A Compendium Of Reasons To Vote For John Kerry

[WilliamPitt]

Folks seem to spend an awful lot of time here kicking other candidates in the teeth. This, of course, leads to reciprocal attacks which breed further attacks, ad nauseam. This is an equal-opportunity situation - advocates for any candidate (not all, by any measure, but more than enough) are guilty, and if anyone posts on this thread that X candidate's people attack Y candidate's people more often, they will immediately win tonight's Full Of Poo Award.

So I'm gonna be a madman and provide a positive series of reasons to vote for a particular candidate. Yeah, I know, mind-blowing. Take the ride with me as I make the case for John Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts.

====

Kerry on the Environment (a small sample):

Invest in advancing secure forms of energy instead of oil

"Today we have an energy policy of big oil, by big oil, and for big oil. With common-sense investments in advancing and speeding breakthroughs, we can harness the natural world around us to light and power the world we live in with secure forms of energy at reasonable costs for a modern economy. I recently unveiled a plan to increase America's security and improve the environment, by ending our dependence on foreign oil within 10 years." - Source: MoveOn.org interview Jun 17, 2003

Safeguard the environment and grow the economy

"For 30 years in public life I have committed to environmental protection. My commitment is driven by the belief that we can safeguard the environment and grow our economy. I have fought hard to reduce the threat of global warming by supporting renewable energy and increased funding for climate change research. I have also called on Bush to stop blocking progress and to engage in international efforts to mitigate the threat of climate change." - Source: MoveOn.org interview Jun 17, 2003

Led effort to try to raise fuel efficiency standards

KERRY : I led an effort in 2002 to raise fuel efficiency standards in the country. And just yesterday, they reported they are at a 22 year low. You're the one member of Congress here who doesn't support raising fuel efficiency standards. How do we get to energy independence when 50% or more of our fuel is in oil for transportation? How are we going to break out without raising fuel efficiency?

GEPHARDT: I agree that we need to do it. However, we need to put together an energy program that includes an increase in the CAFE standards, but also includes setting a 10-year goal of not only mileage requirements and pollution requirements, but also moves us to hybrid cars in the interim and hydrogen fuel cells in the long-term. I would put the auto companies, the oil companies and the environmental groups at a table and I would work out a 10-year plan. I'd call it an Apollo 2 program, and I believe we could pass it, have everybody committed to it and get this done for the country. - Source: Democratic Debate in Columbia SC May 3, 2003

Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010

Dorgan Amdt. No. 865; To require that the hydrogen commercialization plan of the Department of Energy include a description of activities to support certain hydrogen technology deployment goals. Part of S 14 Energy Omnibus bill; this vote would pass an amendment that would call for the Department of Energy to set targets and timelines to maintain the production of 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010, and 2.5 million vehicles annually by 2020. It also would call for the department to set targets for the sale of hydrogen at fueling stations. The bill would require the Energy secretary to submit a yearly progress report to Congress. - Bill S.14 ; vote number 2003-212 on Jun 10, 2003

Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill

Boxer Amdt. No. 272.; To prevent consideration of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in a fast-track budget reconciliation bill. S Con Res 23 Budget resolution FY2004: Vote to pass an amendment that would strike (remove) language in the resolution that would permit oil drilling and exploration in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. . - Bill SConRes 23 ; vote number 2003-59 on Mar 19, 2003

Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds

Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Murkowski Amendment No. 31323; To create jobs for Americans, to reduce dependence on foreign sources of crude oil and energy, to strengthen the economic self determination of the Inupiat Eskimos and to promote national security. Would allow gas and oil development in a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if the president certifies to Congress that production in the area is in the nation's security and economic interests (qwhich Prsident Bush would). If the cloture motion is agreed to, debate will be limited and a vote will occur. If the cloture motion is rejected debate could continue indefinitely and instead the bill is usually set aside. A yea vote for this bill was one in favor of drilling in the reserve. Three-fifths of the total Senate (60) is required to invoke cloture. - Bill S.517 ; vote number 2002-71 on Apr 18, 2002

Voted NO on replacing CAFE standards within 15 months

Levin Amendment No. 2997; To provide alternative provisions to better encourage increased use of alternative fueled and hybrid vehicles. Vote to pass an amendment that would remove the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard (CAFE) and instead establish a new automobile efficiency standard in 15 months. Congress could veto any CAFE increase and would be allowed to increase the standard if no changes are made with 15 months. The bill would overhaul the nation's energy policies by restructuring the electricity system and providing for $16 billion in energy-related tax incentives. - Bill S.517 ; vote number 2002-47 on Mar 13, 2002

Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior

Vote to confirm the nomination of Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. - Bill Confirmation vote ; vote number 2001-6 on Jan 30, 2001

Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling

Vote to preserve language in the Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Framework that assumes $1.2 billion in revenue from oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. - Bill S Con Res 101 ; vote number 2000-58 on Apr 6, 2000

Voted YES on keeping CAFE fuel efficiency standards

Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Bryan (D-NV) introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate towards ending CAFE Standards. Senator Gorton motioned to table this amendment. . - Status: Amdt Rejected Y)40; N)55; NV)4
Reference: Gorton Amdt # 1677; Bill H.R. 2084 ; vote number 1999-275 on Sep 15, 1999

Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat

The Bryan Amdt (D-NV) offered an amendment to raise funding levels for Forest Service road maintenance and wildlife and fisheries habitat management programs. Senator Craig (R-ID) motioned to table this amendment. .
Status: Table Motion Agreed to Y)54; N)43; NV)3 - Reference: Motion to table Bryan Amdt. #1588; Bill H.R. 2466 ; vote number 1999-272 on Sep 14, 1999

Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy

In June of 1999, Senator Jeffords (R-VT) was prepared to offer an amendment which would have added $62 million to the Energy Department solar and renewable energy programs. This action was blocked by Senator Reid (D-NV). - Status: Motion Agreed to Y)60; N)39; NV)1
Reference: Motion to table the recommital; Bill S. 1186 ; vote number 1999-171 on Jun 16, 1999

Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests

Vote on an amendment to cut the $47.4 million provided for Forest Service road construction by $10 million, and to eliminate the purchaser credit program . - Bill HR.2107 ; vote number 1997-242 on Sep 17, 1997

Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository

Approval of the interim nuclear waste repository. Status: Bill Passed Y)65; N)34; NV)1 - Reference: Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997; Bill S. 104 ; vote number 1997-42 on Apr 15, 1997

Voted YES on terminating desert protection in California

Invoking cloture on the California desert protection bill. . Status: Cloture Agreed to Y)68; N)23; NV)9 - Reference: California Desert Protection Act of 1993; Bill S. 21 ; vote number 1994-326 on Oct 8, 1994

Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline

Permitting new regulations which would require the use of ethanol in gasoline. Status: Table Motion Agreed to Y)50; N)50 - Reference: Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995; Bill H.R. 4624 ; vote number 1994-255 on Aug 3, 1994

Voted YES on requiring EPA risk assessments

Require risk assessments of new EPA regulations. Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)90; N)8; NV)2 - Reference: Safe Drinking Water Act Amdt.s of '94; Bill S. 2019 ; vote number 1994-117 on May 18, 1994

(source for all above: http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/John_Kerry_Environment.htm)

====

Now, a lot of people vote to Kerry's votes on the Patriot Act and the Iraq war, for good reasons. But I would argue the following:

1) On the Patriot Act, only one Senator passed this particular test. enators are not immune from fear and confusion and rage. Recall, as well, that there was anthrax blowing down the halls, a terrified populace who wanted something done, and a GOP majority delivering this bill in the dead of night and applying considerable pressure. Recall, also, that this Act can be fixed and done away with.

2) On the war, hindsight says demonstrably that Kerry should not have voted for it. At the time, there was ample evidence that the Bush administration's weapons claims were overblown at best. At the time, however, the administration was also plying Congress with data about Iraqi nukes. Now, a lot of people told Kerry what we now know. But the Director of the CIA said otherwise, and Kerry had to make a choice. The person to blame here is not the man who got lied to, who believed the highest ranking intelligence officer in America. The person to blame here is that lying intelligence officer, and the administration that compelled him to lie. We are attacking the wrong person here.

Bear in mind, as well, this correction to the popular DU fiction, i.e. "Kerry gave Bush a free pass for his bloodthirsty war." Not true. Kerry, among others, made sure that three words were removed from the war resolution: "In the region." That means the administration wanted the legal right to make war on all of the Mideast, and that Kerry and crew took that away from them. Granted, he helped give them the Iraq war, but did so based upon a body of serious lies that, again, deserve to have blame for aforementioned directed at the liars, and not the lied-to.

====

One last thought.

I worry about the mentality of the nation. No candidate can control the influence of the mainstream media, and the mainstream media is pitching wars and warriors these days. They have also painted Bush as a warrior, laughable as that is. Kerry slots into this nicely. His record from Vietnam (certain paranoid unsubstantiated but sure to be repeated below fantasies notwithstanding), along with his work against the Iran/Contra scoundrels, describes a guy who has done his time in this particular trench.

====

So there it is. Is Kerry a complicated candidate? Demonstrably. I think, however, that his environmental record stands alone in its excellence among this field. Those were brave votes. And if you think they were not important votes, understand: If we do not deal with the environment in the next ten to twenty years, the environment is going to deal with us.

As for the rest of it, that is yours to judge. The man is no saint. He's a politician, and part of the Machine to be sure. Saints are in short supply, and we need winners. Check out the record from Kerry v. Weld (1996) to see what a fighter and a winner looks like.

[JohnKleeb]

1. Well nice points Will and Kerry is number two for me

[Clete]

2. Me too.

Dean rules.

[WilliamPitt]

3. Not yet he doesn't

:evilgrin:

[Andy_Stephenson]

28. Kerry is not on my list...

But I will keep my promise. Remember the one Will? You made one too...and I know your honorable and will keep yours as well!

[Fovea]

4. Thank you

That was well done and useful.

[wtmusic]

5. Yes, Kerry did give Bush a free pass

otherwise he would have supported the Byrd and/or Levin amendments to war authorization, which would have either required a UN Security Council resolution or which would prevent Bush from traipsing into other countries, respectively.

With that alone Kerry demonstrated to me he is not willing to provide a check to the power of the executive branch (his responsibility) when the screws are tightened, and thus a lack of leadership.

[WilliamPitt]

6. Perhaps he feared that rogue nukes

would obviate checks and balances more profoundly than any congressional vote could?

[wtmusic]

10. The UN inspectors and 80% of the world

were in disagreement with him then, as he helped place the lives of 24 million people in the hands of one man.

Irresponsible.

[WilliamPitt]

13. That is not accurate

The inspectors had not finished their work in early October, and that 80% of the world you reference were likewise waiting for UNMOVIC to report. Your description is not in alignment with historical fact.

[wtmusic]

49. OK, so the inspectors had not finished their work yet

somehow John Kerry felt qualified to assume they would find something (the timing is irrelevant--remember the inspectors had not finished their work on March 20th either), or at the very least put this profound decision in the hands of one man.

Here is a fact Will: the inspectors had not concluded that Iraq currently had ANY weapons of mass destruction. Here is another fact: by voting for war authorization Kerry gave Bush the green light to break the UN charter by going to war without a UNSC resolution.

[WilliamPitt]

51. Kerry's conclusion thwy would find something

once again, stems from data given by the Director of the CIA at the crucial moment.

UNSC Resolution 1441.

[wtmusic]

54. Nope, sorry

House Joint Resolution 114 passed on October 10, 2002. UNSCR 1441 was November 8.

[Egnever]

61. I would love to pick your brain

I thought I was paying attention. You clearly were.

[wtmusic]

66. Pick away

You may be thoroughly disappointed...however the 'reasons to go to war' thing became a bit of an obsession and if I can share anything I'm happy to.

[oasis]

64. "Mr. President, do not rush to war." A Kerry admonition to Bush

which goes ignored by both Bush and Kerry's detractors.

[wtmusic]

67. All talk

Again, if Kerry was a leader he would back up his talk with action.

[oasis]

70. The "action" Kerry intends to take is moving Bush out of the White House.

He has been positioning himself for this move by his earlier decisions. As senator, Kerry is capable of only so much. When he takes over the reins of government he will be able to expand on his vision for America.

[wtmusic]

71. Take the blinders off

So his war vote was a 'positioning' move? If so he put his aspirations above his conscience by not helping to prevent an illegal war which cost roughly 40,000 lives.

The action I'd like to see is Dean removing Kerry as the Democratic candidate.

[George_Bonanza]

80. All talk? F*ck me!

I see you are a Dean supporter. Tell me, what has Dean done in the Iraq cause? Has he attended ONE anti-war rally? Or has he just blown air into microphones? What was that called again? TALK!

[are_we_united_yet]

7. Will

For me, your words are amongst the most respected of the DU'ers. Up until this point, I had little appetite for Kerry Presidency.

However, I can promise you I'll give Senator Kerry a more objective look. If he is the most likely candidate that can dismantle this awful administration, he has my vote.

[WilliamPitt]

9. Support whomever you wish to support

This thread was not so much a stump speech as it was a series of reasons why Kerry is not Satan incarnate, why he is as worthy as the others. It was also to, for a change, provide a positive post about a candidate. I welcome Dean, Kucinich, Gephardt and other supporters to post similar threads.

Thanks.

[JohnKleeb]

11. I may post one about Kucinich sometime

wait a sec Ive done that.

[BeatleBoot]

8. Demonstrably

I agree.

I loved his position and his work against the Iran-Contra creeps, also.



On edit: spelling

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[WilliamPitt]

15. ...and with the records of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Maddy Albright

as well as the spoken record of Hillary Clinton, etc.

[Journeyman]

14. Thank you, Will. . .

I haven't made a decision yet on which Democrat I'll vote for, but posts such as this help immensely. I've saved this to my hard drive and will use it in the coming months as I look at all the candidates.

As to the negative threads, I learned years ago how precious life is, and I'm not about to waste it reading tripe and trash.

[corarose]

16. Kerry is my choice and I think the right wing press knows he's a winner

They want to make him the second choice and they can easily do it by manipulating the poll numbers and by not showing how large the crowd of supports are that shows up for Kerry.
He's a winner and he served in Viet Nam. He can run against Jr as a War Veteran against AWOL Bush and the right wing press knows this. They don't want Kerry and they are doing everything to keep him from being the front runner.

That's my 2 cents.

[depakid]

17. You forgot to mention that Kerry voted no on the bankruptcy bill

Something that NONE of the other Senators who are running can say- including, I might add, Hillary Clinton.

That is a truly abhorrant piece of legislation, written by lobbiests for credit card companies at the expense of single mothers and people with large medical bills. With all of the money that the "financial services" industry throws at elections, it seems to me that this was a pretty courageous stand to take.

[WilliamPitt]

18. Thanks!

Missed that one.

[flpoljunkie]

58. And Kerry had the courage to vote against DOMA...

The Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 which Clinton signed into law!

A lot of people are not aware of this--including many in the gay community.

[George_Bonanza]

81. Kerry was among only 14 dissenters

It took guts to take a stand against that bill.

[Egnever]

62. Wasnt aware of that that is a huge pluss

For kerry!

Almost completely revises my opinion of him.

[Terwilliger]

19. so, essentially, wait for political pandering to take hold

it will eventually! we promise! :eyes:

it'll win the electorate!

we'll win with some half-assed effort by the Democratic party to claim their superiority over their foes!

we'll do it!

I swear!

I swear to GAWD we'll do it!

christ Will...I read your Scott Ritter book...what makes you think that Democrats will ever be wnything other than willing pawns?

I saw Kerry today...I see him a lot. He looks like he can't work himself out of a deep depression, but he'll make you believe he's your guy.

Bear in mind, as well, this correction to the popular DU fiction, i.e. "Kerry gave Bush a free pass for his bloodthirsty war." Not true. Kerry, among others, made sure that three words were removed from the war resolution: "In the region." That means the administration wanted the legal right to make war on all of the Mideast, and that Kerry and crew took that away from them.

of fantastic! well then, they did something they can't be hung for!

oh, but wait! We think there are nukes in Tehran...how soon before kerry agrees with the intelligence chief yet again? How many more foreign nationals have to be killed in the name of our national incompetence?


You want winning candidates. There aren't any in the field...not even Kucinich.

[WilliamPitt]

20. Your last sentence

tells me that a detailed response would be a profound waste of time.

[Terwilliger]

26. it is a profound waste of time

believing that real change will come from inside the Democratic or Republican parties

[Old and In the Way]

75. Terwillinger.....a word of advice.

Piss downwind.

[TheDonkey]

21. We need more posts like this, bravo!

If I didn't have to sit and read posts like "OMG KERRY'S HAIRCUT WAS $200 WTF!?!?!!!11!" or "Dean slapped my mom in the face!!!!11!" I'd be much happier.

It's good to see someone knows how to really make a persuasive and informative argument by presenting the positive facts and backing up some mistakes or slips.

Kerry is my quasi-#1 pick. Sometimes I like him a lot, other times he says "get over it" and I begin to worry. But I think he would make me proud if he was in the oval office, especially with a record like that.

[Octafish]

22. Voted NO on REHNQUIST for Chief Justice

John Kerry said, if he's elected President, he would appoint honest judges and attorneys. That should instill the fear of God in the chests of many a Republican where a heart would beat in most human beings.

Ha ha. Seems Kerry knows a crook when he sees one. As a freshman US Senator, John Kerry voted against the confirmation of William Rehnquist as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1986. Rehnquist, as many DUers know, is the titular pointy head of the criminal division of the Bush Organized Crime Family. An unpleasant reminder:

JUST OUR BILL

By Dennis Roddy
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Saturday, December 02, 2000

Lito Pena is sure of his memory. Thirty-six years ago he, then a Democratic Party poll watcher, got into a shoving match with a Republican who had spent the opening hours of the 1964 election doing his damnedest to keep people from voting in south Phoenix.

"He was holding up minority voters because he knew they were going to vote Democratic," said Pena.

The guy called himself Bill. He knew the law and applied it with the precision of a swordsman. He sat at the table at the Bethune School, a polling place brimming with black citizens, and quizzed voters ad nauseam about where they were from, how long they'd lived there -- every question in the book. A passage of the Constitution was read and people who spoke broken English were ordered to interpret it to prove they had the language skills to vote.

By the time Pena arrived at Bethune, he said, the line to vote was four abreast and a block long. People were giving up and going home.

CONTINUED...

http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20001202roddy.asp

[WilliamPitt]

23. Thanks!

Missed that too.

[AP]

24. Good work. Will you do one of these for Edwards for me?

:)

[Donna Zen]

25. The short list...

The list you gave is but a short list of the many things we have to thank him for. He has been very good on women's issues, education, working families, civil rights....on and on. We can also say that about many of our candidates. Does that mean we owe them a vote? No, but we at least we owe these 9 who have put themselves forward better than the ridicule they are given everyday on this board. Not to mention the scorn with which posters who dare to speak their minds are greeted.

Now I'm going to assume we would like to win in 2004. Too great an assumption? John Asscroft is the target, not John Kerry; however, the way things are looking from my keyboard, we are quickly upping Asscroft's departure date to 2008.

I just came from a thread bashing...yes, totally bashing the military. I did not support this war because I believed that the plan put forward by the Carnegie Foundation and embraced by the French etal, would have achieved our goals of defanging Saddam without a war. I also read Will's book. That said, you will not endear yourself or your ideas to a majority of the American voters by hating the military. While you may make yourself feel good for a fleeting moment, in the end, you will lose this election.

So_whose record do you respect for the most part, or in total, that you think will stand the test of the general election? Remember wanting to win is the assumption I made. Another thought: once we win, and I know if we stop sniping we can do it, then we must be sure the person we chose can govern or any dreams and our hardwork will be dashed and floating along with Clinton's healthcare plan. And he was a master politician.

[Sweetpea]

27. I am with you Will

[Kanola]

29. As a Dean supporter

that does not mean that I demonize Kerry. I have never posted a negative thread againist him nor another candidate except Liebermann. I stay out of that fray.

I have always known that Kerry is an outstanding Liberal who should for the most part be very proud of his record and will vote for him should Dean not win the nomination. However, I am concerned that he may not be able to generate the vote due to being inside the beltway for a long period of time. This is not a slam but he from what I have seen on CSPAN and from his forums is that he does not answer questions directly and takes the "politician approach" to answering questions. Most Americans IMHO tune out when they hear this approach. That IMHO is why they like Dean and why they responded to McCain. They both answer the questions posed to directly. People love that.

Kerry supporters, please help get this message across if you are serious about getting him nominated. Right now IMHO most DEMS will tune him out and not be mobilized to vote for him in this pivotal 2004 election.

[RichM]

30. The enviro votes are nice. Your attempts to defend him on Iraq are

pretty feeble, as you all but admit, yourself ("no saint... a politician, and part of the Machine to be sure.")

Wouldn't it be more honest to simply say:
"OK. He caved in and sold us out on Iraq. He was willing to Shock-N-Awe Baghdad, rather than risk being accused of lacking patriotism. But hey! At least he's against drilling in ANWR, & has a very admirable voting record on environmental issues."

The part that most annoys me is your willingness to purvey the line that he was "lied to." As if he didn't understand what the real story was, while practically EVERYONE here on DU, & in the rest of the world, did. This theory insults our intelligence. (It even insults Kerry's intelligence!) He knew perfectly well what he was agreeing to, and why.

[WilliamPitt]

31. That whole "DU knew" idea...

I paid a lot a lot a lot of attention in September and October here on DU. Not one thread can I recall from that time, not one, debunked the Niger uranium story with enough authority to overthrow the opinion of the Director of the CIA, who spoke of it in late September to Kerry's committee.

So that's that. We all knew...but way after the vote had gone down.

[Terwilliger]

34. come on! did he believe that Bush and his cronies stole the election?

did he believe that Bush and his buddies were criminally incompetent in ignoring the warning signs for 9/11?

Will, John Kerry knows exactly what happened in October...he voted for his corporate masters. He voted for his Israel supporters, for the defense industry, for the jingoism, for the political points. He had no interest in the utter immorality of pretending that Saddam was a threat. He had no interest in the fact that we put Saddam into place all those years ago, but played at condemning him for using poison gas against civilians...excused George Bush leaving him in place in 1991...excuses excuses excuses

If you're proposing that this man should be the party nominee, then Ralph Nader was right...very little difference :nuke:

[WilliamPitt]

35. Basically, yes, he voted like an American politician

who knows how to win elections.

There's a big difference for you between Dems and Nader.

[Terwilliger]

40. except when did the Dems last win?

2002? oh no...they said they would then lost everything

2000? Oh...well, I guess thay kinda won, but they're not in the White House

Lets reach back to 1994 when Dems started losing it all.

OK, Ralph Nader was wrong about what?

[WilliamPitt]

41. Let Ralph carry one Electoral College vote. One. Just one.

I will then decide he actually has a clue about how to run a national race.

One. Just one.

[Terwilliger]

45. did someone say Nader was trying to win?

I think he was trying to point out that both parties might as well be the same, and I don't really think you've put a case out there that he's wrong

abortion?

taxes?

"social spending"?

sure, there are cosmetic differences...not much else

war? lets go to war without knowledge

taxes? sure Mr. Bush...do what you want

Patriot Act? We're right there with you Mr. President!

opposition party! *pleh*

[WilliamPitt]

47. Thanks for proving my point

Politicians who don't play to win are about as useful as teats on a boar. Self-righteous puffery has no place in the public forum, where people's lives on a daily basis depend on pushing in the right direction, even if you've become compromised elsewhere. If you don't play to win, all your glorious ideas are totally, totally, totally useless.

Ergo, neither you nor Ralph understand the purpose of elections, or politics for that matter.

[Iverson]

59. (cough)

In your rush to defend the weakest parts of a Kerry recommendation, you have fallen into a couple of traps.

The thesis that winning is everything leads inevitably to imitating the Republicans, since in that ethos the Democrats needs only be a millimeter to the left of the Republicans in order to claim the greatest part of the "center" while reserving the usual caustic harping at the left about realism. I have read enough of your postings to believe that you don't seriously advocate that argument.

You also know, as an activist yourself, that ideas count for something. Surely there is a middle ground between ruthless winning, independent of the ideas to which that winning is attached, and monastic ideological purity that can exist only on a theoretical level. In fact, your eloquently abbreviated (and deleted) posting from a couple of days ago seemed to carry that warrant. Am I wrong?

Also, some issues are more important than others. The decision to invade a country that had not attacked us is a prime example, and exactly because it was a life-and-death decision it demands greater care and scrutiny than other kinds of decisions. Sen. Kerry had access to all of the same information that Sen. Byrd had. He is not stupid; we should credit him with being able to analyze the whole situation and understand the implications. Either asking for thoughtfulness and principles in a life-and-death situation is too much to ask or else it is not. I demand principles in those situations. Do you really not agree?

Further, neither you nor I have commanded a single electoral vote, yet somehow we retain our own rights to a viewpoint. You need not like Nader, but counting the number of electoral votes is a poor way of discovering truth. Using that logic, we would have to credit Reagan, for example, with good ideas that in reality are meritless.

Therefore, you need to take a couple of lumps along with your recommendation for Kerry, lest your argument devolve into mere apologia. We've never met, but I've come to expect better from you.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[WilliamPitt]

39. ...and maybe the rest of us, before long

[Terwilliger]

42. yes, but I'm not a leader of the party that's supposed to represent us all

[WilliamPitt]

43. Prase the lawd

[RichM]

52. The Niger-uranium story was hardly the only shaky feature of the Bush

case for war, as of last September. PNAC has formally existed since 1997; Cheney & Wolfowitz authored a similar position paper on the necessity of seizing Iraq in 1992. The whole idea that this little impoverished defenseless country was going to launch a high-tech attack against the US, risking thereby certain immediate & total annihilation-- this was a patently ludicrous idea, even last September. The US National Security Strategy was issued late last September, codifying the "Doctrine of pre-emptive war." Anyone in his right mind saw at once that this represented an unacceptable unilateralist belligerence; that it was formal preparation for naked aggression.

And the vote itself is hardly the only problem with Kerry's stance on Iraq. I started another thread yesterday after MTP (it's currently floating around here nearby), on which I listed a half-dozen important truths about Iraq which Kerry conspicuously failed to even mention in his hour-long appearance. And you personally agreed, in that thread, that it was true that Kerry had failed to mention these central truths. (You went on to say that none of the other candidates had mentioned them either, except Kucinich, because "he's a stud.")

So, let's call things what they really are, both the good, and the bad: Kerry is a bright decent man with a fine liberal voting record on domestic issues. He also voted for an act of unjustifiable military aggression, last October. He also failed to mention any of the significant truths I listed, in his MTP appearance yesterday -- which bespeaks a distinct unwillingness to challenge the framework of standard US propaganda. In short, he supported MOST of Bush's Iraq policy, and even today, his criticism of it is limited, and studiously avoids MOST of what's most important.

[WilliamPitt]

53. But it was the scariest, and the most compelling

and the last to be debunked. I hadn't even heard of it when I wrote my book.

As others have said, "It wasn't just 16 words."

[Egnever]

63. last to be debunked?

HMMMM

you sure of that?

Its dificult at this point to remember the chronology of many things back then. but I dont recall that holding up even a day after the SOTU.

[WilliamPitt]

65. Proof?

The word 'Niger' was not in the SOTU. The intelligence community knew it was crud, but they weren't talking yet.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Terwilliger]

36. Was Saddam a threat?

he was a petty dictator whose only reason for being alive was at the whim of the US...he was no threat...he was never a threat.

Ignore history all you want...I guess that's what Democrats generally want you to do.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[WilliamPitt]

46. "...and the means to make trouble"

From about 1998 on, we have since learned, this was not true. He bluffed, effectively. The Bushies used his bluffs against him. Pre-1998, he was more of a threat, and that threat goes up the closer to the Reagan administration you get.

[RichM]

55. Sure, I think Kerry was entitled to his opinion of a non-imminent threat.

I just don't see that this justified voting for the Resolution. There is a high standard to be met, when a US senator votes on such a fateful matter. If he'd properly judged the character of the men who were driving the War Party; if he weighed the evidence of a "solidly proven threat to Americans" in his own mind, he should have concluded, like Kennedy & Byrd, that the standard was not met. The evidence was never better than flimsy, & the character of those in the War Party ... needs, of course, no elaboration.

I don't think I'm glossing over Kerry's prior concerns, or denying that he's entitled to his opinion. I'm just saying that a reasonable standard for using the US military -- against a tiny defenseless country that had done us no harm -- was IMHO not met.

Despite Kerry's fine liberal voting record on domestic issues, I think this Iraq vote is a terrible black mark. And the issue is exceptionally important, because it directly connects to whether or not a potential leader supports using the military as a tool for achieving imperialist goals. I want a leader who courageously refuses to allow that kind of thing to happen.

[RetroLounge]

32. Thank you Will. Important things to know.

I am currently backing Dean, but Dean may not win and Kerry may win. or Edwards. or Gephardt. or...

and if that happens (or any serious Dem candidate) I need to know all I can about that candidate, as I will be backing the winner of the primaries 110%, and knowledge is power.

So again, thanks.

[userdave2061]

37. I saw Kerry on TV and I am not convinced

There is something in his eyes that I can't quite place but it has the look of someone that has not convinced himself of where he stands. It may just be my blurred vision or an epitaph yet to be.

[Octafish]

57. Kerry's photogenic.

What's best is his record for going after the BFEE. Google "John Kerry" and:

BCCI
Ollie North
Iran-Contra
Adnan Khashoggi
John Hull
Clark Clifford
Jackson Stephens

It won't make your eyes uncross, but it will give you something to think about: John Kerry has gone after the crooks in Washington. As President, he'll protect this country and do what's right for ALL the people, not just the rich.

[moondust]

48. Iraq resolution.

"The person to blame here is not the man who got lied to, who believed the highest ranking intelligence officer in America. The person to blame here is that lying intelligence officer, and the administration that compelled him to lie. We are attacking the wrong person here."

Senators Byrd, Kennedy, and others apparently received much the same information but were not conned by it. They stood up at a critical moment when leadership was crucial. It was a defining moment. Kerry failed the leadership test.

His voting record shows that he can be a good senator.

[WilliamPitt]

50. Byrd and Kennedy

were voting on a constitutional standing, and were not at all dealing with WMD factual issues. Your data is incorrect.

[moondust]

56. But if

credible WMD factual issues had existed they would not have let a "constitutional standing" interfere with their duty to provide for the national defense.

Granting unlimited military power to George Bush (or anybody else) was a mistake under any circumstances but they would have pushed for and probably found a sane compromise if it had been necessary.

[Egnever]

60. Great post

Lost me with the first quote

[CWebster]

68. Should've limited it to the reasons he is a good senator

rather than the usual excuses as cover for why he has proven himself to be a poor choice for president.

[Octafish]

73. He was an excellent commanding officer in the US Navy.

He put the mission first and the safety of his crew before his own. And he always made the right decision — especially under enemy fire. That's the kind of leadership this country needs.

BTW: Who are you for, Webster? Still for Dean? Can't tell because you always seem to show up to bash Kerry.

[welshTerrier2]

69. but you omit the central argument against Kerry

2) On the war, hindsight says demonstrably that Kerry should not have voted for it. At the time, there was ample evidence that the Bush administration's weapons claims were overblown at best. At the time, however, the administration was also plying Congress with data about Iraqi nukes. Now, a lot of people told Kerry what we now know. But the Director of the CIA said otherwise, and Kerry had to make a choice. The person to blame here is not the man who got lied to, who believed the highest ranking intelligence officer in America. The person to blame here is that lying intelligence officer, and the administration that compelled him to lie. We are attacking the wrong person here.

Bear in mind, as well, this correction to the popular DU fiction, i.e. "Kerry gave Bush a free pass for his bloodthirsty war." Not true. Kerry, among others, made sure that three words were removed from the war resolution: "In the region." That means the administration wanted the legal right to make war on all of the Mideast, and that Kerry and crew took that away from them. Granted, he helped give them the Iraq war, but did so based upon a body of serious lies that, again, deserve to have blame for aforementioned directed at the liars, and not the lied-to.


OK Will ... all points you made are well-taken except the one i quoted here ... here's the problem ... YES, Kerry may have been lied to ... YES, perhaps Kerry can justify his resolution vote because he was lied to ... FINE ...

But what about his current position on Iraq ... that is THE ISSUE now ... Kerry will not utter the words: THE WAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED !!! he just won't do it ... and why not ?? YES, he criticized bush's lies ... I'm glad he did ... YES, there were colossal intelligence failures on which he relied ... OK ... but, these lies and intelligence failures were used as THE JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR ... Kerry is willing to acknowledge the lies and failures but refuses to take the next step ...

and he's dead wrong for not doing so ... Kerry needs to come to the light !! I cannot support him, even given his long list of accomplishments, when he refuses to condemn such an obvious, unjustified tragedy as the invasion of Iraq ... sometimes, even one evil deed overrides many good deeds ... the damage caused to Iraq, to the U.S., to the war on terrorism, to the U.N., and to the cause of international peace is severe enough to transcend Kerry's many fine accomplishments ... until he acknowledges the war was not justified, because it was predicated on a pack of lies and propaganda, Kerry is not worthy of our support.

[FubarFly]

79. This is my concern as well...

I do not believe that we can defeat b*sh without having a united Democratic Party, and I do not believe Kerry will unite the party unless he reconciles his war vote. If he thinks he can ignore a large percentage of the liberal, anti-war, Democratic Party base in the belief that they will come around and vote for him simply because he is opposing b*sh, then he is wrong. IMHO, that is a serious miscalculation.

We can't afford to have people stay home or vote third party simply because Kerry didn't demonstrate the political skills to bridge our differences now. It is my fear that if this rift is allowed to grow the damage that will be done to our Party will be irrepairable. If that happens, b*sh will get reselected, and everybody will lose. So far, Kerry has done little to ease my concerns.


---

BTW, Thanks for posting this, Will. You've reminded me of some the things I had forgotten about Kerry. I believe that overall, despite my obvious differences with him, Kerry a good man. Although my support of Dean will be unwavering throughout the primaries, it is my fervent hope that Kerry rediscovers his leadership skills. It's always good to have a solid Plan B.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

72. i'de vote for kerry...DK is my first tho

[molly]

74. Great thread, Will - I've recommended it in other forums

[mlawson]

76. My sole criterion: Is Candidate X the BEST chance to beat GWB????

Whether "X" be Kerry or any other of the nine (ten). The 20% of center voters who vote non-politically will not be aware of the list of positions you have posted about Sen Kerry, nor might they care. They vote from the 'gut', and their criteria would make us shake our heads in disdain; above all, they vote for the candidate they LIKE the most. And if we do not believe that, simply review the 2000 election.

So, sadly, we might ask: Is Kerry the most LIKABLE nominee we can put up against bush??? I am not so sure about that. And yes, it really does matter, to the segment of voters that decides elections.

[Old and In the Way]

78. Interesting enough, for the very reason many condemn Kerry

here, he might actually swing undecided and even some Republicans who respect his service and vote to support the Iraq resolution. I was not particularly happy with his position, Democrats should have voted as a block and would have been vindicated in their position today, I think.

That said, this vote was timed so as to be a factor in the mid-terms and many Democrats yielded to the politics of deciding to be safe on this issue.

But as much as I thought the reasons for this war were phony, I didn't have the US intel on SH and his capabilities and motivatons to nail us. Was it a stretch to think SH hated America? Why wouldn't he want to back us back after the DS1 debacle and perhaps the treachery of Poppy to boot?

Anyway, if Kerry had to weigh his responsibility to protect America and he was being fed intel that said this was a distinct possibility, maybe probability...would I want him to react in a way to protect the interests of me, my family, and my country? Absolutely. If he had cast an "anti-war" vote and there had been another 9/11 event involving Iraq, his political career would be over...period.

In retrospect, we understand that this administrtation (as many DUer's correctly concluded) lied to Congress, the American people, and the UN to get this war. In retrospect, we know that intel sources were distorted and even falsified to make this bogus case. But I don't know how we can expect our Congress to make informed decisions when the information from Intel agencies is distorted for crass political purposes and hidden economic agendas.

Perhaps Kerry should have went with his gut and come out against the war...but I believe that his vote was to give this pResident the support to make his case at the UN. He didn't and went to war anyway...we now know that and we should be holding him accountable for the crimes of putting his Party/financial backers interests ahead of this country's.

Kerry is still my candidate, but if any other candidate catches fire and wins the Democratic nomination, I'll happily support and contribute to insure a Democrat wins in 2004.

[damnraddem]

77. I'm supporting Dean.

But if Kerry is the nominee, I'll vote for him.

[valniel]

82. This is very good.

Looking forward to future instalments.

[Nicholas_J]

83. Yup will

This is as clear and concise as your book, which obviously took a good deal of effort.