Sucking out the enthusiasm. .."Bush is bad" is not an agenda.

There is one reason to support Kerry. That one reason is the Bush administration.

That's fine for all who are already anti-Bush. Kerry's got the votes of most of those who are shocked and appalled by what has occurred for the last three years.

But is that enough to win? I think not.

The one criticism of the GOP that is accurate (IMO) is that Kerry is a "flip-flopper." He has no core that he is willing to stand up for.

Kerry is not offering anything to convince those who are on the fence about Bush. Kerry is following the "path of least resistance" of the DLC Centrist Corporate Pablum.

Kerry thinks providing an alternative is to call Republicans "crooks and liars." Or to insult Bush. His only message seems to be "Bush is bad. I'll do a better job."

Many people -- myself included -- agree with that.

But the fatal flaw of centrism is once again being repeated. By seeking the support of the Corporate Elite and the apolitical moderates, they are offering nothing different, nothing new, nothing to truly address the causes of the problems. And thus, nothing to make those very same "swing voters" decide to support Kerry instead of sticking with the familiar incumbent.

He refuses to accept the fact that Bush is a symptom of a deeper problem stemming from concentration of wealth and power. He refuses to addresses that issue in any meaningful way, other than obvious pandering slogans....The "swing voter" who sorta likes Bush but is open minded is not getting anything to convince them that Kerry will do any better.


If Kerry was some charismatic charmer like Clinton -- or a highly principled leader -- he might get away with that. But he is neither. He is a mediocre politician, and one with a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease. (At least when Howard Dean put his foot in his mouth it was usually mere political naivete instead of cynical manipulation of the truth.)


And if Kerry keeps up this course,he will continue to suck out the enthusiasm that characterized the early phases of the primaries. And -- alas, it will be more liukely that the dreaded Ralph Nadwer is going to steal the tiny sliver needed to make the difference. And we will get "Four More Years" of Bush.

I just hope Kerry wakes up really soon and realize that name calling with no substance is not going to cut it.

:eyes:

Is this really supposed to help?

but it's always sweet when a poster backs it up with facts to back up all those assertions.... Or is that too much work?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x526835

From today's Late Breaking News. The only message he is sending with any conviction is telling the corporate elite that they have nothing to fear from Kerry. He'll protect their interests, and he won't do any of those nasty old liberal things like a strong plan for health care.

Just one example.

I don't know many swing or independent voters who view taking down the corporate machinery as their main voting issue.

I'm kind of confused here. Are you saying he should be appealing to the center or to the far left? Because I dont' know any centrists who view anti-corporatism as their biggest gripe.

"I don't know many swing or independent voters who view taking down the corporate machinery as their main voting issue. I'm kind of confused here. Are you saying he should be appealing to the center or to the far left? Because I dont' know any centrists who view anti-corporatism as their biggest gripe."

You're right that most swing voters are anti-corporate. But they are angry, scared and feel powerless...It's part of the human condition, but it also has specific causes today, such as the behavior of corporations that people can see -- and those they can't see.

The problem (IMO of course) is that the Democrats stopped addressing this from the other side. The GOP on the otehr hand, remnained on the offense and identified Big Government and evil liberals as the culprit for that sense of powerlessness.....Without a stroing opposition to that message, people either blame liberalism and/or the government.

While the "style" of Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich may not have been winning, the basic substance of their message could have been. neither are drastic radicals -- but they do address the fundamental effects these trends have had on society and on individuals. If a variation of that message were backed by the Democratic Party in a major mainstream way, I believe it would be a real and viable counterpoint to the Bush agenda.

continue to fail to make the case for corporate reform, and every other necessary progressive reform. They are weak-willed followers; they do not lead on anything. This is not the way to motivate and inspire people to support the democratic party.

I find it very clueless to cite the WSJ in support of any argument against a liberal Dem, or ANY Dem for that matter. You might as well have cited Drudge.

Do you really think a paper that editorializes about how the poor are "Lucky Duckies" because they pay so little in taxes is a credible source?

The WSJ is pretty much two completely different papers between the actual reporting (which is quite good), and the editorial page (which is a collection of RW crackpots). It's highly disingenuous to place the entire paper in the same collection as the Moonie Times and NY Post.

Having read through the post referenced, I cannot tell because there is no link to the article.

It is not news article. It is not reporting new facts that have come to light. Even though you can't read the entire thing, it is obvious from the excerpts posted that this piece involves a whole lot of analysis and interpretation.

It's highly disingenuous to place the entire paper in the same collection as the Moonie Times and NY Post.

So you say, but the WSJ does belong with the Moonie Times and NYP, neither of which has gone so far as to say that the poor are "Lucky Duckies". The only disingenousness going on here is

1) the attempt to portray Kerry as too pro-corporate, and lacking a message, on the basis of one WSJ article

2) the attempt to portray criticism of that weak argument as sensitivity to criticism of a "dear leader"

3) the complete lack of any effort to support the claims in #1.

Why don't you stop attacking those who disagree with you (ex. "too sensitive", "dear leader", "disingenous") and instead defend Armstead's argument with some facts?

How many times over the primary season did we hear "So and so speaks out against bush...." ....." so and so takes the fight to bush!!!!" as if that was all that mattered.

So who can blame the candidates for thinking that red meat for the base is all that matters?

in the general election, when there are independents, you have to give them a reason to vote FOR you. You have to have a platform that is distinct from your opponent.

Dean offered a plan that was different than Bush's and that was clear, and he was unafraid to stand up for it.

Kerry gives us promises of more troops in Iraq, and the idea that corporate tax cuts will somehow create jobs, and he gives Bush's ability to fight terror his personal thumbs-up.

Bush is a product of the Corporate Elite taking over the reins of power in the country so completely that the economy is now working against average Americans and the poor; we have this crazy foreign policy in which the US Military is just an arm of the Multinational Corporations; healthcaqre has become a luxury, etc. etc.

Taking the fight to Bush is not just a matter of insults and name calling...As bad as Bush is, he is merely a figurehead.

Taking the fight to Bush should really mean taking the fight to the self-destructive assumptions that both parties have sold over the last 20 years.

It meansd bringing the center back to the real center, not the corporate conservative center.

How dare you criticize our perfect, "electable" candidate John Kerry!

If we had nominated Dean, we would lose 52 states as well as Mozambique.

Don't you know that all swing voters love Vietnam and anyone who served? I mean they NEVER elect anyone who got out of serving in Vietnam.

Stop helping Bush :eyes:

(/sarcasm)

I agree with the original poster. I have no clue where kerry stands on anything. I've been tempted to post for help from kerry supporters, but they don't seem to like deaniacs or accuse us of our questions having ulterior motives. so all i am left with is vote for kerry and asking people if they are registered to vote.

Yep, it's sure fatal. Got Clinton elected twice.

in the bigger picture put the Republicans on the ascendancy and the Democrats on the decline....Plus the fact that the problems that Bush represents were enabled by the Democrats, which created the conditions that allowed GW to take over so smoothly.

who only got 43% of the vote? and who defeated a boring centrist Repug in 1996?

Nice try, though.

SO, re-reading the post to which you responded, it could easily be interpreted as factual -- as the 43% remark could be seen as a separate event from the defeat of a boring candidate in 1996.

Nice to see so much loyalty in the Democratic Party.

Kerry could do worse than to emulate him and be President for 8 years.

Yes, he got 43% in a 3-way race. He still beat Dole 43/37.

Gore beat a complete moron by 0.5%. What does that make him if Clinton is such a loser for beating Dole by more than 5%?

Give me a break. What a crock of shit.

You're the one who told the previous poster to "get their facts straight". I simply weighed in to confirm that the poster's assertion WAS factual. You then turned around to accuse me of "trashing" Bill Clinton.

I guess I forgot to read the memo telling me that pointing out facts was no longer considered in good taste, and was the equivalent of "bashing".... :eyes:

clinton isnt a loser,

in 1992, he beat George Bush, most of whose base refused to vote for him, becuase he did the "centrist" thing of raising taxes to address the deficit. Not to mention that Clinton also had universal health care and gay rights in the military as part of his platform. Clinton got more of his base to hang by him than bush could.

in 1996, Dole was a war hero who criticized Clinton for not serving (familiar!) he was also an opponent of Gingrich's rise in the Repub party, he was uninspiring to the republican base, despite the fact they hated clinton almost univerally.

Clinton never faced a Reagan-type republican who could rally the base to work for them. Remember, Reagan was once branded "unelectable" by the Dole-Republicans.

The point is, Clinton was elected DESPITE his centrism, not because of it. His opponents were more centrist than he was.

try again. I meant 1992.

He beat Dole by over 8 million votes. Not quite the poor performance you make it out to be, now is it?

Besides, Kerry would kill for a 6% win in November. 6% would be considered a blowout in this election.

because Dole was a horrible candidate who excited no one on the republican side. Do you think that with all the hate the Repubs had for Clinton, that they would have just lined up behind anyone to get him out? Dole showed that the world doesnt work that way.

We nominated another Dole this time around.

Clinton got elected twice by pluralities-- if not for Ross Perot, it's doubtful he would have won 1992, or even 1996. It was that close.

But since 1992 under the leadership of the centrists, what have we gained? We lost the US Senate and House (after we controlled it for 40 years). We lost more governorships. Currently, the number of Democrats in state legislatures and assemblies is at its lowest level since 1962.

During the Clinton presidency, we did NOT get universal healthcare, even though the Dems controlled both houses of congress. We did get pro-corporate trade agreements like NAFTA, a "welfare reform" plan that put recipients to work at minimum-wage jobs that did little to get them out of poverty. Also, the gap between the rich and poor skyrocketed, and corporations (with the help of the executive branch) succeeded in dismantling depression-era regulations on banking and securities that contributed to the crash of 2000.

Yup, that's some kind of "victory".

in modern history. If you aren't interested in good honest government, or healthy solutions for the environment then that is a serious deficiency in YOUR priorities, imo.

You supported someone who governed as a centrist corporatist and you don't WANT to support the candidate who helped craft the Kyoto Protocol for fairer labor standards and better environmental protections. I think you have an odd sense of WHO is a corporatist.

Kerry under the guise of "helping".

... I can speak relatively confidently that his interest is not in "bashing". What he is attempting to engage in here seems more to be honest criticism.

If you doubt his assertions, then please point out facts to counter them, rather than start a pissing match. Otherwise, it lends the counter-impression that you're simply too sensitive to bear any criticism of your "dear leader".

but a real commitment to honesty would suggest viewing the WSJ with a bit of credulity.

If you doubt his assertions, then please point out facts to counter them

Actually, it's Armstead's burden to support his own arguments, and an article from the WSJ doesn't cut it, IMO. Otherwise, it lends the impression that Armstead is too sensitive to critically analyze the facts.

since I seem to remember you writing off commmondreams.org as not credible,
What news sources do you consider at least reasonably "credible"?

"Sucking out the enthusiasm" as a heading? This is nothing but criticism with no intent whatsoever to help anything or anyone. It is NOTHING but a Kerry bash piece.

Perhaps you are the one that needs to reevaluate your interpretations. If you think that this post is in any way intended as "honest criticism", you aren't reading it.

When a liberal critiques Kerry from the left over corporatism, it makes no difference that he has supported that critique with an article from the worlds leading purveryor of corporate propoganda.

But if you criticize the critque, it only shows how sensitive you are when people criticize your "dear leader"

I'm not saying that Kerry has not done positive things in government. I am simply saying that you're making a pretty damned bold assertion that he has "... exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history."

If you're going to make such bold statements, the least you can do is to provide factual backup, along with a comparison of other lawmakers who have been pretty dedicated to exposing corruption and promoting reform.

Thanks in advance....

ON EDIT: Responding to your edit, the Kyoto Protocol had nothing about labor standards, it was purely an environmental standards treaty that came out of the Earth Summit in Rio under Bush I.

BCCI may very well be the largest scandal in history. Kerry uncovered it.

that was fueling the illegal wars in Central America?

Kerry pursued all those investigations even when other Dems tried to block him.

What I find hard to believe is that you don't know this already. Did you ignore all those threads on BCCI and IranContra?

Those investigations exposed the BFEE and much of what we know today is based on information that was uncovered through Kerry's efforts. You can catch up by reading Robert Parry's reporting from that time.

www.consortiumnews.com

However, not to discount the importance of John Kerry's role in any of these, because his role was indeed substantial and he deserves to be commended for his involvement, all of the events you described here were many years ago. It seems to me that much of Kerry's Senatorial career has settled back into more of a "status-quo" kind of pattern, than the crusading young Senator that he was before.

I acknowledge that he was heavily involved in Kyoto. I acknowledge his support for higher CAFE standards. I also acknowledge that he's a lot more liberal than Bill Clinton. However, I also see him as having given a pass when confronted with the biggest issue of our time -- the transformation of our foreign policy from "imperialism couched in humanitarianism" to raw, naked imperialism. I'm talking about the IWR vote.

I know that Bush violated his end of the deal. I know that Bush lied in his reasoning to support the invasion. I know that without Kerry's vote, the unconstitutional giveaway of warmaking power to the executive would have occurred anyway. But when I see and hear a young John Kerry ask how you can ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake, and I contrast that person with the John Kerry who voted for the IWR and then made public pronouncements of his support of the President in invading Iraq, I cannot help but feel wistful. I feel wistful in seeing the man that once was, a man who was idealistic and courageous -- and constrasting that with the man that he is now, a man for whom much of that idealism is gone, a man who has become in many ways captive to his own quest for political power.

Does this mean that I in any way would not vote for him or support him in this election, given the current realities? Of course not. It just leaves me wondering what might have been, if more of that young John Kerry were still with us outside of old recordings and film footage....

BCCI trial is going on RIGHT NOW in England with another BCCI/Bank Of America trial starting in June.

YOU may think its ancient history but it isn't. In fact, everything that is happening today, from 9-11 to Iraq and Mideast policy is rooted in BCCI.

Now...name the lawmaker YOU think surpasses Kerry's record of exposing government corruption these past thirty years.

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

IC has one vote, and nothing else, so he has to inflate it into something symbolic of everything he hates.

Very interesting. Interesting how your opinions always end up being attached to the supposed pathologies of others.

I posted below on the fact that I honestly just don't expect a tremendous amount of reform from ANY presidential administration in the current climate, but that did not diminish the importance of voting for Kerry. But hey, if it is inconvenient to incorporate such statements into your psychological profile of me and my pathology of "hatred", go right ahead. To be quite honest, I haven't the time to engage in hatred in either my political beliefs, nor my personal life. And I most certainly don't have the inclination to worry about what kinds of pathologies that you busy yourself with trying to assign to me.

If you're going to talk about the sensitivity of others, why should I refrain from doing similar?

Forgetting about Kerry's work is an aberration for him. Unfortunately, too many are forgetting the import of Kerry's work. The corporate media no doubt wants to make sure it stays that way.

both about IC in general, and his arguments in this thread. If he were handing out bullshit wholesale, like some others on DU, I'd be reacting differently.

I asked you for proof as to how Kerry had done more to root out government corruption than any other lawmaker, and you have convinced me. I cannot honestly think of anyone who has put up such a record over a similar period of time, including the imitable Bernie Sanders, whom I admire more than any other politician in Washington.

That means alot to me coming from you. ;)

He needs to get back that fire in the belly.

>>>Kerry exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker"
in modern history. If you aren't interested in good honest government, or healthy solutions for the environment then that is a serious deficiency in YOUR priorities, imo.

>>>You supported someone who governed as a centrist corporatist and you don't WANT to support the candidate who helped craft the Kyoto Protocol for fairer labor standards and better environmental protections. I think you have an odd sense of WHO is a corporatist."

Dean learned. Kerry hasn't.

IF Kerry is such a bold crusader and exposer, now is the time for him to engage in that. But so many things slip right by without a comment, or some lame response.

The appointment of John Negraponte as ambadassor to Iraq is like the ultimate insult to anyone who is truly interested in the goal of "democratizing" Iraq. And if anyone should be aware of that it is John Kerry.

Kerry ought to be explaining WHY our foreign policy is such a disaster, not just pointing fingers at Bush while supporting the same policies.

F Kerry is such a bold crusader and exposer, now is the time for him to engage in that

No, now is the time to win an election. After he WINS the election and has the POWER to do something about the corruption, THEN it's time to begin the expose's

We can only change America and its corporate culture if we win in November. Fighting this battle now only to lose the war in November is not acceptable.

Only by winning in November can Kerry then fight the corporate battle on HIS turf and on HIS terms.

and it just happens to coincide with what Bush's surrogates are saying. I'm not buying it. Bush only recently is allowing for UN involvement. Kerry has pushed it since before the IWR and also wants the UN and NATO involved in the CONTROL of Iraq's financial decisions.

Hardly the same policies, Armstead, although the Repubs are spinning it as the same on all the media outlets the last few days. I hope you don't believe them.

a nightclub act.
your favorite TV show.
Where all your cats shit.
how big your TV is.
MPG
environment
choice
civil rights
good government
corporations
guns
ET AL.& ETC.

IT IS POWER! WHEN YOU HAVE IT THE REST IS SO EASY.

WHEN YOU WIN YOU HAVE It. ItS TOMORROW.

WHEN YOU LOSE ITS TODAY.

you decide.

Eveery election it's been "First we have to get power, then we can do something."

But then they get power, and allow the sasme old stuff to slip by. Which, as a side effect, makes it easier for the GOP to do their deeds and regain power easily.

At some point we have to break that cycle. I'm not saying we should aim to lose -- but we ought to figure out how to win by doing the right thing.

"But then they get power, and allow the same old stuff to slip by."

Now THAT's a mantra. Iran-Contra, BCCI, are two that did NOT slip by. Why do you ignore the facts and repeat mantras?

Certainly, they are exposed to certain degrees by government hearings and the like. But tell me this -- who among the perpetrators is actually significantly punished for their wrongdoings?

When I see the former Iran-Contra orchestrators like Elliot Abrams, John Negroponte and Otto Reich not only walking free -- but actually holding positions of power within government -- it cannot help but make me wonder at the sense of "justice" in this country. A poor black kid in Bed-Stuy sells some crack, they go up the river for 20 years. These people knowingly and willingly violate the Constitution, and they get next to nothing.

Sure, there are always "fall-guys", but in the end, nothing really changes. Events are forgotten by the press -- and therefore the public. People involved either get back into government or enter other lucrative careers. And the whole damned sorry cycle repeats itself.

IC, I find your contortions in this thread surprising.

1) You excuse the WSJ as not clearly editotializing when it obviously is.

2) You insulted those who disagree as being overly sensitive of criticism (a complaint that seems more appropriate for you)

3) You've inflated the importance of the IWR vote to the point that it overrides anything and everything Kerry has ever done

4) And now you're discounting the importance of Kerry's efforts because OTHER PEOPLE didn't do their jobs.

If "nothing really changes", then you should just STFU about how Kerry should be fighting to change things. The ONE SENATOR who has actually gone out and PROVEN their crimes, and you will do everything possible to make light of his successes, to the extent that you ignore the obvious biases of the WSJ, and all because Kerry didn't handcuff them and lock them up himself.

Perhaps we just happen to see the truth differently coming from different perspectives. After all, that is all the truth really is, anyway -- a matter of perspective.

IC, I find your contortions in this thread surprising.

And I find your condescension and personal attacks (like stating that I simply have to project everything I hate onto one candidate) to be completely in character.

1) You excuse the WSJ as not clearly editotializing when it obviously is.

Wrong. I said that there is a big difference between the WSJ editorial page and WSJ journalism. I guess that Molly Ivins and Lou DuBose must have been drinking RW tonic when they acknowledged the same in Bushwhacked. I also said that I would have to read the entire article (context IS important, after all) in order to make a substansive judgement.

2) You insulted those who disagree as being overly sensitive of criticism (a complaint that seems more appropriate for you)

Wrong. I gave my opinion as it applied to one poster in particular. If you choose to assign that opinion to yourself as well, that's your business.

3) You've inflated the importance of the IWR vote to the point that it overrides anything and everything Kerry has ever done

Wrong. From my perspective, I've applied the age-old principle of "you're only as good as your last showing" to a political candidate. If you read my statement as implying that this one vote overrode everything good Kerry has ever done, then you're reading into it what you want to.

4) And now you're discounting the importance of Kerry's efforts because OTHER PEOPLE didn't do their jobs.

Wrong. I'm simply stating a reality of the current system. People in power don't have to worry about real consequences. If anything, this helps highlight the limitations of one man working within the system -- one of my primary points I've tried to make here over and over again. Once again, you read into it what YOU wanted to hear.


This will be my last posting on this subject. You, of course, are free to make your obligatory final posting on it, and also free to twist my words into saying whatever you want them to say.

Have a nice day.

1) I don't care about the differences between page x and page y. The article was clearly loaded with editorializing. You can make as many fine distinctions as you like between the editorial page and the rest of the paper, but it doesn't change the fact that this article is editorializing, and not reporting.

2) Right. When I state MY opinion of a poster (ie. you) it's "condescension and personal attacks". When you do it, it's "MY opinion of poster"

3) "If you read my statement as implying that this one vote overrode everything good Kerry has ever done..."

No need to read anything into it. You said that in response to someone's pointing all Kerry had done in the past.

4) You state the reality that nothing is really going to change, and use that against Kerry because he isn't really changing anything.

If you don't think anyone can really change it, then why criticize Kerry for not changing it?

and listened daily to the "Contragate" program on WBAI in NY.
The hearings were a whitewash, a joke! I still get angry just thinking about it. Its not Kerrys fault, he tried, but all in all those hearings were a coverup. If they had done their job the BFEE would have been exposed and we wouldn't be where we are today (I might even venture to guess that 9-11 would not have happened).
The Iran/Contra hearings should be a cause for shame.
And most of those creeps are back!

dupe

John Kerry is a nominee of one of the two major parties for President. Therefore, to expect him to somehow be a champion of the masses -- especially in the current "free market as God" incarnation of the United States -- is a bit unrealistic, IMHO. Just remember -- the first duty of politicians in the United States is always to protect the status quo. The higher up one goes, the more pressure there is to protect it.

John Kerry is going to be cautious, because the current environment dictates caution, plain and simple. John Kerry will not represent a champion of reform if elected, rather, he will be slightly less of an impediment to reform than the current administration.

Is that enough of a reason to vote for him? Absolutely! Is that going to inspire enough people to vote for him? If the Bush Administration is truly as bad as we all believe it to be, we'd better damned well hope so.

Reformers will keep working for reform, along the political fringes. Expecting a political system that has become to entrenched in corruption and promoting the vilest impulses of the business community to somehow champion reform is a bit short-sighted. True change will come from where it has always come -- the people.

The current situation is sooo far out of whack that it requires something bold from politicians just get back to a point where even a healthy status quo or incremental moderate change is possible. That's my own goal.

I am making a distinction between more fundamental changes, which are long-range, and what is needed just to tread water.

I don't believe it is unrealistic to get back to a true center, and I believe the time is ripe for that.

Forgive me if I pull age-rank ;-) but I know this from my own lifetime. Liberalism used to be considered mainstream values and nothing for anyone to be ashamed of. Even many in business were liberals and proud of it.

I do not believe it is outrtageous to expect someone like Kerry -- whose basic instincts are liberal -- to run as a moderate but clear and proud liberal, rather than another corporate centrist.

That, IMO is not a radical position, but is something that would resonate with enough people to form a majority this time, and at least cultivate the soil for the longer range change you are referring to.

Tools are suited to specific tasks. There are things which can be directly achieved through the electoral process, and things which cannot. To demand an electoral politician crusade for major restructuring of the economic and political order is to pick up a hammer to remove screws.

Major changes come only from popular clamor, to which electoral figures respond like weather-vanes: the process was put in a nutshell by a French radical leader in a time of tumult and near-mob in nineteenth century Paris when he cried, "Where are the people? I must hurry there to lead them!"

Politicians are in the business of giving people what they think the people want; they are not in the business of creating demands for things among the people. If it is clear, for example, that the mass of the people really want U.S. soldiers out of Iraq, a politician with the power to do it will remove them, and it will not happen one moment before that is clearly the desire of the people.

"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disasterous and the unpalatable."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

If it is clear, for example, that the mass of the people really want U.S. soldiers out of Iraq, a politician with the power to do it will remove them, and it will not happen one moment before that is clearly the desire of the people.

Drawing upon the lessons from Vietnam, I would not predict this course of events. Rather, I would say that politicians will do the utmost to represent the elite interests whom they truly represent, to the point that such support becomes politically untenable due to near-revolt from the populace, and at THAT moment, and not one moment earlier, will they relent.

But that is more quibble than disagreement, and matters little in the context of the current wider conversation.

It is, as you say, a "tomayto-tomahto" difference: certainly when the popular desire is opposed to the elite desire, the clamor must be boistrous indeed....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

You are always an absolute pleasure to deal with, even in instances of differences of perspective. Such is a rarity on an internet discussion board.

I'm not so sure about that, IC. Maybe it depends on your definition of "caution".

If we spend another election season allowing the GOP to define the boundaries of the acceptable, then we're going to get the same result we've always gotten - campaigns nibbling around the edges of the same bloodless focus groups and, at best, a squeaker in November. If that's what you mean by caution then no, I don't think the times call for that at all.

That said, you're quite right in not expecting the campaign to do much else.

sounds like a lot of the anti-Kerry stuff.

It is becoming an answer to anything and everything.

It's always important to point out the failures and flaws of the incumbent. It's necessary for the challenger to contrast his or her own record and proposals with the incumbent's, and that involves criticism. No way around it.

If that were the only thing the Kerry camp were doing, it'd be a concern; but it isn't the only thing they're doing. He's been making speeches on many issues with detailed proposals (last week, Iraq; just now, a speech to the Anti-Defamation League); he's articulating his own vision; he's contrasting his record and life history; he's fighting back when deemed necessary. His website is active in presenting his views, press releases, speech transcripts, policy positions, etc...

I don't agree with the complaint.

Saying I "I told you so" is not an Iraq policy. Especially when he didn't tell them so when it mattered. He voted to give Bush a blank check on Iraq, and thus forfeited his right to criticize Bush when he cashed the check.

The subtle differences are between Kerry and Bush on Iraq will be totally lost on the average person. The minor strategic differences don't matter is Kerry supports the same basic neo-con worldview that got us into this mess....Wesley Clark is much more articulate, and specific.

"Free trade" as it has been pushed by the corporate elite for the last 15 years is obviously a failure, because it is flawed at it's core. Offering a small amount of payola for corporations to "pretty please keep some jobs in America" is not the answer to a core policy failure that people do recognoize in their guts.

when he tries to talk about "everyday concerns" of average Americans.

I think some of it can be New England stiffness as a carry over from his background and education. He may be more comfortable talking about environmental issues because it isn't personal. He hasn't led the live of the Average American so it's harder for him to equate policies with peoples needs on a day to day basis.

It doesn't mean he isn't concerned, because I believe he is, but he just can't express it and we might as well give up on expecting him to relate like a Clinton or even a Carter. It just isn't there. Southerners are excellent at relating to the "everyday folks." It's born into them, and it comes as easily as talking about religion.

If he had the wit of a John F. Kennedy and the scrappiness of Kennedy's Irish Boston background he might have overcome his inability to seem connected to other folks in public speeches. But, his background is much more "old New England." Serving in the Senate for such a long time also might have hurt his ability to speak in a way that doesn't sound like a politician...which often sounds like "waffling." Politicians aren't known for forthrightness in the first place but many can cover it over better than Kerry seems to.

I agree with Armstead's point, though that we may lose some folks because of Kerry's inability to relay his thoughts about Bush, War, Economy in a way that doesn't seem like DLC or so mainstream that folks who are angry give up.

We may, in the end, have to rely on the "crossover voters." The Repugs and Libertarians. Some independents may bolt to Nader and some who are so angry they just can't accept someone who can't do more to challenge Bush's devastation of America in just three short years.

The rest of us will just have to hope that there's something better inside the man that will come out once he's elected, and we need to keep working like hell to make sure he starts dismantling what the Chimp & Co. have done. :-(

I kind of wish he'd chill it on the bike, snowboarding and hockey thing, but many here feel it helps him with younger voters. I'm not sure if it doesn't make him seen like he'd rather be doing something else than running for President,though.

"The one criticism of the GOP that is accurate (IMO) is that Kerry is a "flip-flopper."
Have you personally researched the issues that the RNC website uses to spread the flip-flop word? I have so far looked into one, the one on the marriage penalty, in short, kerry wasn't voting against eliminating the marriage penalty. He was actually voting against an under funded amendment (author: Sen. Gramm) to the Smoking reduction act that would have cost the government 46 billion.. where as John kerry's amendment (co-authored with others) used more of the tobacco tax to cut the cost incurred while providing more relief to those in the 50,000 and under group and not giving or giving less relief to those that didn't need it. Flip flopping? hardly, kerry was correct when he said he strongly fought for elimination of the marriage penalty. He had his own amendment he was fighting for that was simply better policy in his mind, and I agree. I have only looked into one as it takes a lot of time to sort through the dialogue, I even invited other DU people to help spread the work out so we can dispel or better understand the accusations by the GOP. But there wasn't much of a response.

Kerry thinks providing an alternative is to call Republicans "crooks and liars."

Kerry actually called the current administration "crooks and liars" not Republicans. I think he's been playing rope-a-dope with the accusations..and judging by the lack of movement by polls it seems to be working. Now that most of the insults are out, he can now work to spread his message (we'll wait and see, but i guess it'll be moderate centrist to attract more of the center and right rather than preach to the choir in the left)

His only message seems to be "Bush is bad. I'll do a better job."
You seem to be afflicted with what most people have, it's called trying to over simplify. Truth is Kerry isn't as simple as Bush, Bush has questions and answers "yes", "no" etc. Kerry has a problem trying to provide you with an understanding of why the anser is yes, or no. Now is this a real problem? no, reading some of his dialogue in the senate records makes me realize he's a quite capable thinker. If you want to see the start of his message, go watch the westminster speech if it's available anywhere.. try cspan i heard you can see videos there. The message is a positive one, but it's not Bush's "I see a brighter future, things are good". where he's just telling us that it'll be better rather than rationale for saying so. Kerry is honest in acknowledging the difficulty we face, but also the complexity, unlike "stay the course"... Kerry says he's going to do it with better leadership.

He refuses to accept the fact that Bush is a symptom of a deeper problem stemming from concentration of wealth and power

Yes it sure is.. and I agree he doesn't vocalize that, but what political gain will he make by doing that, he'll make himself to be that liberal new englander that BC04 has already painted.

The "swing voter" who sorta likes Bush but is open minded is not getting anything to convince them that Kerry will do any better.

We'll wait, the campaigns have a ways to go yet, there's material to convince them but you have to go look for it. The media coverage of kerry is limited since he isn't pushing some huge sensationalized message.. a message that media sources see as unable to sell advertising or papers...


As a side, note people need to stop reading the tabloids, research the candidates themselves and definatley not take the GOP's word when they tell you who the best democratic presidential nominee would be... *rant over*

I don't think I agree with you there.

I agree that Kerry needs to offer a clear alternative vision for the US, but first he has to tear down that BS image that Bush has of being a strong leader. And to do that, he has to stand up to him, rip his policies to shreds. In my opinion, Kerry hasn't been attacking Bush harshly enough. He's giving him way too much credit.

now with this "piece of garbage" sullying the White House!

Give me a Break! :grr: I'm not bowing down to their Ass Hole policies!!!

You've already labeled his agenda. That implies you know his agenda.

out, even though it served Bill Clinton in his first term...it didn't serve him well...and said "bye..bye" in his second term when he needed their support the most.

They let us down! Sold us Out! The DLC/DNC sold us down the river and gave us the CHIMP! Anyone who doesn't see this is smoking something. They allowed a GORE..ing! And, if we aren't careful they will allow a "KERRY..ing."

Wake up...see them for what they are! Centrist Pap! We have to put up with their crap "one more time" to hope they can get the Chimp out, but why should we believe they won't stab us in the back when we support them that "one more time?"

Tell me...how can we trust them with their track records. Remember the "Selection 2000" with the Repug Operatives and Ted Olsen's Mellon-Scaife Clone and then the "Mid-Terms" with Cleland and McKinney?

You want to depend on this lot? I don't!

"You've already labeled his agenda. That implies you know his agenda."

The centrist strategy is to run away from liberalism, and be slightly more socially progressive but just as economically conservative as moderate Republicans.

I honestly don't know Kerry's agenda. Evertime I think I have a handle on it, he shifts course or adds a new level of ambiguity.

Posted this everywhere but the question was in this thread so I will hit it.

Kerry is not as liberal as Kuicinch or Nader that I will give you.

However, Kerry is more liberal than Clinton, Lieberbush, or the way the DLC ran Gore the last time.

After all, the idea of changing NAFTA has entered from the fringe of political discussion into the national debate. He has said he will not back the FTAA.

The idea of National Healthcare has entered back into the National debate in a way Gore would not approach last time.

We are now talking about a program of National Service where kids can get money for college WITHOUT having to carry a gun.

Kerry will not take a unilateral piss on our allies in his approach to foreign relations.

He will protect a woman's right to choose.

He has pledged to lift the gag order Bush enacted on family clinics.

He will fight for real environmental legislation instead of Orwellian giveaways to the corporate powers that be.

He has pledged to let the Patriot Act lapse.

He will take away the tax benefits for corporations that ship jobs overseas.

He has pledged to close corporate tax loopholes.

He wants to get rid of the tax cuts for the wealthy and stop the deficit leak.

He wants to fight for strong enforcement of Civil Rights Laws listing the ADA and reversing Buckhannon which makes enforcement of all Civil Rights laws difficult.

He will fully fund Head Start. (really important never been funded right)

He wants a College Opportunity Tax Credit to help people to be able to afford college.

He is the first national candidate to not only talk about cleaner fuels and reducing our dependence on foreign oil but to actually talk about loosing ourselves from the "demon oil."

He has a 90% lifetime record of voting with the AFL/CIO and stands beside the base of organized labor. He does not demonize teachers and workers.

This is a man who can change his mind and makes an informed decision.

+

He will appoint federal judges who can start putting the brakes on the repeal of the 20th Century perpetrated by Republican appointees. My husband is a civil rights lawyer, and I can tell you from personal experience that NO ONE who ever needs help from the federal judicial system -- as a victim of discrimination of any kind, as someone made to work 70 hours a week without being paid overtime, as someone whose civil rights have been trampled on -- will EVER vote for a Republican again. Most of the people of this country have no idea what has happened to the laws that were supposed to protect them, and won't know until they need justice and can't get it.

We have been trying for years to get Democratic candidates interested in making this more of an issue, but for some reason they just don't pick up on it. Other issues, such as abortion rights, are hot button topics and get more attention. Sooner or later, however, every American's family will be touched by the laws being made right now by our federal judicial system. Bush is appointing young judges who will be there when most of us are long gone. It's a frightening prospect.

I need to add that though I mention some of the civil rights stuff he mentioned.

Repukes have made it very tough to get convictions on civil rights laws and no one seems that concerned about it.

It is almost as troubling as the Patriot Act itself.

+

I have been reading Tour of Duty over the past few days. Yesterday I finished the section of the book that covered 200 pages of President Kerry and the Swift boat missions. I was devastated emotionally. In 1968 I was a sophomore in high school and the war was very real ... but I had not known how much until I read the book. I called my friend who is a viet vet in the navy and told him how sad and angry I was and that I couldn't understand where the feelings came from. Those guys who came back are ghosts ... they should've been killed and they all know it.

I suggest that instead of projecting your own thoughts and feelings onto the candidate, that you try to find out who the person really is for yourself. I can tell you what I think about him but you have to make your own decision.

There is a reason that the campaign has adopted "the real deal" as a slogan ... why don't you find out why. Dana ; )

Chris Matthews played a clip from one of Bush's speeches, and he asked his guest Howard Dean what he thought.

"That's just more nonsense..."

Damn right. When will Kerry say that?

I cannot tell you how disappointed I am in the recent proclamations -
including yours-that Kerry's campaign is a disaster and there
is no good reason to support him
you say that being the anti-Bush candidate is not enough - well it
is enough for me - especially when Kerry has as strong an environmental record and women's rights record and gay and human rights record that he has - have you even read his policy statements on his web page?? are you really expecting the media to tell you what his message is without bias???
go to the source - this is a good man with a good record - perfect? - no way - but then I am remembering what Michael Lerner said about Bill
Clinton - when we demand that our leaders are perfect - we turn them into
liars..."
I expect the Bush Inc campaign to attack Kerry at every turn - I also expect those that will vote for Kerry to start turning their anger and frustration and verbal toroids Bush and company - not to constantly bemoan the fact that Kerry isn't all that they wanted - we do not benefit when we become part of the crowd that is cutting Kerry 's knees off - we only help Bush

so do me a favor - if you plan on supporting Kerry in the election - then work on his behalf now - if the Supreme Court, the environment, choice are not enough for you to get out there and positively campaign for Kerry then at least hold your fire or you might as well join the Bush camp -
unfortunately that is the way it works today and those constantly
questioning Kerry and criticizing him are only hurting all our chances for regime change - work hard on your issues once we get him elected- thanks for listening bc