politicking, governing and Kerry's run to the center.

[ulysses]

I'm not particularly concerned about a focus in the Kerry campaign on centrists and moderates at this point - I think it's to be expected and I would expect it from Dean and even Kucinich (maybe DK even more so) at this point had they won the primaries.

What will concern me is an effort by Kerry, if he wins, to *govern* from the center. At this point, I can't honestly say that I think he will or won't do this, the politicking of any national race at this point being too thick for anything but an educated guess. I will say that we can't afford it.

If history is any kind of guide, then even assuming that Kerry wins two terms and then his successor achieves the same thing, we can still reasonably expect another Republican administration in most of our lifetimes. And that's the best-case scenario. Given that the GOP shows no sign of the moderation that many in our own party hold so dear, it would seem to me the essense of foolishness to follow, again, a sort of "radical centrist" path during another Democratic administration when there is a good change of another strong yank to the east around the corner.

If governance is compromise (and it is), one is wise to not start from a centrist position against an extreme opponent. Someone (freetobegay, I think) recently made the analogy that while Kerry offers water instead of the (illusory, in his post) beer that Nader offers, Bush doesn't even offer water. Fair enough on Bush, but the analogy is flawed in the sense that it makes the things that Nader talks about - regaining control of government from corporations, etc - luxuries along the lines of beer. They're not, and if we spend another Democratic administration accepting what we get because it's better that what we got before, we're going, down the line, to find ourselves even more deeply screwed than we are now.

Does Kerry truly offer more than water? Can he? We won't find out for sure until he's in office, and for now I think we do right by ourselves to bear in mind the difference between electoral strategy and governmental goals. One is left to hope that John Kerry bears it in mind as well.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Here's the way I see it. If Kerry can create a TREND back towards

the center from the extreme right, then it will trickle into other areas of government. We have lost congress for the foreseeable future given the number of states in which Repubs have gerrymandered districts through 2010. At least we can put the senate in our sights again

But with Kerry having the national mouthpiece, at least we can move back towards the center in the national conversation which is far better than where we are now.

[ulysses]

2. I'm fine with momentum.

A trend would be great, but *someone* has to start that conversational movement. It's the same thing most of us out here on the "fringe" have been talking about for three years. :)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. I agree which is why I favored Kucinich's method

It took the right 30 years so a lot is contingent on our resoluteness in the matter

[ulysses]

7. that's true.

I meant to bring up DK again in the initial post. I'm glad he's still running.

[Cocoa]

3. according to history, Kerry should move to the left

I've heard there's a pattern of presidents with long Congressional records, to move away from the center after being elected president. They're freed from the need to compromise that every member of Congress is bound by.

[ulysses]

5. we may hope.

Who was our last nominee fresh from Capitol Hill? I'm genuinely not sure, and I'm too lazy to look it up...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. JFK..no?

[ulysses]

10. I think you're right, yes.

:thumbsup:

[jpgray]

11. Well, technically LBJ, right? (nt)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. I stand corrected

[ulysses]

13. guess it depends on how you define "fresh"

LBJ was fresh from the vice-presidency, as I define it. Otherwise, we would perhaps name Gore to the capacity. :shrug:

[jpgray]

14. Gore was Vice President for eight years

LBJ became President very near to his Senate career, in comparison.

[ulysses]

15. I know

but I had more in mind candidates who came directly from the Congress.

[jpgray]

16. That's why I put the technically

I was thinking came to first term from Senate sense, so just a mutual misunderstanding, methinks. :hi:

[Old and In the Way]

6. I agree with NSMA.....real change will happen only when we take back

Congress. But I think it's important for Kerry to win big. The greater the margin, the more the mandate he has to drive a new agenda. Worst case is a a squeeker win and Republican retention of both Houses. With the exception of the Supreme Court, the Republicans will make progressive legislation near impossible.

[ulysses]

8. Newt Gingrich didn't share that attitude in 1993.

:)

[kodi]

17. he'll move to the center only if the gop holds both houses of congress

otherwise the democrats who hold the other house will provide kerry enough legislative support to get his "more liberal" policies initiated.

and to be sure, any of these houses the democrats would control will be composed of a more liberal group than it is presently.

[ulysses]

18. rewind to 1993

and the extent to which the GOP rolled over and played dead when confronted with an *entirely* Democratic government.

and to be sure, any of these houses the democrats would control will be composed of a more liberal group than it is presently.

And, as I've said via other metaphors, diabetes is preferable to cancer. One still fights for a cure.

ed. for grammar