So if Kerry is just campaigning from the center

[tinanator]

will we have to wait until his second term for the REAL John Kerry to govern from his liberal POV?

[Gman]

1. Maybe

If he wants to get reelected. Look at what Bush is doing as an example of what NOT to do. Bush ran from the middle and lurched to the extreme right. Now he's in real danger of not getting reelected.

[Gasolinedream]

2. Very accurate...

He went WAY right after being "centrist"!

[rasputin1952]

7. bush was never a 'centrist'...

all of the warning signs were in place...he had a good team that covered up the mistakes in TX; even while TX'ans were screaming that bush was a dud.

Now we are seeing what bush really is, the 'sheeps clothing' is stripped away. I can think of NOTHING that bush has done that has benefitted the country, zero, zilch, zip...nothing.

This is, quite simply, the WORST administration this country has ever had, bar none.....x(

[Gman]

9. All very true but

the point is he ran as a centrist, a "uniter, not a divider" (wretch!).

In the same vein, Kerry is no more a centrist than Bush. But you have to run from the middle to have a chance to win.

[ibegurpard]

14. The problem with that is

Republicans run from the center to get elected and it's a lie...they govern from the right. However, the Democrats seem to have a fairly recent history of running from the center and actually GOVERNING the same way. Not that I have a problem with "centrism" per se but with how completely out of balance we are politically right now it doesn't give us much bargaining room when it comes to enacting public policy.

[Gman]

17. The center is a matter of personal perspective

A Nader supporter thinks Kerry is right of center. The lunatic fringe right wing thinks Bush is left of center.

Clinton did not govern totally from the center at all. Remember one of the first things he did in January 93 was issue the "don't ask, don't tell" order that legalized gays in the military. While that may not have gone far enough for some people, it was a "radical" move to the left for the military. There's countless other examples where Clinton did other left governing things.

[Classical_Liberal]

21. Is there anything progressive about the Sharon plan?

?

[eumesmo]

30. You're right

about the perspective point. "Right" or "left" depends on the viewer, who is, by definition, in the center.

[Onlooker]

3. No

He has to campaign from the center because it's more important he gets independents to vote for him than Nader supporters. Secondly, any of his stands will be subject to interpretation once he's in the White House. Kerry has very good liberal credentials overall, and I assume he'll be more progressive as a president than as a candidate. Bush and Reagan also ran toward the center, but once they got in the White House they're evil ways took hold.

[LoZoccolo]

11. Also...

...it's more likely that he can retain independant support. If the Nader supporters are this fickle now, can you count on them to not find some one other issue later on which they'll decide to depart?

[tinanator]

12. fickle? depart?

How about resolute and unwelcome? Not once this election have the DLC supporters discussed the size and shape of their tent. I see the Republicans making gains with Latinos, gays and non voters. Polls or no polls, what happens in November is all that matters. Strategies of anti-left revilement are somewhat dangerous, particularly when the biggest real issue confronting citizens is the Iraq situation, and it will bite Kerry in the ass hard.

[LoZoccolo]

13. If this small segment of people still think there's no difference...

...this makes them terribly difficult to court. Someone on here said that they want "100% correctness". Why would someone running for office try to attract people like that? You never know if you're gonna do 99% of what they want and they'll run away because of the 1%. Meanwhile, here in reality, the rest of us want some things to get better, or even just not get worse, and - regrettably - have to compromise in order to see this change in reality because the Democrats are going to go further to the center if they can't count on further-left votes.

[tinanator]

15. what is better?

fewer US casualties? No illegal wars of aggression? Define better. If Democratic Party doesnt desire progressive support, bitching about third parties is straight up fascism. That small segment of people is nearly every activist I know. And thats a few. In a close election wouldnt you WANT to be inclusive? Are the majority of Americans against peace and prosperity?

[LoZoccolo]

18. Against peace and prosperity?

fewer US casualties? No illegal wars of aggression? Define better.

I can't believe you'd think there's no difference between Bush* and Kerry.

If Democratic Party doesnt desire progressive support, bitching about third parties is straight up fascism.

No it isn't. It's using my free speech to bitch. Plus my whole argument to these "progressives" (it's in quotes because I would think that the first eight letters of "progressive" is "progress") is that if they are willing to sacrifice almost all of what they want to try to get all of what they want (and end up with none of what they want, as well as none of what a lot of other people are working hard to get), why would the rest of the party think they could rely on them? You're creating an issue of not being able to rely on "progressive" support.

In a close election wouldnt you WANT to be inclusive?

Well yeah. But I could see why they wouldn't make this segment a priority because, again, if they still do things like say there's no difference between Bush* and Kerry, you don't know if they'll find some other issue to mutiny on later. So in a close election they are being inclusive...to the center, which is probably less likely to play chicken with their vote.

Are the majority of Americans against peace and prosperity?

The majority of Americans don't know how your issues translate into peace and prosperity. Part of participating in democracy is getting your message to be important to enough people so that the candidates can't ignore it. Look at how gay and lesbian activists have been very successful in doing this sort of thing despite being a small group of people; I don't know why the people who adopt Nader's type of issues won't adopt the same sort of strategy rather than the "I will nullify everything the rest of the party cares about and is working hard for because not many people understand my issue to make it a priority" strategy.

[tinanator]

19. high stakes gambling with impossible odds

give the swing voters two faux centrists to choose from, one widely known now as an extreme imperialist, the other as a supportive imperialist with a liberal past. Please give me ONE example of where this strategy has paid off for the Democrats? Perot could have beaten Bush the 41st in 92, so dont give Clinton as an example, Bush had no chance. I can name many centrist/Republican platform hugging Democratic would be and recalled governors in California that seem to disprove the strategy. Kathleen Brown was a textbook example. It doesnt work, if your goal is getting a Democrat elected.

[LoZoccolo]

20. Gore in 2000.

Give me an issue such that if Kerry would support it, it would guarantee enough support from Nader voters for Kerry to win. My whole point is, if this segment doesn't think that Kerry is at least somewhat better than Bush* now, and is willing to throw the election to Bush* even now, they are extremely difficult if not impossible to court. You just don't know if you give them X, if they'll find Y as a reason not to give support.

[tinanator]

22. war

and that would draw from all over. Your worries shouldnt be the third party voters, it should be the stay at home non voters. Its war.
And clearly, this should be a Democratic Party issue of the first order. For it not to be is an absolute indictment.

[LoZoccolo]

23. What is it good for?

I was way against this war, and even I know it wouldn't be good to just pull out of this one and let people kill each other over there. It would be nice if everything would be OK if we did. I just don't see that position as being very widely held either (or responsible of Iraqi lives for that matter).

[tinanator]

24. the Iraqi lives we are destroying right now?

will be worse off without us there, destroying Iraqi lives? That's really hard to follow.

[LoZoccolo]

25. You know what I'm talking about.

They've threatened to start a civil war whether we're there or not. If we left it'd be rule of the strong and yes, I believe it would be worse. I don't like what's happening there now either and never wanted to go there if we didn't have to. That's why this is a quagmire. But I don't like this "let's leave and at least it won't be our fault" sentiment I've seen a little bit of here (I'm not accusing you of that). One thing that'd almost definately happen is that any Iraqi's that were seen as helping us could get attacked - that's a consequence of us being there already, and we need to take responsibility for it by protecting them. This whole thing is not as simple as people make it out to be, and the reason I take the positions I do is because I care about the Iraqis. I don't have an interest in Halliburton or the oil industry or anything like that, and I don't care if we never see a penny of the reconstruction come back to us.

[Nicholas_J]

27. Actually

The math indicates that a lot fewer Iraqi livbes are being lost right now than disappeared during Saddams Regime, which statistically somes close to being one of the most genocidal regimes of the 20th century, when adjusted for size of region ruled, and number of people murdered. So if its lives you are interested in, why the silence about Saddams regime?

[tinanator]

28. cool, Im glad that info is out there

HOW MANY Iraqis have died in the last year? Thanks in advance!

[Nicholas_J]

39. So far best estimates are

20,000.

Best estimates for Saddam in the last 12 years are a lot more, anywhere from 500,000 to 2 million. So if stay there 12 years, at the same average, we still wont kill as many people as Saddam did.

Certainly will not jail, torture or rape as many.

[tinanator]

46. thats funny I heard we killed that many children over the same period

with sanctions? The only thing I could quickly find on HRW was
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/04/iraq042703.htm
I guess Saddam was awfully busy.

[tinanator]

31. Again, do you mind sharing those numbers and/or the math?

Thanks!

[LoZoccolo]

35. I probably would have supported a human rights case against Saddam.

That sort of interventionism is a liberal policy. But one was not made, and we didn't follow the actions we'd take if we'd made one.

[Nicholas_J]

40. We wouldnt have anyway

Americans are not prone to go to war for humanitarian reasons.

The Saddam Estimates come from Human Right Watch

[freetobegay]

4. Yawn

eom

[tinanator]

5. wake up sleepy head

Going to the chapel cuz were gonna get married...

[freetobegay]

6. LOL

:hi:

[blondeatlast]

8. ROFLMAO! It could happen...

[otohara]

10. When Guys Like Bill Kristol Agree w/ Kerry

more than Bush - ummm.....NO

[Classical_Liberal]

16. He's campaigning from the right

on the peace process. He is to the right of the UN, Carter and Clinton, and the EU leaders except for Blair, who wants Bush to win. I don't know if you can even expect it in his second term. He appears to have changed over time.

[Angry Black Man]

26. exactly!!

You can see it com'n.. if we're lucky and Kerry beats Bush, what have we won? Kerry ain't gett'n out of Iraq anytime soon. We've sold our souls to beat Bush. I'd rather support an anti-war candidate and look myself in the mirror the next day then sell out to some two-time rich cat who looks like Bush-lite to me.

Where's the courage around here? You'all will'n to sell out just to beat Bush? Aint worth it to me.

[sangh0]

29. So it's all about how YOU feel?

I'd rather support an anti-war candidate and look myself in the mirror the next day then sell out to some two-time rich cat who looks like Bush-lite to me.

And then you want to talk about courage?

[ulysses]

32. we all vote by our best lights.

Yeah, frankly, voting choices ARE about how we feel as individuals.

[sangh0]

41. How hypocritical

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=504662#505671

Now you defend voting based on how one feels, but in the other post, you criticize someone for voting based on they feel

[ulysses]

43. actually, no.

The other thread had to do with a poster who wanted to be made to feel *good* as opposed to a recognition of the fact that, in the end, we're alone with ourselves when we vote. Different things, but perhaps too much nuance for you?

[sangh0]

44. Not too much nuance - not enough honesty

In both cases, the poster justified their argument on the basis of how it made them feel. While you claim that one was just "a recognition of the fact", it's obviously untrue because it's just as much a fact that people engage in political discussion because of how it makes them feel.

You criticize one "fact", while merely acknowledging one.

[ulysses]

45. ...

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=sophistry+

[Nimble_Idea]

33. that ain't courage you have son

it's stoopid.

Get your emotions in order, and grow up.

[tinanator]

34. and that aint democracy

its vulgar bullying. One man one vote, right? Not if someone else tells you how to cast it. Of course Im under no delusions of democracy in this country, and clearly neither are you.

[Nimble_Idea]

38. how the heck is that vulgar bullying??

I never said he can't vote the way he wanted.

I'm only suggesting that he should try to get a hold of his emotions and SOMETIMES do whats BEST for the country and not just think about ONESELF.

HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.
BUT I CAN ALSO TELL HIM I THINK ITS WRONG.

I can control his vote as much as he can control mine in that we can try to convince each other depending ON HOW WE MAKE OUR CASE.

MY case is SIMPLE, SHRUB MUST GO. sorry if that ain't enuff.
But my emotions will be on a real sour if Shrub wins and it's because of Nader people like him and you.

It would probably lead to a mass exodus of DEMS to the REPS because it's the only way to survive the onslaught from the RIGHT, when they are given the IDEA that they are ALL POWERFULL and can't be stopped.

Ever see the Movie Kangeroo Jack? Please go see the part where the friends are caught by the bad guys.



Please, spare me with the bully this, bully that.

[sangh0]

42. Here's how it's vulgar bullying

Some people are so sensitive and self-absorbed that requests that they think of someone else do so much damage to their tender psyches that it is, for all practical purposes, bullying.

[corporatewhore]

36. apparently alotta people like bush's policies just not bush

[LoZoccolo]

37. zzzz

:boring: