Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Who's the most 'liberal' democrat in the race?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 09:57 PM
Original message
Who's the most 'liberal' democrat in the race?
Edited on Sun Aug-10-03 10:01 PM by gully
Poke around at the link below, you may be surprised at what you find.

I know I was.

http://www.globalstewards.org/democrats.htm#lib

Kerry has the highest 'liberal' quotent score according to Global Stewards, with Dennis Kucinich a close second.

*Note some of the candidates could not be scored fairly b/c they have no voting record* i.e. Dean, Sharpton and Mosely Braun...

Velly Intellesting stuff.

Seeing this makes me realize that ANY Dem in the race is;

Betta Than Bush!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sujan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sharpton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. as of today i'd have to say kucinich
or sharpton

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bombtrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
3. edwards only 2 points behind Kucinich
and more electable than any other by far
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. Kucinich...hands down!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Not according to Global Stewards...
And this site uses actual voting records to calculate....

Look at the section entitled liberal score card...

http://www.globalstewards.org/democrats.htm#lib
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAC Donating Member (81 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I'd say Kucinich
But Kerry plays a mean classical guitar. Saw that on C-span today. thought I'd toss that in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Interestingly enough it appears to be Kerry all around.
Kerry scored higher on enviroment and civil rights then Dennis K...

Kucinich scored higher on workers rights and animal rights then Kerry.

But over all Kerry scored 93% and Kucinich 90%. I found that interesting.

Proof that the Dems are a vast improvement over the Shrub ey?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddhamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. take into consideration too
DK's prior anti-choice vote. that would hurt him on civil rights.
DK is the more progressive
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. They don't appear to have factored the issue of choice in...
Edited on Sun Aug-10-03 10:14 PM by gully
*It was based on the NAACP ratings, and I didn't find the issue of choice on their list of 'issues'...

Also, Kerry is stronger on enviromental issues ...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Kucinich got a good record on the environment too
That said I think he ought to be pretty progressive, he is the head of the progressive cancus, I think Kerry is progressive really too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddhamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. nope. narrow view
DK argues for the dismantling of NAFTA and the WTO
you can't get any better on the enviroment than that or human rights for that matter--never mind civil rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Dismantaling is not as good as 'fixing' IMHO...
There are good things about having open trade KWIM? And, I come from a heavy pro union backround BTW, so I understand the issues against NAFTA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddhamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. yeah me too
my mom was a union rep
trade isn't the problem. i think our understanding of the issues are different.
just opinion. everyone has one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiLempa Donating Member (736 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-03 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #15
30. NAFTA can't be reformed
NAFTA can't be reformed! It's an investors rights agreement. By nature it protects corporations and those that invest in them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tameszu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. Dismantling NAFTA and the WTO...
...would be terrible for the environment and for human rights, if you could not propose anything constructive with which to replace it. I'm not a huge fan of NAFTA, but at least it gets those issues on the table. It also provides a point of focus for environmentalists and human rights activists to push for reform.

On the other hand, I think the WTO is often confused with the IMF and gets incorrectly demonized by activists--although not some of their leaders. Greenpeace, for example, while overly slick at times, knows how to lobby the WTO effectively. The alternative--repeal of multilateral treaties--is a very messy form of default global laissez faire, in which every country will just promote its own interests. Not a helpful context for improving environmental or human rights.

Progressives are much better off promoting internatinal institutions that can advance environmental and human rights causes and reforming trade organizations so that they actually live up to the politicians' and trade ministers' rhetoric. Their multilateral-ness, as we've seen on foreign policy, is a good thing, not a bad thing. Remember that the WTO is a UN-family institution.

Such institutions allow weaker countries leverage versus stronger countries, and a forum where NGOs can voice moral claims to the entire international community. They give the international community a concrete "home address" to which progressive activists can press for reform--think about how the WTO meetings crystalized in the anti-globalization protests. As you might have guessed, I don't think the combined "anti" message of the protesters was precisely the right one, but I admire that they were trying to do something. I just wish they'd jointly articulate a constructive alternative.

Abolishing the WTO without advocating something to replace it would result in a terrible alternative for progressive activists: a mess of bilateral treaties that they would have to individually attack one by one and a lack of a global perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddhamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. not me i am clear on the differences between the two
Edited on Sun Aug-10-03 10:54 PM by buddhamama
IMF WTO, easy.

how to fix when the corporations have their hands in it.
The WTO is now a corporate shield to do whatever.

fixing it in its current form is not possible.
dismantle it slowly if necessary but the whole system needs to be reworked.
and setting up more institutions to counter the damage would be ineffective.

http://www.seen.org
this link deals only with energy issues
look up the WTO(not to be mistaken for the IMF)

the corruption is ingrained
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddhamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. DK on the issues of the IMF and WTO
"International Monetary Fund Reform

Congressman Kucinich has been instrumental in drawing Congressional attention to the effects of the IMF's harsh economic policies on developing countries. For the past two years, Kucinich has insisted that future funds for the IMF must be conditioned on an end to the IMF's imposition of those policies, which cause unemployment, environmental despoilation, and a deterioration of health and education.

In the 107th Congress, Kucinich has tried to protect gains made in previous Congresses. He testified to the Foreign Operations Subcommittee that an important reform banning user fees for certain essential services was being undermined by the Department of Treasury. here.
In the 106th Congress (1999-2000), the House made two important advances. Rep. Kucinich offered an amendment to direct the Department of Treasury to create an inventory of all the instances in which the IMF requires borrowing countries to privatize industry and government services, deregulate environmental and financial laws, roll back labor law reforms, and raise interest rates. The Chairman of the subcommittee agreed to include acceptable language in the bill to obtain such a study. In exchange, the amendment was withdrawn. The House also passed an amendment offered in the Foreign Operations subcommittee by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. to prohibit the IMF from requiring developing countries to charge fees for health services and education. Those fees have been shown to discourage poor people from receiving health care and education for their children. In addition, Rep. Kucinich was the only member of Congress invited to speak to the tens of thousands of people who demonstrated against the IMF and World Bank in Washington, DC on April 16, 2000.

In the 105th Congress, Congressman Kucinich was one of the leading advocates of IMF reform. Congressman Kucinich introduced a bill with Congressman Jim Saxton, a senior Republican from New Jersey, to press for reform of the IMF and deliver meaningful debt cancellation to the world's poorest countries (HR 2939). The bill was the inspiration for a successful amendment offered in the Banking Committee that delinked debt relief from obligating poor countries to follow IMF economic policies. That amendment passed on November 3, 1999. In the 105th Congress, Congressman Kucinich was a leader in the effort to prevent IMF expansion, and his activities helped to delay a $18 billion expansion by nearly one year. Notably, Kucinich successfully lobbied other Members of Congress when a procedural motion was raised to require that Congress give the IMF expansion funds. The motion was defeated on April 23, 1998.

Congressman Kucinich was also successful in eliminating a "plant closing provision" of the IMF funding bill. The bill contained investment deregulation conditions that would have automatically applied if funds were appropriated for the IMF. Those conditions would have had the effect of encouraging plant closings in the U.S., since the IMF would have been guaranteeing conditions that multinational corporations seek when they transfer capital from the U.S. to developing nations. Those conditions were also the subject of negotiation in the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). Congressman Kucinich lobbied other members of Congress in the leadership to eliminate those conditions.

What is Fast Track (a.k.a. Trade Promotion Authority)?

Fast Track is a procedural straightjacket designed to speed Congressional votes on international trade agreements. Congressman Kucinich has opposed Fast Track legislation since coming to Washington.

He was one of the leaders of the effort that defeated Fast Track in 1997 and 1998. Fast Track would have enabled the U.S.Trade Representative to negotiate an expansion of NAFTA to the rest of South America and other countries.

There is good reason to oppose Fast Track. Namely, it ushered in NAFTA. The North American Free Trade Agreement has caused numerous problems since it was enacted in 1993. The U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has ballooned. As a result of increased imports from our NAFTA partners, American workers have lost thousands of good paying jobs. At the same time, some companies have used the threat of moving jobs to Mexico to place downward pressure on wages and benefits for American workers. Meanwhile, the labor side agreement to NAFTA has proven to be totally ineffective. The real value of wages for Mexican workers has declined since NAFTA was enacted, and not a single company has been cited for violations of worker rights or labor standards.

In addition, serious concerns have been raised about environmental problems and food and truck safety under NAFTA. The degradation of the environment has escalated along our border with Mexico, and the environmental side agreement has proved to be a complete failure. At the same time, it is abundantly clear that the U.S. government is not adequately inspecting trucks and agricultural products that enter this country, thereby threatening the health and safety of the general public. Furthermore, the sovereignty of local, state and federal authorities to protect their constituents from environmental and other dangers is severely undermined by the investor rights section (Chapter 11) of NAFTA.

If granted Fast Track authority, the new administration hopes to expand NAFTA to encompass all countries in the Americas. This Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) would export the destructive effects of NAFTA throughout our hemisphere.

For all of these reasons, Rep. Kucinich is convinced that Congress should continue to reject any fast track legislation. We need to make sure that the serious problems which have arisen under NAFTA are addressed in a meaningful way before we rush ahead with expanding this trade agreement to the rest of South America.

What is the WTO?

The World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995. It is the result of Uruguay Round of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiations. The WTO consists of 16 agreements on subjects ranging from domestic patent law to food safety regulations - and has 135 member countries. The WTO transformed the GATT, a consensus-based trade pact that focused primarily on tariff and quota cuts, into a new global commerce agency that allows member countries to challenge any of each other's laws as "illegal barriers to trade." The WTO can enforce its rulings and force countries to get rid of disputed laws by approving retaliatory economic sanctions against the losing country. In its five-year existence, WTO dispute panels have almost exclusively ruled against the challenged laws, which are often health and safety related.

The WTO Has No Minimum Human or Worker Rights Criteria for Membership:

Under WTO rules, as long as it met WTO commercial obligations, Nazi Germany would not be disqualified from WTO membership based on its conduct. WTO rules do not require that member countries (or countries wishing to gain WTO membership) respect or enforce internationally agreed core human and labor rights standards. WTO policy explicitly enables countries to ignore global norms relating to collective bargaining, child labor, and forced labor as a strategy to reduce production costs and gain a competitive advantage vis-a-vis manufacturers in other countries. The WTO thus has put in motion a global trading regime whose rules reward the players who are most exploitative of labor, promoting a race-to-the-bottom that undercuts advancement of international labor rights and the improvement of standards of living worldwide.

GATT/WTO Rules Threaten Efforts to Protect Labor Rights:
Many people want to stop child labor, but the WTO blocks the most obvious ways of doing that. For instance, the WTO prohibits our use of a ban on the import of products made with child labor. GATT rules prohibit distinguishing among products based on how they are made. This means that a WTO Member country cannot ban goods produced in forced labor camps, goods made by children under abusive conditions or goods produced in violation of other internationally recognized labor or human rights. This is confirmed by a U.S. Congressional Research Service report, which warned that a U.S. proposal to ban the products of child labor would subject the U.S. to a GATT challenge.

The WTO agreement on government procurement bans the consideration of non-commercial factors (such as human and labor rights) in government purchasing decisions. One mechanism with which to improve both government and corporate accountability is to reserve lucrative public contracts for socially responsible businesses. But the WTO denies citizens this type of control over the use of their own tax dollars. Under WTO government procurement rules, countries can only take into consideration commercial factors when awarding contracts. These rules have been used by the EU and Japan to challenge a Massachusetts state selective purchasing law against corporations in business with Burma's human-rights-violating regime.

WTO rules on product standards cast worker safety safeguards as illegal trade barriers: Under new WTO rules, even workplace safety laws can be challenged as illegal trade restrictions. Canada is pressing such a challenge against France's ban on asbestos.

The WTO undermines the sovereignty of countries.

The WTO has taken away the freedom of citizens to pass laws freely. The proof is in the numbers: The total number of completed WTO cases: 65. The number of instances countries have changed their laws or policies in response to WTO challenge: 59.

The U.S. uses the WTO to protect compact disk makers and bananas, not workers.

The WTO is not used by the U.S. to protect worker rights. Instead, the U.S. is most likely to use the WTO to protect patents and copyrights. The number of WTO challenges initiated by the US: 30. The chances that a US challenge targeted patent or copyright laws: 1 in 3. Another U.S. priority is bananas. The U.S. has vigorously used the WTO to open Europe to bananas grown in Central America by Chiquita brands, a U.S.-based multinational corporation. Bananas did not build America. Steel and auto did. But this shows that the administration cares more about bananas than about steel or automobiles. Such a trade policy is, in a word, bananas.

The WTO has been used to rollback advances in public health programs.

Developing countries face a health and economic crisis due to HIV/AIDS. At the same time, they cannot afford the market price for antiretroviral drug treatment.

Brazil's answer has been to manufacture generic antiretroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV/AIDS and provide them free of cost to all Brazilians who need them. Brazil's program has been successful; it has reduced the AIDS death rate by half. The World Bank and the United Nations cite Brazil's HIV/AIDS program as one of the best in the world. Nevertheless, the U.S. challenged Brazil for violating WTO intellectual property laws, and the WTO agreed to establish a panel to rule on the case. If the U.S. had won this case, the WTO would have authorized the U.S. to impose punitive economic sanctions on Brazil. Fortunately, the U.S. withdrew its case against Brazil on June 25, 2001, in response to public pressure. "
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
27. These stats are all distorted because DK often voted "pro-life" before
changing his position on this matter last year. Voting on that one issue has skewed the stats of sites like globalstewards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-03 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. and most of those votes
were GOP cosmetic votes for their prolife base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dagaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. Clearly DK
He's got big time Green support in CA. If he wanted to switch they'd run him if the laws allowed and he wanted to (which I doubt).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
13. Kerry is a good guy
However, Dean is a stronger fighter, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I'm a Deaner too!
But, they say Dean supporters are first and formost "Anybody but Bush'ers" who will do what it takes to remove Bush from office.

That would be me... :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-03 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
31. Fighting for progressive Democratic values for many years,
or fighting to get elected as a progressive Democrat for 7 months. I'll take the REAL fighter who has been in the trenches working FOR Democratic values for their ENTIRE careers over someone who put on that mask just last January.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
17. Kerry is looking REAL good!
That scorecard for Kerry is looking quite liberal. I do believe he is the most electable lib in the bunch.

The most liberal period would be Sharpton, Kucinich, and Braun in that order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Another fun thing I found...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
19. sharpton with braun as vp

no matter how I still go round and round... If sharpton stood back a bit of the race card and made it a labor card and a human card I thing a sharpton braun ticket is really the most progressive...

by the very natures of their american experience they do stand outside the box in a way I like... I know sharpton has his caveats but look at his present company... saints the lot of them? I think not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Sharpton will be good for the cause...
no matter what. He's a helluva speaker!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CMT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
20. DK
is the most liberal candidate in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WyLoochka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
21. Kerry n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
24. Liberal? John Kerry...progressive? Dennis Kucinich
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-10-03 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Depends on your definition of 'progress' I guess???
Edited on Sun Aug-10-03 10:50 PM by gully
And, BTW, what is 'progressive' really?

Also, what the heck is 'liberal'... for that matter? :shrug:

I ask this question as a progressive liberal ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaverickX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-11-03 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
29. I don't think it matters...
It's a very subjective question. Kucinich has a not so liberal social issue voting record, unlike Kerry. Gephardt was once pro-life too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 10th 2024, 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC