC senator came to his rescue when he needed it and the DLC speaks for Americans?

Remind me again just which senators DID come to Gore's rescue when he needed it?

[camero]

172. The fix was in

It may be in this time too if Kerry goes too "far left" for the DLC. Which means he has to keep his hands on the $3 trillion worth of oil in Iraq.

The one Bill Clinton who raised taxes on the rich. That's the one that gave us 8 years of prosperity.

[wyldwolf]

175. Remind me again which Senators DID help Gore?

[camero]

178. Hey, he was your guy remember?

You can't have it both ways. For the record, none. Which is what you get when only multi-millionaires run.

[Hutzpa]

115. Twisting words, very good Wyldwolf n/t

[camero]

74. Another point

Only one former dem senator has ever won the presidency by popular vote. JFK. The dems have 2 pro-war senators on the ticket. It makes you wonder what the DLC is smoking or is it that they want to lose?

[coalition_unwilling]

102. As Nader says, Kerry is a 'least worst' candidate

But for those on the margins in the U.S. and the world, even a billionth of a degree of difference can make a big difference in their quality of life. (I'm borrowing liberally from Chomsky here.)

This year, we're forced into backing a 'least worst' candidate because the 'worst worst' candidate is so much worse for us and for the world. But maybe in 2008, no matter who wins in Nov., we can start to build a party that gives us not a 'least worst' candidate but a 'good' (or, dare I say, 'best') candidate.

I supported Kucinich in the CA primary, but would have backed Dean had he still been in the race. But part of politics is being an adult and realizing you 'can't have it all.' This year, the stakes are just too high to indulge in bourgeois self-indulgence (supporting Nader).

[Ron Green]

106. Thanks for a sober and useful post. n/t

[merh]

169. Though you are entitled to your opinion, it is my

opinion that you are way off base. The Clinton's have done more harm for the Democratic party than any dem in the last 50 years. That is not to say he wasn't a good president, but if you look at his compromises and his policies, he was too moderate and too conservative. There was nothing liberal about the man.

Not to mention the troubles his penis pleasure issues caused the party. The reason we are in the mess we are in now is because he did it "because he could". How intelligent is that when you know you have the RW trying to destroy you from day one? Its like shoplifting to see if you can get away with it even though you could afford to buy the item 12 times over. STUPID.

Because of his stupidity, we have been stuck with weak, wimpy candidates brow beat by the MORAL MAJORITY. (daschle)

Kerry has more honor than Clinton and he is more concerned with social issues than Clinton.

[Green Lantern]

8. Just two peas

from the same corporate pod

[Jacobin]

15. Bite your tongue

Think: Supreme Court, PNAC, deficits, separation of church and state. We are WAY beyond that talking point, my friend. Where have you been for the last four years?

[Green Lantern]

21. I am a green my friend

and I look at the DLC, WTO, NAFTA, FTAA ,positions on Iraq, Israel/Palestine, and on and on and on. Two peas in a pod.

[Green Lantern]

22. BTW

if the Supreme Court was an issue, there would have been the retirements you folks used as scare tactics 4 years ago. They are as afraid of what they created as the rest of us lib/prog types. PNAC-not a whole lot different than what the DLC and Kerry are currently spouting-use of power and extension of reach for economic benefit etc etc. Deficits and separation of church and state? Where have you been friend? They received DP support right along with the Patriot disaster etc etc. Go look at vote totals in Congress and think it over.

[Cheswick2.0]

51. well now that is just utter crap and nonsense too

if the Supreme Court was an issue, there would have been the retirements you folks used as scare tactics 4 years ago.

What a ridiculous thing to say. How would democrats have any control over when Supreme Court justices do or when they retire?

We could have had a President Gore for the last four years, but instead because of the IDIOCY of Nader and the naivete of people who supported him, we have had bush. How's that working out? Has the country moved to the left yet? Are we getting the big leftist revolution you all planned for when you cravenly chose to spoil the election?

[Redleg]

68. Hmm- I wonder why the moderators didn't delete this post.

Seems kind of abusive.

[Selwynn]

79. Because they hate you and love Cheswick

:shrug:

[fujiyama]

91. Because she's right

[fujiyama]

89. I've been reading

your posts for a while now.

Do you have any purpose on this board other than to trash the party? All I notice is your constant defending of Ralph Nader and trashing of Kerry.

As for your points, they are mostly nonsensical. If you really believe both parties are the same after the last four years, then you've been living under a rock. If you think Ginsberg is the same as Clarence Thomas, then you are on crack.

[tedzbear]

12. Kerry won the debate but...

...that doesn't change the fact that I am only ABB because I have little choice in the matter.

Kerry is significantly different from * in most areas except for Iraq where there is only a slim difference that will mean more of the same or even worse.

:kick:

[RapidCreek]

87. Kerry didn't win the debate...Bush lost it.

RC

[Hutzpa]

123. WHAT!!!!!!

:wtf:

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. I sitll don't like all his positions, but I maintain

that on presentation he mopped the floor with *.

And, I feel that he is sane and has a brain. *, not so much.

[Jacobin]

14. Calling the invasion of IraqNam a Collosal Blunder (mistake?)

Was a very good start to my getting to know President Kerry. It is simply beyond dispute that he will be an extremely competent president. At this point, competence is what matters the most, as Chimpy is beyond incompetent.

I thought he did a brilliant job in the debates and showcased the insanity of Smirk (hardworkhardworkhardworkhardworkhardworkhardwork)

[Fatima]

20. He was great in the debate, but he still intends to carry on the

War on Terror, whatever that is.

It really means dropping bombs on Muslims everywhere.

I wanted peace, I don't know about the rest of the people on this board...

but I will vote for Kerry because the alternative is to vote for a total madman.

[JVS]

41. But the question remains "How do you ask a man to be the last...

to die for a mistake?"

I suppose Kerry found the answer to his question. I wish he'd let us in on it.

[leftchick]

16. my repuke neighbor said....

they were equally bad.... :crazy:

[ulysses]

24. not really a "disliker"

Electorally speaking, I have feared (deeply, at times) that he would not take the battle to Bush's lap. He did it Thursday, in spades - about damned time. He needs to keep it up.

Governmentally, *of course* he's better than Bush. A zucchini would be better than Bush at all levels of governance. We need Kerry to be about more than simply being better than the worst. We'll see what happens, but there are many battles to fight in the coming months and years regardless.

[Nlighten1]

25. "Call for fire"

Obvious flame bait... :)

[Redleg]

30. Actually I had not intended to flame- I was just unprepared for

the level of dislike for Kerry some of the respondents expressed in their posts.

[Nordic]

26. he skipped some prime opportunities to KO Bush

like when he said "I made a mistake in HOW I talked about Iraq".

Even Bush couldn't believe he said that. I could tell Bush knew he'd left himself open for a KO punch and Kerry dropped the ball and hit himself in the face.

Still, yes, Kerry is a gazillion million billion times better than Bush.

I like Kerry, I just don't think he was the best choice. But I'm praying he wins.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. I don't "dislike" him, I disagree with him.

He did a pretty good job in the debate..with a lot of help from the nitwit.

I still disagree with many of his stances, particularly Iraq.

I'll vote for him, but not with any real hope that he's going to do much different than the current infestation of the WH.

Another tepid candidate, with few principles, who caved to the DLC.

[Hutzpa]

124. Before commenting, its sometimes good to

read above, go back and start from the top then make your way,

Another tepid candidate, with few principles, who caved to the DLC.

What a load of crack-pot, read some of the post on Kerry's voting, then come back and re-evaluate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

204. So, show me where I'm wrong.

He voted for the IWR.
He said he would still vote for the IWR knowing what he knows now.
He still supports the occupation of Iraq.

That's the issue in this election.

[IronLionZion]

32. Kerry Haters For Kerry

http://www.kerryhatersforkerry.com/

and the douchebag site
http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

[Eloriel]

38. GREAT site!!

Here are some bumper sticker slogans submitted:

AMERICA'S HAD WORSE

BETTER FLIP-FLOP THAN FLOP

VOTE FOR HIM BEFORE YOU VOTE AGAINST HIM

HE CAN ONLY GET BETTER!

http://www.kerryhatersforkerry.com/

Actually makes me feel a little better about things. Really. At least I can chuckle about the dilemma a bit.

[Forkboy]

33. I hope you're not expecting some of us here

to say we're ready to blow him now ;-)

[Redleg]

46. Hardly.

I'm not a Kerry worshiper- I am aware of some of his weaknesses.

[Eloriel]

35. We probably always admitted he's a far sight better than Bush

but that's not saying much, is it?

Yes, he did better than I feared he would against Bush during the debate, but Bush did better than I hoped he would.

Even the polls show that most of Kerry's support is really "ABB" fervor rather than any keen pro-Kerry fervor. Too many of us don't have anyone to vote FOR, just a madman to vote against. I get just plain depressed thinking about casting that vote.

But hey, it's what the DNC/DLC wanted and engineered, so at least TPTB are happy.

[Hutzpa]

128. In lame man terms.....the deal they brokered EOM

[mopaul]

39. I have a latent dislike of ANY politician, but I will give John a chance..

of course he's light years better than the ape. and i expect him to do a damn better job. but i ain't giving him a free pass on everything, he's a politician and they are not exactly like us out here in flyover land.

[G_j]

40. I'll admit I find my own 'detached' attitude

disheartening. Detached from my knowledge of the Vietnam war and my life long peace activism. I sat and routed for Kerry in the debate while he was saying he would 'win the war', knowing full well that we heard similar pronouncements concerning Vietnam.
Not many know that recent tapes reveal that LBJ got behind the Gulf of Tonkin con because he was afraid of appearing 'weak on defense'.
I sure wish I felt like we had learned something.

.
Maybe there is not a choice for Kerry to say differently and win the election, but the 'war on terror' meme has lowered the bar of my expectations for real peace and justice.
I always said there was a certain kool-aid quality to ABB.
I don't dislike Kerry.I don't hold this against him specifically, that would be silly. Americans have been collectly brainwashed for the most part by the media and Bush propaganda.
------------------
The Tonkin Gulf Incident; 1964. ...
www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/tonkin-g.htm
-President Johnson's Message to Congress August 5, 1964
-Joint Resolution of Congress H.J. RES 1145 August 7, 1964
------------------

[Cheswick2.0]

55. DFA DFA DFA DFA

I am very glad that Kerry did well in the debate. I was proud of him amd I am working my ass of to get him elected. But I am a Dean/Gore democrat. I am fond of populism and I want to give the party back to unions, women, minorities, gays, and democrats with the sense not to accept the military fetish currently running rampant in both parties. I am not a pacifist, though perhaps as a liberal Christian I should be, but I sure as hell do not like this idea of pre-emptive war. I do not think our interests must always be protected with military might.
I am hoping Kerry will govern to the left of where he is running. All I know for sure is that he will govern to the left of bush.

I will be working with DFA to change the democratic party to something it should be. I am sick to death of the DLC appeasement wing of the party.

[Djinn]

85. should I be worried?

it's not often I agree with Cheswick

[fujiyama]

90. Great statement Cheswick!

I agree almost completely.

Kerry may not be perfect, but in many ways he will hopefully govern to the left of Clinton. For example, people complain that Kerry isn't in support of gay marriages, but people don't realize that he was one of only 15 or so that voted AGAINST the defense of marriage act. That too, this was before he was running for reelection to the senate.

I too wish he was as direct as Dean in simply stating that this war was a bad idea - before it started. I feel it would have made his candidacy more effective as well as his attacks on the war.

Overall though I was very pleased and relieved with his debate performance. The country (and the world) can't take another 4 years of this crap). Actually the consequences will last much longer than just the 8 years in office. SC appointments and environmental policies will matter for many more years.

[seaglass]

99. Who thinks that our interests "must always be protected

with military might?" Are you alluding to Kerry - because I don't get that from him at all. I am for Kerry, was against the Iraq War and in my optimistic but unrealistic thoughts I wish that military force never had to be an option, but it does.

[Samantha]

56. He's far better than Bush* but he cannot carry Al Gore's political water

John Kerry said Thursday night what Al Gore said BEFORE the start of the Iraq war. As Gore chose to phrase it, Saddam is not the one shooting at us, Osama bin Laden is. To start this war with Iraq will drain the resources we need to fight against those who are responsible for 911. (I am paraphrasing Gore, but that was the essence of his words).

Gore stuck his neck out on a political limb by being the first prominent Democrat to openly condemn the war on Iraq. He struck a nerve in those of us who were adamantly against the war, and he gave cover to those in the Congress who needed to decide whether to vote for or against the authorization to give Bush* the authority to declare such war. None of those DLC Democrats took the cover offered by Gore, including Kerry and Clinton; they chose instead to give Bush* the authority.

I do not personally find it impressive that Kerry a year and a few months later now finds it in his political best interests to say what was legitimately in the hearts and minds of those of us so passionately dead-set against giving Bush* any such authority.

Kerry is the candidate of the Democratic party because the DLC'ers ran Dean out and ushered Kerry in. We have had many debates on that very subject on this website, and the facts are not in dispute. One of the reasons Gore is not running is because it is Kerry's "turn" within the party. I personally thought Gore was our best shot at winning the election, and I thought Dean was our second best choice. But here we are, a month before the election, and Kerry is the candidate.

At this juncture, the only legitimate course of action a truly anti-Bush* person can do is simply elect to vote on the issues. That's what I intend to do. I will not be voting for Kerry the man, I will be voting for no-draft, no privatization of Social Security and for the Kyoto Treaty. However, with the ascension to the presidency of George W. Bush*, hoisted by five forever tarnished Supreme Court judges to that office, I am not sure that title will ever regain the esteem it once had. That title has forever been corrupted and debased.

Facing the future and searching for the answer to the question, where will I find the inspiration and leadership to seek the right path in making my political decisions, I have decided I will not look to mere title-holders but rather listen to the true voices of our Democratic statesmen: Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Senator Byrd, Tom Harkin and Ted Kennedy. I am sure many here at this site have their own political heroes, but unfortunately, Kerry, having supported an illegal, immoral war, is not one to all of us.

I have no desire to sour the Kerry admirers at this site. Let me merely say in response to your question pertaining to Thursday's debate, Kerry turned in a remarkable performance.

[merh]

190. Of course he stuck his neck out on a limb - he is not running

for office. That is so easy to do when you don't have to worry about votes!

[morgan2]

60. im happy kerry did well I hope he wins the election

but it doesnt change who kerry is and what his policies are.

[ibegurpard]

69. Relieved

And hopeful that he won't ever go back into coasting mode. Also hopeful that he will be a better president than he's previously led me to believe.

[shraby]

76. There are 3 reasons I think Kerry will

be an effective president.

1. Vietnam protest he conducted

2. BCCI

3. Iran/Contra

Here are some more I'd like to see him tackle when he wins. Not necessarily in this order.

4. Plame

5. Iran leak

6. Franklin/AIPAC leaks

7. Neocons traitorous behavior

8. Cheney's energy papers

9. Forged Niger documents

10. Office of Special Plans

11. Tom DeLay crimes

12. Patriot Act I & II

13. Sibel Edmonds gag order

I'm sure there are more, but these will go a long way toward cleaning up the government.

[Hutzpa]

140. why let the cat out the bag? eom

[shanti]

81. i didn't dislike kerry

more like lukewarm, but now i am sold. i'm voting for kerry, not against *.

[lojasmo]

96. He beat the tar outa shrub

I like that.

I'm still disappointed that he voted to allow Bush access to Iraq based on a known pack of lies.

Patriot act frankly unconstitutional, he voted for that.

I finally believe we might have a shot at unseating bush, so my dismay at Kerry being the candidate has subsided.

[leesa]

103. I disagree 100% with his "we'll win the war" bit but he debated well

How do you stand there and say we will continue to fight anillegal, immoral war against a country that did nothing to us? He is wrong and that is why Bush could jump on him. He has not a leg to stand on when it comes to this.

[Redleg]

152. Boy, this really was a divisive post- I almost wish I hadn't done it.

It's always nice to be accused of flame-baitery by posters who like to ask whether the DLC should be tarred and feathered or whether the Democratic party is just Republican lite.

[Q]

170. You did okay and there's a need for this type of thread...

...even right before an election.

- To answer your original question: Kerry did fine...he's a strong debater and knows the facts. He looked great debating against a lying sack of shit that couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it.

- He'll make a good president and it will be a breath of fresh air compared to what we have now.

[Redleg]

173. Yes indeed.

Now that's what I was hoping to hear.

[Selwynn]

179. That's part of the problem.

You started a thread in which you really didn't want to/weren't prepared to hear honest responses. You had a pre-conceived notion of what you wanted to hear and were unhappy hearing anything else.

Look...

I think John Kerry did very well against Bush in the first debate. I was so happy to also see Bush do so terrible.

I am voting for Kerry in November, there should be no question there.

I do not think Kerry is some kind of "evil" man, nor part of any clandestine conspiracy.

That said, his politics are NOT MINE. His policies frequently not mine. The DLC - reguardless of the debate over how closely connected Kerry will be to them that started in this thread - not only does not reflect my politics, but in fact is the direct antithesis of my politics and actively works to undercut everything that I actually believe is right.

I am looking forward to a Kerry victory - but that's because Bush is so ass-tacularly bad. Let me restate that - I don't think John Kerry is particularly good, I simply think Bush is particularly bad, so bad in fact that I feel compelled to vote for Kerry rather than a third party for that very reason. I think our country deserves so much better than either George Bush or John Kerry and I'm committed to working with progressive organizations to bring about a grass roots revival of the peoples party, to populist ideals and to break the democractic party loose from the corporate stranglehold which as entangled it for too long.

[Redleg]

181. Fair enough.

Peace.

[merh]

194. Don't let 'em get to you!

There is not a thing wrong with your thread - others who posted made it devisive for whatever reason. I guess some are still upset that their candidates didn't win the nomination. :shrug:

They should take a lesson from their candidates and support Kerry, but that won't happen, they are too closed minded!

Thanks for the thread. ;-)

[sleipnir]

183. Still uneasy, but feeling better.

He's going to win, I can feel it, it's over for GWB.

Like I've always said, I'll give Kerry 9 months benefit of doubt, then I'll decide whether or not I'll work to replace him in 2008.

[JohnParkerfan]

198. Huh?

Huh?,he's gotta do more,1 debate don't cut it.

[tedzbear]

208. I'll admit he's a much better debater.

EOM