Take The Kerry Challenge!

[wyldwolf]

In reference to the many threads whose participants debate whether Kerry is a liberal or a centrist or even a neocon, and who admonish us to take a look at Kerry's "real" voting record to show that he really isn't a liberal, I propose the following:

1. Define liberal and list the issues one MUST take the proper position on to be considered a liberal.

2. Set the bar on these issues. Must one be on the proper side of 100% of them or just 75% of them? 68%? 51%?

3. Are there some positions on some issues that trump positions on others to prove an overall liberal purity? Explain.

3. Show us Kerry's "real" voting record as a whole and demonstrate how it isn't really liberal.

Please cite sources to back up your assertions.

Please use a #2 pencil.

[wyldwolf]

1. kick

[blm]

2. heh

this should be interesting.

It also seems that those who throw around accusations of corruption the most seem to be unable to name one other lawmaker in modern history who has exposed more government corruption than John Kerry.

[wyldwolf]

3. Here those crickets chirping?

[wyldwolf]

4. kick

[bigbillhaywood]

5. Here ya go, wyldwolf...

What I define as "liberal":

I. Favoring labor rights
II. Defending civil rights/civil liberties
III. Dovish foreign policy


I. Kerry's shitty trade/labor record

1. Voted FOR NAFTA
2. Voted FOR GATT
3. Voted FOR PNTR for China (even as he bitches about the outsourcing of American jobs there)

Before anyone starts bellowing protectionist at me, please note that these trade agreements could have been negotiated/drafted to include protections for the most basic labor, environmental and human rights standards-- they were not.

Kerry's voting scorecard from what is arguably America's most "liberal" union-- UE (UE's methodology includes every issue I used to define "liberal")

2003: 33%
96-03: 54%

For comparison-- UE's scorecard for two of the Senate's most liberal members.

Russ Feingold (D-WI)-- 2003: 84%, 96-03: 92%
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)-- 2003: 84%, 96-03: 76%

Also for comparison, moderate Republican Senator Arlen Specter.

2003: 33% (same as Kerry) 96-03: 36%

These figures are available at UE's website: www.ranknfile-ue.org

II. Civil rights/civil liberties

Voted FOR Patriot Act-- Whatever contibutions Kerry may have made in his career to civil liberties were erased by this draconian act.

III. Foreign Policy

Voted FOR Iraq War Resolution-- justify it however you want he voted for the fucker.

Uncritical military support for Israel. Places no requirements on Israel to respect human rights in exchange for military and economic aid.

Voted FOR Afghan War

[wyldwolf]

7. You didn't answer a single question

You listed your pet issues and how Kerry differed from you on them. Not valid unless YOU are the sole determiner of who/what is liberal.

1. Define liberal and list the issues one MUST take the proper position on to be considered a liberal.

Where is this answer?

2. Set the bar on these issues. Must one be on the proper side of 100% of them or just 75% of them? 68%? 51%?

Where is this answer?

3. Are there some positions on some issues that trump positions on others to prove an overall liberal purity? Explain.

Where is this answer?

4. Show us Kerry's "real" voting record as a whole and demonstrate how it isn't really liberal.

Where is this anwer?

[bigbillhaywood]

8. I just revised my post after re-reading yours. It's not exactly what you

asked for, but I think it touches on the all the issues you were raising. The only one I did not answer was #2, because it is patently impossible to quantify such a thing.

[wyldwolf]

9. Please cite sources to back up your assertions.

...that means other than your opinion -- unless you are the sole determiner.

On edit- no, you barely touched on the questions.

[bigbillhaywood]

12. Kerry's voting record is public, I shouldn't need to cite a source for

his votes on Iraq, NAFTA, etc. everyone here is internet savvy-- just do a search for his record. Are you questioning my accuracy in his voting record? Are you saying he didn't vote for PNTR for China? The guy was my Senator for over 10 years, I'm very familiar with his record.

As to UE's scorecard-- I gave you the website. The methodology they used is listed.

So what exactly am I supposed to cite?

[wyldwolf]

26. yes, I'm questioning your accuracy on his voting record

A thirty year voting record compressed into three or four issues that you are using to define what a liberal is?

And your source is suspect, too. Being a labor site, they put more emphasis on labor issues. The standard method for gauging ideology has been to use the annual ratings of lawmakers' votes by various interest groups, notably the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA)...

Kerry's voting record is generally liberal, similar to that of his more senior colleague, Edward Kennedy. Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal political group, gave Kerry an 85 percent rating in 2002 and a 95 percent rating in 2001. Kennedy, by comparison, got 100 percent in both years.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/candidates/kerry.html

The same group gave Kerry a 93% lifetime rating, Ted Kennedy got 88%.

For more than 30 years, the standard method for gauging ideology has been to use the annual ratings of lawmakers' votes by various interest groups, notably the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA)...

The ADA, which describes itself as "the nation's oldest independent liberal organization," was founded in 1947 by a group of distinguished postwar liberals -- including Eleanor Roosevelt, labor leader Walter Reuther and historian Arthur Schlesinger -- to rally support for progressive causes...

Kerry's voting record is a very liberal one, according to both rating systems. The ADA's Web site notes that "those Members of Congress considered to be Moderates generally score between 40% and 60%." By that criterion, Kerry's record falls well outside the "moderate" range....

In recent weeks, a number of commentators have asserted that Kerry's voting history is complicated to classify. The evidence doesn't bear this out. If you were to take the numbers shown here, cover up Kerry's name and then ask a sample of American political scientists, "I have here a senator who in the past 10 years has had an average ADA score of 92 and an average ACU score of 6. Is he a liberal, a moderate or a conservative?" they would have no difficulty in classifying the 2004 Democratic candidate as, for better or worse, a liberal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28761-2004Mar27?language=printer

[blm]

10. HAHAH...it was Kerry who drafted the amendment for labor and environmental

protections in those bills. They didn't pass but don't pretend he didn't try. The unions even pushed members to support Kerry's amendments. Surely you must be aware of this.

He believes in free and FAIR trade. He also helped craft the Kyoto Protocol for 10 years.

[bigbillhaywood]

11. If he couldn't get the amendments on, he shouldn't have voted for them.

[blm]

15. He believes in global trade. He also believes it should be fair and that

there is a way to get there.

Kerry will use the bully pulpit to make it happen and to bring back the Kyoto Protocol.

[bigbillhaywood]

16. Sure, Kerry will just undo all the damage done by legislation he

helped pass while the Republicans control Congress (If you think the Dems will sweep to a majority this election cycle, you're dreaming).

[blm]

34. Yes. He is well aware that he can negotiate trade deals and use his power

to make the deals more equitable for labor and healthier for the environment. That's why he's running, to attain that bully pulpit to change the mindset of this country. You don't have to give up labor and environmental protections to improve the economy. Kerry believes these protections will benefit the economies of ALL countries.

[bigbillhaywood]

35. So you think he will have the power to revise NAFTA, GATT and PNTR

(which he all voted for) with a Republican-controlled Congress. I think you don't undertand what these trade deals mean to major corporations and how much power these corporations have over both the Dems and Repugs. But I guess we'll have to wait and see. I think you're wrong, but I hope you're right.

[blm]

36. I'm right about 95% of the time.

I'm awesome. ;))))))))

[bigbillhaywood]

14. "but don't pretend he didn't try". I gotta better idea, don't pretend that

Kerry didn't pretend to try.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

40. Your characterization is false.

[Ardee]

45. you fight the good fight but in vain

Just the way those who believe Kerry to be something he certainly is not ask others to prove points they should be attempting to prove or disprove themselves illustrates that this is a false debate.

No matter how much factual information you dig up these neocons will quite smarmily dismiss them and claim you are at fault...a large waste of time.

Voting for flawed bills is wrong even when you attempt to correct those flaws. This is, in essence , my problem with Kerry, he seeks to continue a flawed system and voted, again and again, for poor legislation.

[blm]

13. So you think all the good by Wellstone, Byrd, Durbin and Kennedy

and most every other Senator has been wiped out by their support of the Patriot Act?

Do you even KNOW that Kerry was the FIRST Senator ever to submit a bill to protect gays?

Did you know that Kerry was the first Senator to advocate that gays be allowed to serve openly in the military?

Did you know that Kerry advocated for those who served their time to be allowed to vote?

Did you know that Kerry advocated since 1985 for public financing of campaigns and wrote the Clean Elections Law with Wellstone that was ignored by Congress but adopted by Maine's state legislature?

Can you name ONE other lawmaker who exposed more government corruption than John Kerry?

[bigbillhaywood]

18. That's a very good question...

On the one hand Wellstone and Kennedy have very good voting records, on the other hand they allowed either fear, political cowardice, or both to influence them into voting the most draconian rollback of civil liberties since the Sedition Acts. Their actions also allowed a government-sponsored roundup of thousands of innocent Arabs and Muslims in the days after 9/11, who were physically abused, detained indefinitely and eventually deported, often leaving families behind. But they didn't care, because America had been attacked, and they were just a bunch of filthy ragheads. I don't know if this is forgiveable or not.

[MAlibdem]

17. dovish foreign policy is NOT specifically liberal

especially in regard to intervention during humanitarian crises.

[bigbillhaywood]

20. I would say that dovish foreign policy IS liberal, but that all liberals

are not doves in regards to all things (especially Communism).

[sandnsea]

19. Compare to Nader

I. Favoring labor rights

"While global trade is a fact of life, trade policies must be open, democratic and not strip-mine environmental, social and labor standards."

Sounds the same as Kerry.

II. Defending civil rights/civil liberties

"and an end to secret detentions, arrests without charges, no access to attorneys and the use of secret “evidence,” military tribunals for civilians, non-combatant status and the shredding of “probable cause” determinations."

Sounds the same as Kerry.

Ralph agrees with Marie C. Wilson, the president of the Ms. Foundation, who recently said: “The most important thing is really having equal rights. It’s not about the marriage. It’s having the same rights that you would get if you were married.”

Sounds the same as Kerry.

III. Dovish foreign policy

"Our foreign policy must redefine the elements of global security, peace, arms control, an end to nuclear weapons and expand the many assets of our country to launch, with other nations, major initiatives against global infections diseases (such as AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and virulent flu epidemics) which have and are coming to our country in increasingly drug resistant strains. Other low cost-high yield (compared to massive costs of redundant weapons) that extend the best of our country abroad include public health measures for drinking water safety abroad, tobacco control, stemming soil erosion, deforestation and misuse of chemicals, international labor standards, stimulating democratic institutions, agrarian cooperatives and demonstrating appropriate technologies dealing with agriculture, transportation, housing and efficient, renewable energy."

Sounds the same as Kerry.

"...replacing US forces with a UN peacekeeping force, prompt supervised elections and humanitarian assistance before we sink deeper into this occupation, with more U.S. casualties, huge financial costs, and diminished US security around and from the Islamic world."

Sounds the same as Kerry, except Kerry is honest enough to let the public know that the U.S. contributes the majority of troops to any UN peacekeeping operation, so we won't be able to pull our troops out, even with UN or NATO assistance.

Maybe if people looked at what Nader is actually proposing, they'd stop with the ridiculous rant that Kerry isn't liberal enough. It's the words they choose to use, one to appeal to the mainstream and the other to appeal to the leftists. The actions they'd take are very close to the same.

[bigbillhaywood]

21. Response

"I. Favoring labor rights

"While global trade is a fact of life, trade policies must be open, democratic and not strip-mine environmental, social and labor standards."

Sounds the same as Kerry."

Yeah. Except Kerry talks a better talk than he walks (please refer to Kerry's voting record on my first post) Also, Nader favors repeal of Taft-Hartley and Norris-LaGuardia. Kerry does not. This is a significant difference in terms of labor rights.

"III. Dovish foreign policy

...Sounds the same as Kerry."

Except Kerry voted for Iraq War, and I doubt Nader would have (though it is certain I cannot be certain of that)

"II. Defending civil rights/civil liberties

"and an end to secret detentions, arrests without charges, no access to attorneys and the use of secret “evidence,” military tribunals for civilians, non-combatant status and the shredding of “probable cause” determinations."

Sounds the same as Kerry."

See above response, except subsitute "Patriot Act" for "Iraq War"

Finally, why even bring Nader up? I didn't. Who cares-- he's an egomanaical joke who just happens to have some good ideas and observations (but then so do millions of other people). It's not like I'm saying vote Nader over Kerry b/c he's more liberal.

[sandnsea]

23. Then what's your point???

Somebody pokes you and you spit out IWR & Patriot Act, over and over and over and over and over. No other thought in your head about either of them? Just he voted for IWR, he voted for Patriot Act, bad, bad, bad. You know who else does that, don't you?

Kerry is also a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act to allow employees to freely choose whether to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation, provide mediation and arbitration for first contract disputes, and establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first contract negotiations.

He also has a 90% lifetime voting record with the AFL-CIO, which isn't too bad. Especially considering some of the votes they didn't like were environmental.

The point of the original post is balance, and on balance, Kerry is a hell of a liberal and will make a terrific advocate for working Americans.

[bigbillhaywood]

24. Hey, I spit it out because these were two horrible, horrible decisions he

made. I got a right to hold any politician's feet to the fire on these two things. I really don't give a shit if Nader says the same thing. He's often right on things. And it's not only Nader or Naderites who feel this way. Maybe I wouldn't have to keep mentioning Iraq and Patriot if Kerry had had some fucking balls and voted against them!

As far as the Employee Free Choice Act, I will give Kerry limited credit for this. Credit because it's good legislation. Limited because it's pretty easy to burnish your labor credentials w/o pissing off big business too much by introducing a bill that you know damn well won't stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing a Republican controlled Congress. Like most Democrats, Kerry will suck up to labor, to get the unions to turn out the votes, but when it comes time to deliver, he will fuck labor once again.

This is because unions nowadays are politically short-sighted and lack balls. They keep going back to the Democrats year after year despite being fucked over by them-- like battered wives. They should have the guts to form a third party and then offer an ultimatum to the Dems-- "Shape Up. Or we ship out". Then watch the Dems start really producing for labor. Yeah they risk letting the Republicans have even more power-- but given organized labor's declining numbers and influence, dramatic action is needed. Voting Democrat without wielding a stick over them is for labor "winning the battle, but losing the war". Every year, the Dems become more corporate.

The AFL-CIO typifies this toadying, conservative attitude, so I don't trust their ratings. After all, the AFL-CIO is so conservative and politically cowardly that they refused to publicly condemn the US military's enforcement of Saddam's anti-labor laws, arrest of Iraqi union leaders and US raid of Iraqi Trade Union Federation HQ, even when the rest of the labor movement around the world was denouncing it.

Sorry, but maybe I'm thinking a little too "outside the box" for Kerry stalwarts here at DU.

[sandnsea]

31. Unions moved right in 2000

In 1996, Clinton took union votes by 29 points. In 2000, it was down to 22 points. I just don't think the left understands America at all. Workers want to work and want some pretty basic stuff, a fair wage, retirement, health care, time off. They want fair trade for their own benefit, not because they care about Iraqi union leaders. So all your harping about how bad Dems are for unions doesn't mean alot when the unions are responding to what their members want.

[bigbillhaywood]

39. Unions are there to represent their members, but that's not their only

role. Unions are not a legal aid society, political advocacy/lobby organization or insurance agency (although they fill all these roles for workers, to one extent or another)-- they are also there to provide moral, economic and political leadership for the working-class. And many have been falling woefully short in that category. Some like, SEIU, HERE and UE are making some progress in this respect, but it is not enough. The current level of guts, vision and international solidarity of American unions today pales in comparison with the old Knights of Labor, IWW, CIO and many contemporary European unions. And with the global economy, international vision and solidarity is not just good ideology, it is completely practical and necessary to organized labor's survival and growth.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. Instead of looking at the rating from ONE group, let's look at several:

2003 On the votes that the National Committee for an Effective Congress considered to be the most important in the first quarter of 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the U.S. Public Interest Research Group considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 95 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the State PIRGs Working Together considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 95 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Friends Comm. on Nat'l Leg. considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Americans for Democratic Action considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 85 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the U.S. Public Interest Research Group considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 95 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Americans for Democratic Action considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 85 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Committee for an Effective Congress considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 95 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Friends Committee on National Legislation considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 50 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Public Citizen's Congress Watch considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 85 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Committee for an Effective Congress considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 96 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the U.S. Public Interest Research Group considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 94 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Americans for Democratic Action considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 95 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Friends Committee on National Legislation considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Friends Committee on National Legislation considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 73 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Americans for Democratic Action considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 90 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the Public Citizen's Congress Watch considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 83 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the U.S. Public Interest Research Group considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 87 percent of the time.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103#Liberal

[bigbillhaywood]

6. kick

[bigbillhaywood]

22. Where are all the other Kerry critics? I'm slugging it out with the Kerry

stalwarts alone here.

[Terry_M]

25. Sorry m8

I'd help, but I tend not to think of Kerry in terms of his Liberal - Conservative inclination... I just don't like his voting record over the last few years, and he isn't promising any serious change. Other than him not being Bush, I don't see him upsetting the status quo in any noticeable way.

[wyldwolf]

27. Maybe they see the futility of your reasoning

You're using three or four issues to completely define Kerry's voting record AND using a knock-off source primarily concerned with labor issues for Kerry's rating and not the more respected Americans for Democratic Action (ADA)...

...or maybe they freely admit (like Terry_M) that they only have a problem with Kerry's recent record and aren't broad brushing his entire senate career like you are.

[bigbillhaywood]

28. Gee, what a zinger!

What do you mean by "knock-off" source? And what is "respected" supposed to mean? And as far as me using three to four issues-- you asked the Kerry doubters to define "liberal" issues. But I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that it was a set-up for you to complain about what they define as "liberal", even though you asked for people's personal definitions of the term.

[wyldwolf]

33. but nevertheless true

What do you mean by "knock-off" source?

Store brand. Not the major player

And what is "respected" supposed to mean?

Dictionary.

And as far as me using three to four issues-- you asked the Kerry doubters to define "liberal" issues.

No I didn't. I said:

1. Define liberal and list the issues one MUST take the proper position on to be considered a liberal.

2. Set the bar on these issues. Must one be on the proper side of 100% of them or just 75% of them? 68%? 51%?

3. Are there some positions on some issues that trump positions on others to prove an overall liberal purity? Explain.

4. Show us Kerry's "real" voting record as a whole and demonstrate how it isn't really liberal.

You DO see the difference, right? Unless you feel that your pet issues are the only issues that define one's liberalness.

[bigbillhaywood]

41. Not the major player means nothing. I got news for you, most of the

"major players" in organized labor and on the left in general either got their heads up their asses or have been selling out over the last few decades. I'll take the word of the visionary and progressive UE over the decrepit and conservative AFL-CIO any day of the week.

[wyldwolf]

43. your choice

...as your logic deteriorates into ranting and raving.

[JanMichael]

29. Too tired to try. You're doing fine anyway.

Fact is he's all we've got in a two party system so I'll put up with the "Kerry's a Big Liberal, He's Great, He's Good, He's a War Hero!" mantra until he either wins, loses, it's stolen again, or we don't even have an election.

He's not a "bad" guy anyway, just another fun lovin' Plutocratic Liberal.

[bigbillhaywood]

30. Hey wyldwolf, take the labor challenge...

How do you rate the following politicians on labor issues (trade, workers rights, organized labor, corporate governance/regulation, progressive taxation)-- left, center leaning left, center, center leaning right, right:

John Kerry
Ted Kennedy
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Russ Feingold
Dennis Kucinich
Richard Gephardt
Joe Lieberman
Dianne Feinstein
Barbara Boxer

Similarly, how would you classify these same politicians in terms of foreign policy (using the same classifications above)?

No set-up, no trick. I won't even argue about your ratings. I'm just honestly trying to get a sense of where you are coming from ideologically/politically so I can figure out whether this is even a subject worth discussing further. I think I've got an idea, but no use jumping to conclusions.

[wyldwolf]

32. irrelevant- which ones on your list are running for President?

Just one.

Does he have any chance whatsoever of winning? ZERO!

And, as usual, you're trying to dodge the issue of this thread by diverting to a sideshow.

But, without spending too much time on this, Americans for Democratic Action (Remember - the nation's oldest independent liberal organization founded by founded in 1947 by a group of distinguished postwar liberals -- including Eleanor Roosevelt, labor leader Walter Reuther and historian Arthur Schlesinger) has each of these solidly left of center on labor issues. Other aspects fit in nicely, to.

John Kerry, for example:

Democratic front-runner John F. Kerry won the backing Thursday of the nation's largest and most influential labor organization, the AFL-CIO, an important boost for him in a nominating battle that increasingly has become a contest over who promises to be tougher in scrutinizing free-trade agreements and blocking the flight of jobs overseas...

..Noting Kerry's career record of voting with the labor federation 91 percent of the time, AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney said, "It is so important we come together now to put a friend of working families in the White House next year."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A55862-2004Feb19¬Found=true

Yes, Kucinich got a 100% AFL-CIO rating but, like I said above, he has no chance of winning and the AFL-CIO sees the necessity of putting a Democrat in office. They're not being choked by rigid one-issue idealism.

[blm]

37. And there are women's groups and free speech groups who think Kucinich is

a conservative based on his voting record.

I trusted his liberal heart and soul and supported him anyway. He came around on the women's issues. Still hoping he'll stop siding with the GOP on flagburning, though.

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================
 
The time now is 4:25:22PM EDT, Friday, May 14, 2004.
 
There are exactly...
2 days,
7 hours,
34 minutes, and
38 seconds left in our fund drive.
 
This website could not survive without your generosity. Member donations 
pay for more than 84% of the Democratic Underground budget. Don't let
GrovelBot become the next victim of the Bush economy. Bzzzt.
 
Please take a moment to donate to DU right now. Thank you for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[bigbillhaywood]

44. Okay, you Kerryites got me...I'm tired of arguing with you...

Kerry's great. He's a strong liberal voice. He's a strong voice for labor. I misunderstood his voting record: Even though he voted for NAFTA, GATT and China PNTR, he had justification and he's still for fair trade. Even though he voted for the Iraq War Resolution, he shoulders no blame for "Bush's War". Even though he voted for the Patriot Act, so did most liberals, so that makes it okay. Even though he takes buckets of corporate cash, I'm sure he will stand up to the corporations and fight for the interests of the working-class. Some "respectable" organizations say he's right on the issues, so that's good enough for me.

So no longer will I simply hold my nose and enter the booth to vote for Kerry, but instead I will LOVE Our Great Liberal Leader. I will also learn to love other "true liberals" like Hillary, Bill, and the DLC. I just wish Kerry and I were both gay, so we could go back to our home state and get married.