Kerry : Liberal?

http://www.adaction.org/2005SenateVRweb.htm

ADA rating: 100 %

National Journal: most liberal of the list of potential presidential democratic candidate

Answer of David Wade to the question:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/05/the_liberals_liberal/



I understand that they are wary of the label of liberal, but they cant seem to be afraid of Kerry being on the side of the people against the powerful. This is getting silly: Kerry is certainly a liberal, even if he is not a knee-jerk liberal and all his records show it. They have to find a way to express that rather than being shy in front of the record. (and yes, David Wade is right: these ratings are purely arbitrary, but when Kerry comes out as one of the most (add the word of your choice if liberal offenses you) year after year, it becomes meaningful and they should be proud of it.

I like this article. It's old, but I think it explains pretty well why Sen Kerry doesn't like labels, even ones that seem to fit him pretty well.

Though "Gide"? He should look at whom he quotes. The GOP may use that to say he supports homosexuality and is a French elitist. (just joking - I studied Gide in school and it is definitively not an easy read).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Gide

Coming back to Kerry, this describes him very well and this is definitively one of the reasons I like him a lot, even when I disagree with him on some issues. I always see him as a true "progressive", somebody who wants to use progress to make the world better to all, rather than hoping the world will be the same it was in the 70s as the conservatives (left and right) do, or a regressive, like Bush and his friends are.

but, yeah, I could see the right wing dragging out the elitist label on this one.

I read "the immoralist" in one all night session at a 24 hour diner - I was 21 yrs old - and that book is on my all time "changed my life" list.

It is just that this morning, I was watching This Week and George Will and another reporter were saying that the movies that are nominated for Best Movies tonight were all elitist movies that nobody in America will see, so Gide!

I'm pulling for Clooney. He's brilliant and he's dreamy.
I saw Good Night and Good Luck with two Texas republicans, three gay guys, a good friend and his girlfriend. We all loved it. I don't consider any of us elitist.
Wonder if Will saw the movie (which would make him elitist. ha!) or if he's just spouting bullshit, as usual.

and wished we had credible journalists on tv now.

He was outnumbered. A conservative on either side, saying such stupid things. Good for him for speaking up anyway.

I would like to tell George Will a thing or two. Hollywood represents the ideas that a society is thinking about--an advance guard showing the way we are heading. Right now people are trying to decide about how they feel about gays--so films like these are coming out. Back a few years ago, they were about other things, like women's rights. He refuses to get it. Hollywood doesn't show us where we've been--it shows us where we are going.

And the other guy--I didn't get his name--hadn't found any of this year's films interesting enough to go and see. I rest my case!


edit: oh yeah and another thing: George Will didn't see anything "contemporary" about Good Night and Good Luck--the comment had been that so many of this year's films are about contemporary issues. Well, not if you take it literally--but that film just screams about today's America and where the "conservatives" are trying to take us! Surely he cannot be that dense!

not just of his "political label", but of who he is.

I think the quote "Don't try to understand me too quickly" really really fits Kerry - as there really are so many sides to him. In away, once many of them are understood, it just makes him a more solid real person with his own point of view. Harder to understand than a more one dimensional politician, but more real. Maybe it takes 2 Presidential campaigns for people to understand him.

It might not be necessarily liberal but he stands up for the right people. Not corporate whores but for the people as a senator should. He and Ted Kennedy are the best at that.

Remember on the "West Wing" with the live debate what Jimmy Smitts' character said about being a liberal. Damn straight! Someone should send that video to Kerry.

"....if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, their civil liberties....if that is what they mean by a liberal then I am proud to be a liberal."

He did say it best. I think that definition fits the Kerry pretty well. In the Kennedy sense, John Kerry is a true liberal. But again, if JK would rather not be labeled, I can certainly understand and respect that.

It really does describe him - and JFK was not a dove under all cercumstances. I actually think JFK would have been the President Kerry would have been most like. Though fortunately given the difference in time, having a far better relationship with his wife.

To alot of people, liberal means being so rich that you can afford to ignore the needs of the working people for do-gooder programs. It's when I can't afford health care for my family, but I have to pay taxes so somebody can get better health care than I would get even with insurance. Or stopping logging, fishing, mining and farming when that's the only thing that has ever brought a good job to a region. Like stopping coal mining, until, oops, we need the coal again and then it's okay; typical liberal elitest hypocrisy, in the mind of a coal miner. Anyway, I understand the problems with the liberal label. Liberal ideology needs to be rehabilitated, but I don't actually see many lefty liberals who understand that. Not sure whether that gives a politician much choice in how to deal with the label these days.

President - willing to describe himself as a liberal as JFK did.

The popularity of the label can change, in the early 70s in college, "everyone" was a liberal - and it would have been tough to be a conservative.

I think we need the lefty type to understand how they come off. There is some truth to the idea that they aren't the most open-minded bunch, while ranting at everybody else about tolerance and enlightenment. I also am not quite sure that liberal bashing was the sport in 1960 that it is now. It's a serious problem. In fact, you actually just hit some of the disconnect without knowing it. In the early 70's, in college??? Uhm, for us uncollegiates, liberal wasn't even a topic of discussion. Working folks talk about jobs, cost of living, crime, and taxes. Make liberal relevant to that and we'd have a jumping off place.

Several are ranked more liberal than Kerry. Being ranked the "most liberal" is more likely to give the appearance of being out of the mainstream, but being number eight doesn't give that impression except to those who consider any liberal to be bad.

On the other hand, being ranked the most liberal candidate can help in the nomination race, protecting Kerry from the old Bush-lite attacks, and reducing the risk of losing votes to Feinstein.

When the results came out I saw no problem noting that Kerry is the most liberal candidate on The Democratic Daily considering the audience. Obviously this isnt' the headline I would have used if I was writing a column being seen by the general public. Then I'd stress the fact that it is evidence contrary to the Bush campaign claim that Kerry is number one most liberal Senator.

Wade is right about the arbitrary nature of the rankings, but this quote (which possibly is not all he had to say, so I'm not criticizing him here) is not the ideal answer. The best answer is to discuss Kerry's whole record, noting areas where he doesn't fall in the liberal stereotype, such as support for a balanced budget, his support for small business (especially important considering the way right wing blogs commonly call him a socialist), his support for a strong defense (including his early warnings against the dangers of terrorism), and his experience in fighting crime as a former prosecutor (leading to his investigations in the Senate to fight a differnt type of crime). Looking at the full record is more meaningful than looking at thie type of rating.

I think I see a blog post coming out of this.