The Arrogance of the Liberals

[mr715]

While I will not profess radical views, I am and always have been a proud member of the Democratic party. The modern party was born under the oversight of Franklin Roosevelt, who pulled together a coalition of labor, minorities, social libertarians, and those interested in government oversight.

I find it profoundly arrogant that the "far left" feels justified in saying that Kerry is the lesser of two evils, that he is less pure than candidate X, or that his votes on matter Z show his kowtowing to the corporate interests.

Let me make this perfectly clear, and I hope it will bolster the spirits of those who understand politics and dislike self-destructive idealism. John Kerry is not the lesser of two evils, he is my choice.

He is my candidate. I will go to the polls on Nov 2, and I will vote, and I will walk out knowing that I cast my ballot for the best man.

I am sick to death of politicos being attacked simply because they do agree with you on every issue. If they disagree once, it seems they are just as bad as someone who will act to destroy everything you do hold dear.

I support Israel - I do not feel that the fate of Middle Eastern peace should be left in the hands of Palestinians. They have made it all to clear that the only world they want to live in is one where all Jews are expelled.

I disagree with the PATRIOT Act, but I understand why Senator Kerry had to vote for it. And I am honored by his noble attempt to make the measure more palatable.

I disagree with the Iraq war, but I know who really has American soldier's blood on his hands, and it is not Senator John Kerry.

I do not think that the strong (be they nations or corporations) are inherently evil. America should not bow down because we are greater than other nations.

Submitted for your approval, to all you archliberal academics, so quick to cite philosophy and ethics; America is a nation, and as such should be concerned with her own interests first. We are not the stewards of the world, nor should we be. As wrong as it is to "liberate" Iraq for its oil, so to is the notion that we should prevent Israel from defending itself. So to is the notion that we should prevent other nations from trading for maximum profits.

John Kerry is not a "corporate whore". He is the most liberal member of the Senate, and among the most liberal members of the Congress.

Ralph Nader is a fool who speaks words that sound nice, but are irrational, unprincipled, and erratic.

So spare me any talk of "lesser of two evils"


M

[Old and In the Way]

1. Thank you.

I pretty much share your views on Kerry. He will be the most progressive President in my voting lifetime....but if we don't elect Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, his effectiveness will be hamstrung.

[wyldwolf]

2. yep yep yep

Agreed. Fully.

When really really pressed, the "far left" you speak of will admit that IWR and the Patriot Act are their litmus tests and nothing else even comes close to mattering to them.

[mike_c]

3. flame bait....

self deleted everything else as wasted ATP

[wyldwolf]

5. You're right! To correct it, he should change the title to...

...The Arrogance of the itty bitty little group of far lefties hijacking the term "Liberal"

[jonnyblitz]

45. LMFAO!!!

:eyes:

[coloradodem2005]

4. While I supported Dean earlier on, I agree with you.

I support Kerry now. He is my candidate. I may not agree with him on everything, but I fully support him. This is also why I have been supporting Salazar in the caucus and Assembly.

[Jim Sagle]

6. You RAWWWWWWWWWK!!!!!!

[name not needed]

7. .

[Larkspur]

8. Not just the "Far Left" who says Kerry is the "lesser of 2 evils"

Moderates who lean's left, like me, say Kerry is the "lesser of 2 evils."

Being a moderate doesn't mean that one is passionless about issues. A moderate looks for the best resolution to a problem, a resolution not based upon ideology, ambition, or greed. Moderates also want leaders we can trust and Kerry's lack of leadership and his flip-flopping on his stances erodes confidence in him and that explains why his unfavorables are high even though Bush is getting creamed in the polls over Iraq.

[mr715]

11. Not directed at you (sorry) but I'm angry (Directed at FOX)

Can I have some evidence of "flip-flops"? Or did you just take that from the FOX News Ticker?

Kerry has judgement. He voted for the PATRIOT Act because it what was required at the time. You can selectively ignore the fact that he authored the sunset provision, but hey, he voted for it.

And you know what? If he voted against it, and it failed (which wouldnt have happened anyway) and Boston was nuked... well, I suspect politics wouldnt be kind.

The PATRIOT Act was something voted on because it was necessary to prevent a greater harm from occuring. I stated it before, when you have a gun to your head, you dont worry about your cholesterol. Kerry had the intellect and foresight to suspect its abuse, and so authored with John Edwards a provision which allowed Congressional oversight.

Kerry is a leader and has been since he joined the Senate. The first democrat to propose a balanced budget. The first member of Congress to investigate Ronald Reagan's criminal administration. The strongest Senator ever, in the history of this country, on the environment.

Kerry is perceived as a flip-flopping political aspirant because of lies perpetuated by the administration to mislead and poison those who are ignorant of John Kerry's record.

NOT ONE of the presidential contenders are as clean as John Kerry. And not one of them took less special interest money (Kerry accepts $0 from PACS in his tenure).

But hey, hes rich so hes evil. Like Starbucks. Thats why Democrats lose. Not because they dont have good leaders, but because its members believes lies.


M

[Larkspur]

40. Kerry a leader in the senate?

One of the late Paul Wellstone aides said it best when describing the progressive leadership qualities between Wellstone and Kerry -- Wellstone authored many progressive bills knowing full well that they would not be passed in a rightwing Congress, but he did it anyway because he wanted to bring the issue in those bills into public debate. Kerry at most authored 3 bills in 19 years in the senate.

Kerry is no leader. He's a political opportunist who will say and do what it takes for him to win, not necessarily to do what is right for this country. For example, during the Prez Primary debate season, he announced that he would not be present at a debate so that he could go vote against the Medicare bill. Well he did not show up at the debate in-person, he was there via television monitor, but more importantly he missed 36 out of the 38 prelim votes on the Medicare bill and on the day of reckoning of that infamous bill, Kerry was AWOL. Kerry lied!!! He didn't vote against the Medicare bill. He didn't vote at all. "Political coward" best describes this Kerry lack of action.

[OKNancy]

43. Three bills on 19 years???

I did a quick google and spent maybe three minutes and I found:


Kerry Has Been a Key Player in the Senate on Health Care Bills

Kerry Has Been a Moving Force Behind Numerous Bills That Did Not Bear His Name.
"Well, one of the things that you need to know as a president is how things work in Congress if you want to get things done. And one of the things that happens in Congress is, you can in fact write a bill, but if you're smart about it, you can get your bill passed on someone else's bill and it doesn't carry your name. ... We did child care -- 5 million children have health insurance in this country. Some of them in Vermont were helped. And I think that it's time to recognize that we got a lot done on health care."

Boston Globe Called Kerry "Author" of Children's Health Bill.
"Did it sound a little familiar when Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Senator Edward M. Kennedy announced their Hatch-Kennedy bill guaranteeing health coverage for the nation's 10.5 million uninsured children? Maybe you recalled that last year there was a very similar plan known as Kennedy-Kerry, with second billing for Senator John F. Kerry. Extra credit if you remembered that its original name was the Kerry bill, in honor of its author."

Kerry Has Supported More than 200 Health Care Bills on Key Issues Since 1997.

In the last six years alone, Kerry has sponsored or cosponsored more than 200 health care bills.

Many have become law, including: a bill to expand the availability of health care coverage for working individuals with disabilities; a bill to provide medical assistance for certain women screened and found to have breast or cervical cancer; and a bill to provide for research on muscular dystrophy.



Kerry Wrote Legislation to Extend Health Insurance to Needy Children; Voted for Additional Funding to Expand the Program.
In 1996, Kerry wrote the "Healthy Children, Family Assistance Health Insurance Program" to allow "families who do not qualify for Medicaid, but who are financially unable to purchase private insurance, to be given government subsidies to purchase private coverage for their children. 'This is a serious effort to stop the political bickering and help the millions of children without health insurance lead better and healthier lives, and give their parents the peace of mind they deserve,' Kerry said."

Kerry Authored the HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Assistance Legislation.
John Kerry wrote the Aids Assistance legislation to help establish a comprehensive, integrated, five year strategy to combat the global spread of HIV and AIDS. It also significantly increases the funding for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria prevention and treatment programs. 'The Kerry-Frist bill is a huge step forward," said Senator Frist. "It further validates U.S. leadership in the global effort to end devastation many countries face in the fight against HIV/AIDS'."



Kerry's 'Nurse Reinvestment Act' Will Help End America's Nursing Shortage.
John Kerry is the author of the "Nurse Reinvestment Act" which will help end the nursing shortage in the United States and is threatening our health care system. Kerry's legislation provides scholarships for nursing students, establishes training grants for nurses, offers grants to nursing schools for loan programs, institutes career ladder programs, creates a nurse retention and patient safety enhancement grant, and provides for a public service announcement campaign to promote the nursing profession. Dr. Charles H. Roadman II, Pres. of the American Health Care Association said Kerry was "deserving of praise" for his work to pass the bill.

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/doctors/jkrecord.html


and

Authored Bill to Assist Parents Care for Children with Special Needs -
In 1988 & 1989, John Kerry worked to allow parents to receive SSI and Medicaid benefits—regardless of their income and assets—to assist their children with special needs. At the time, Kerry stated, “The legislation I am introducing today would require that the income deeming rules be waived for severely disabled children allowing them to receive SSI and Medicaid benefits regardless of their parents' income and assets.” <100th Congress, S. 2094; 101st Congress, S. 1070; Congressional Record, 5/18/89>

[Larkspur]

41. Dean led Kerry on under $200 donations for all of 2003

Kerry had more above $200 donors than Dean for most of the 2003 fundraising season, so Kerry catered to more to the elite than Dean did. And Kerry got the backing of Media moguls going into the Iowa Caucuses. His Media buddies helped drum the "electibility" argument for Kerry like they helped beat the war drums for Bush in 2002.

[George_Bonanza]

54. How about acknowledging your "3 bills" accusation was dead wrong?

[sangh0]

82. And how about acknowledging your "flip-flops" accusation was also wrong?

Not that anyone expects anyone to acknowledge their mistakes.

My prediction - You'll just move to the next set of false accusations, and hope that this time, they'll stick

[stevielizard]

68. "flip-flopping"

I'm with you on this stuff- it is mind-blowing at the effectiveness of the dirty tricks campaign to paint JK in this light- I know a lot of people- YOUNG, DRAFT-AGE PEOPLE- who don't relly like what the WH is doing, but have a pretty negative impression of Kerry which HAS to be from the ads and (following orders) media.

I read in today's NYT ( I know, I Know) about how important the '92 Dem Convention, which was heavily televised, helped Clinton, and how this year the networks will only broadcast a tiny bit of it- I have a bad feeling that the uninformed fencesitters will NEVER get a chance to know the real JK.

But I suspect it goes further- the same people who call Kerry a flipflopflupper are the same ones who don't want to think anything bad about our WH: namely LIHOP or worse.

[demwing]

9. Standing Ovation

thanks for the great post. I reject the "lesser evil" meme. Please drop a line in my similar thread :
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=579931&mesg_id=579931

and we can keep each other, and more importantly this message, kicked.

[noahmijo]

10. Couldn't agree more

And I'd like to point out that everytime someone pulls the whole "lesser of two evils" or "but Kerry voted for the war too!" as if he's just as evil as Bush as if he begged for it, always warms the hearts of the Cheneyites. It's far more complicated than that, but in short Bush lied to Kerry and Edwards, he lied about going to war as a last resort which is the condition that Kerry gave his authorization vote.

Then the corporate whore remark, tell me which dangerous companies does Kerry have allegience too? oh and like Nader has he taken money from the GOP to support his campaign? just wondering.

[onenote]

12. consider the gap

Kudos for the post. And for anyone thinking about maintaining their "purity" by staying home or voting for Nader instead of voting for Kerry, keep in mind...the next president is likely to be in a position to nominate as many as three members of the Supreme Court. We're talking about the direction of this country not just for the next four year, but for the next forty. And even if you don't like some of Kerry's votes or the way he smiles or anything else, think about the gap between the justices he will nominate and what we'll get from Bush/Cheney/Rove....

Vote Kerry. And every other democrat on the ballot.

onenote

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. hear! hear!

to you & the author of this thread.

KERRY/EDWARDS 2004

[billbuckhead]

14. George Bush told the Amish that God speaks through him

John Kerry is a decorated Vietnam vet who came back to America and fought against the war. Kerry was a sort of a war hero and antiwar hero at the same time. (Bush was a war zero). I have picture of Kerry with John Lennon. Kerry is from a distiguished family and has a fine education. Kerry has been elected a bunch of times and came from behind in the primary. Kerry is married to the richest Latina on the planet. None of it matters, John Kerry could be a yellow dog and I would die for him vs George W Bush.

[LimpingLib]

15. Latina = Latin American female

Born in the Western Hemisphere in the lands where the Indians were conquered by the white Spanish or Portugese white European opressors.

A solid amount are Indians who were forced to speak a foreign language and forced to accept a foreign European religon . Very poor and opressed , many flee to the USA and are at a severe disadvantage.

Adding confusion , many pure (unmixed Europeans who didnt have any ancestors who married the conquored Indians)descendants of the Spanish or Portugese are Latinos or Latinas but make no mistake , they in many cases are at no disadvantage in society.Heinz isnt even Latina though she would be considered Hispanic but its highly misleading as we generaly think of the opressed Hispanics (of mostly Indian descent)when we hear the word.

Bottom line, a wealthy European white (especially once from the Iberian pennisula )in the new world is an opressor historicaly. I have some friends who were descendant of parents (or grandparents, I never asked but the last names are easy to spot like Hernandez, well I asked one and he just says he isnt Spanish and doesnt know when any ancestors came here ) from Spain who simply migrated to the USA straight from there and none ever call themselves Hispanic or are called that by peers. Puerto Ricans or Mexicans are always described as that and call themselves that however.

Not saying Heinz is the devil but please dont start trying to paint her as a member of an opressed group.PLEASE.

[billbuckhead]

18. THK described herself as a "Latina" and she does speak a Latin language

I thought Hispanic was Spanish but Portuguese and French are Latin. Because THK is rich, she shouldn't be proud of her heritage? John Hancock was rich, we didn't hold that against him or FDR or JFK. No one can say that having a billionaire intellectual AfroPortugueseFrancoAmerica woman in the White House isn't way different.

[LimpingLib]

19. Its confusing

From what I understand both words were made up fairly recently , maybe Im wrong. Latina does sound like it could mean any female who speaks a language descended from Latin.Which could be a number of languages French, Italian , Romanian ,etc.

If they are from the European mainland then they can be considered Hispanic. Latina means Latin American and somebody who was born here I think.Immigration doesnt count.

[Ann Arbor Dem]

34. Actually, Lusitanian is the correct word....

Lusitanian (or the prefix Luso-) pertains to Portugal and Hispanic to Spain.

So Teresa would be a Luso-African by birth.

[billbuckhead]

49. I've never heard that term before except the ship "Lusitania"

I googled it and Lusitania's history was quite fascinating.

[cprise]

77. Its a prefix commonly used in Portuguese communities

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22luso-american

[spooky3]

38. If * is not elected in Nov., does this mean that God wanted him out?

[sampsonblk]

16. Oh come on

Every now and then, a great candidate comes along and creates a hige following - with his charisma and his message that's perfect for the times.

Not this time around. This year, its just about removing Bush. Try talking someone into voting for Kerry without mentioning Bush. Pretty impossible, huh?

He's a Dem, he ain't Bush, and he's our guy. That's pretty much it.

[billbuckhead]

17. Kerry actually is a very good candidate and so is Edwards,it's just that..

George W Bush is the antichrist and anyone else would be better. Kerry's not a bad choice.

[sampsonblk]

22. Kerry is okay

And that's about it. Not one Dem that I know of is excited about Kerry. I don't see any Kerry groundswell. Didn't see one in the primaries either. On edit: Just my opinion.

[Larkspur]

48. Yep, I live in CT and don't seen any groundswell of Kerry support

Not a Kerry lawn sign or bumper sticker in site in my neighborhood and ther are plenty of Democrats in my neighborhood.

Kerry is just ABB.

[Spiffarino]

67. I live in Western NC and ...

...I'm seeing Kerry bumperstickers all over the place. In fact, I just ordered 50 from www.johnkerry.com to keep up with demand from those asking for them. We are starting a local push to get people to put JK signs up in their windows downtown and by and large people are happy to do it.

It isn't just ABB any more. As the convention draws near, excitement is building for Kerry. Dems and moderates who can't stand Dubya are getting all fired up for their presidential candidate and want to learn more about him. I believe they'll like what they see.

[mr715]

20. Who were the great candidates?

Washington? He wasnt elected by the people.

Lincoln? He won a minority of the vote.

FDR? They were voting AGAINST Hoover.

JFK? An election rife with controversy.


Presidents are made thru a trial by fire, not elected. The "great men" who were elected were duds - Eisenhower, for example.

Kerry is running against Bush, yeah. Kerry will win, and will implement policies which will revive the American dream and the New Deal Coalition. He was born for this job, but he will be MADE a great president through his actions.

He will not be great if people are griping over how he is not great.

Sorta like accusing me of being a horrible painter when you've never seen my work (I can't paint BTW)


M

[sampsonblk]

21. Easy one - who moved big crowds?

Reagan, Kennedy, Eisenhower, FDR, Grant, Lincoln (in '64)

Not all good presidents, but all compelling to their supporters.

[George_Bonanza]

55. VERY informative, thanks!

[Lefty Pragmatist]

23. A good post, but

the ultra-left and the mod-liberal left are important members of our constituency and they need to be listened to, also. While I believe they ought to join the K/E campaign to get rid of Bush, I also believe the mainstream Dem party needs to recognize that many "radical" liberal stances are the logical extension of moderate Dem ideas.

We must all hang together or we shall assuredly hang separately.

[Sugarbleus]

24. I heartily agree with some of your points...still, some of the

things Kerry, apparently, represents break my heart and leave me feeling hopeless.

Maybe one day we'll see a candidate that is truely new and FRESH in his or her ideals.

All of us in America aren't middle class...we linger,dying on the vine and wish someone like FDR would come along and lift us up too.

Kerry is a far sight better than Bush, so he gets my vote and I don't consider him the lesser of two evils...I just don't think he is all that new and fresh from anyone we've had on deck in many years.

For those of us struggling to live at the bottom of the economic food chain, it is going to be life as usual. I always hold onto hope. I Kerry does very very well for all of America, then I'll dance naked in the town square, if he fails I will be back in here with others stumping for the next candidate. I commit to giving the man a chance. I hope for the best on all issues. We shall see.

[Lefty Pragmatist]

25. We don't get dramatic economic reform candidates

because they are simply not electable given the current voting demographics. If people at the bottom of the economic ladder voted with the frequency that they do in many othet democracies, then redistribution candidates would have a constituency and would occasionally even take power.

But that doesn't just happen by itself. There is no "great man of history" effect by which reforms are brought forth by the efforts of individual enlightened candidates. FDR successfully executed his policies because in the wake of the Great Depression they were popular policies. Redistribution policies are just not popular with people who currently vote.

[Sugarbleus]

63. Sad but true.....still I'm losing life sustaining benefits

faster than I thought they'd go and it's frightening. None of us get younger and stuff happens. We need safty nets not just for the likes of me, but for you--unless you are heavily invested of course.

Another thing people "doing well" should know about "anti-redistribution policies"; if our society doesn't try to lift folks from the bottom up, then they can expect CRIME to SOAR. Mark my words.

[Lefty Pragmatist]

71. Well, there are three arguments for safety nets

and boost programs that are sellable to every class:

1) A "right" thing to do.
2) "Fairness" (equal starting line in the race)
3) Pay us now or pay us later (burglary).

The tacit conversation between the poor and everybody else has been "give us $ for 1) and 2) and you won't have to worry about 3)."

This is even more effective in a bureacratic state, because 3) doesn't just mean pain and suffering for crime victims, but its "prevention" (or whatever the criminal justice system is) has become a hugely expensive economic burden in and of itself for everybody.

There is one more argument for safety nets sellable to the middle class:

4) Shit happens. Tomorrow it might be you.

In other words, as insurance -- a sort of very expensive AAA program for driving through life.

The New Deal was sold on 4), so the New Deal won't be going away because 4) is a perennial truth.

The Great Society was sold on 1) and 2) and 3). That's one big reason the Great Society was inherently less stable, more limited, and more likely to fail: each of the first three reasons has a counter argument: 1) we are obliged to help people who help themselves -- not the rest, 2) once people start equal, they all have the same chance so screw you if you're no longer a child, and 3) if I pay blackmail, the blackmailer just increases his demands.

We Dems are stuck in the rut of the Great Society, when we ought to go back to the formula for social insurance that works: the New Deal. That's how to sell universal health care to the middle class. It isn't ever going to be sold as a moral right -- people just don't buy that. But it can be sold as pragmatic step in self-insuring: everybody who owns a home or a business knows you have to pay a ton of money for many different insurances that you will likely never need, but which will wipe you out if you are ever caught without the insurance.

[beaconess]

26. I'm an "archliberal" and I agree with you completely!

I'm as liberal as they come, but, at the same time, I am pragmatic, knowing that no one who agrees with me 100% of the time will ever be elected.

I also know politics well enough to understand that politicians - especially those in the legislature - cannot march to their own tune. In order to get anything done, they have to compromise, pick their battles and recognize that half a loaf is better than no bread at all. Doing this does not represent failure or selling out or mean that they are whores or pushovers. Politicians who rant and rave and insist on getting their way or nothing may make us feel good but they accomplish absolutely nothing for the people they represent. The most effective politicians are those who do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

John Kerry was not my first choice, but he is a good, decent man and a fine politician. And he'll make a hell of a president. He's not the lesser of two evils - he's a candidate that I am proud to support.

[Cats Against Frist]

27. The Importance of this is not even about Kerry

The GOP must be sent a message that letting far-right extremists take over their party will not be acceptable to the American people.

So I agree with you, to an extent -- anyone not supporting the candidate that has the best chance of delivering this message to the GOP is more caught up in ideology than actually protecting our nation and our Constitution.

I am a registered Democrat, and will proudly remain one -- but I am also a libertarian in philosophy, so no, Kerry isn't the best candidate for me. But since the GOP has proven that their promises of "reduction of government," seem to only lie in areas where corporate lobbyists want it to, and doesn't lie in areas where lobbyists want the government to stay big -- they are no different from the left and all its regulation and everything.

But what is far worse, and far more dangerous is that the GOP relies on the Christian Right for its power -- which scares the shit out of me more than any tax or regulation ever could.

I mean to say that while it might not seem that people are thrilled with Kerry, you CAN reasonably make the case that the only reason to vote for him is to stop the GOP, which is good enough, in itself. Of course, if you believed this, you sure as hell wouldn't entertain voting for Nader.

The far left has extreme ideologues who really are entranced with state socialism -- I used to be -- until I realized that our obsession with big government plays just as much a role in furthering corporate domination, militarism and the dumbing down of the voter, as it does implementing the programs and laws that I support.

That said, since I can't decentralize everything, nor strip the imbalances that make my philosophical system impossible, and claim the Pacific Northwest for liberals, and make Frank Zappa our honorary founding father, I support the Democrats.

[Darranar]

28. Oh, please...

I support Israel - I do not feel that the fate of Middle Eastern peace should be left in the hands of Palestinians. They have made it all to clear that the only world they want to live in is one where all Jews are expelled.

That is ridiculous. Some 74% of Gazans would support reconciliation with Israel if they acquired their own state. Though no statistics immediately come to me, it would be surprising if far less than that proportion of West Bank Palestinians desired such a thing. The Palestinians, in general, want peace, as do the Israelis.

I disagree with the PATRIOT Act, but I understand why Senator Kerry had to vote for it. And I am honored by his noble attempt to make the measure more palatable.

Please explain how Senator Kerry "had" to vote for it.

I disagree with the Iraq war, but I know who really has American soldier's blood on his hands, and it is not Senator John Kerry.

John Kerry voted for the murderous Iraq War. As such, he is at the very least partly responsible for it, like every other senator and representative who did so. Furthermore, he has promised to keep American forces in Iraq, continuing the slaughter of innocent Iraqis and the insertion of US corporations into that nation.

I do not think that the strong (be they nations or corporations) are inherently evil. America should not bow down because we are greater than other nations.

They are not inherently evil, just often evil. The current government of the US certainly qualifies, as have many US governments throughout the latter half of the twentieth century.

Submitted for your approval, to all you archliberal academics, so quick to cite philosophy and ethics; America is a nation, and as such should be concerned with her own interests first.

At the expense of the rest of the world?

As wrong as it is to "liberate" Iraq for its oil, so to is the notion that we should prevent Israel from defending itself. So to is the notion that we should prevent other nations from trading for maximum profits.

Neither stopping Israel's murderous aggression nor halting the US-sponsored attack on the Third World by multinational corporations and various financial institutions is wrong, and those things are exactly what I would like Kerry to do - and I see no indication that he will.

[George_Bonanza]

57. Patriot Act, IWR...

Kerry "had" to vote for the PATRIOT Act because it would've been political suicide to look weak on terrorism right after 9/11. If you're just a senator with no immediate presidential ambitions like Russ Feingold, then it's much more politically feasible to vote against it. Attacking Kerry on the Patriot Act is very weak as 99% of the US Senate voted for it as well. Even the Ted Kennedys and Hillary Clintons.

The IWR is Kerry's weak point, and he shouldn't be let off the hook for that by his supporters. However, it was not up to Kerry to decide whether to go into Iraq or not, and his vote was not a tipper of the scales. Bush was hell bent on going to Iraq and nothing would have stopped him. And I back Kerry a 100% of staying in Iraq, now that we've cut off its head. Think there's a lot of deaths now? How many more Iraqis would die if we simply left and allowed a political system where a bunch of rag-tag extremists duked it out week in, week out? Simply exiting is not an option, nor is the humane one.

No one man is suddenly going to fix all of the unhappiness in America in one go. Demanding so is not idealism, it's blindness. So often, I see idealism as an intellectual mask for obstinacy and tunnel-vision. For all of Kerry's faults, he will still be the most liberal Democratic president since LBJ, which was three decades ago.

[Darranar]

59. LBJ had a little problem...

you know, that "trifle" in Indochina.

If Kerry turns out to be as "liberal" as Lyndon, I will deeply regret my ABB stance in this election.

No one "has" to vote for a bill. That Kerry voted for it for political reasons is clear; he is a politician, and that is routine for politicians. That does not justify it however.

The continued US presence in Iraq will only lead to greater anger and resentment, and likely a stronger focal point for terrorists throughout the Middle east. The longer the US repression continues, the more likely a horrible outcome similar to the one you outline. In addition, a US "victory" would mean a pro-US "democratic" regime that is basically servile to the foreign corporations that will likely come to dominate Iraq's economy. In order to control an angry populace, brutal repression will likely be "necessary", naturally ignored or downplayed by the corporate media.

[retread]

29. "Far Left" ???? "Archliberal Academics"?? What the hell does that mean?

*

[cprise]

78. It means: "People I don't like"

[Anarcho-Socialist]

30. You can't really expect everyone on the left to agree on everything w/ J K

People who say that "Kerry is the lesser of two evils" are just acknowledging that Kerry's views differ to their own, but they still intend to vote for him over *. You have made your own choice, but its wrong to attack some left-wingers just because they happen to compare Kerry and Bush to their own beliefs. We should be welcoming these people instead of insulting them and surrending them to Nader.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[sadiesworld]

32. Kerry is a decent candidate and will continue to receive my support.

Nonetheless, it is not just the "far left" who have concerns.

My guess is that at least 75% of the population would support an end to outsourcing, a reintroduction of manufacturing, and a sane immigration policy.

While Kerry supports an end to tax credits for outsourcing, in general his policies bear an uncanny resemblance to the "third way"...NOT traditional dem policies. While I agree with the DLC on some issues, trade is a problem.

The erosion of the middle class is NOT a "far left" issue. (not trying to denigrate the far left here, merely pointing out that this is a WIDESPREAD concern)

[Forkboy]

33. Thanks,your opinion is just that

YOUR opinion.

[Anwen]

35. The arrogance of your post

is in your conclusion that we on the "far left" should share the same views as yours. You have the right to your opinion, and so do we.

Kerry is not my favorite candidate, but I plan on voting for him regardless. I am making the choice based on what is best for this country, not because I see Kerry as flawless.

[GreenPartyVoter]

36. Hear, hear!

[goodhue]

65. thank you for that

very true

[calico1]

37. Well said. I totally agree with you!

[incapsulated]

39. Wow. The same insults the GOP uses, hurled at me on DU!

By a "Kerry supporter" no less. To a chorus of approval. And people wonder why some of us say this Party is in trouble.

So, I'm an "Arrogant Liberal" because I support the basic rights of the Palestinians, and the moral right of the world to speak out against oppression of occupied people anywhere, even, *gasp*, another country? I take it you have huge problems with the UN as well, then?

I'm a "archliberal academic" (you left out the "Northeastern" I guess, since that's where Kerry is from!) because I believe in the necessity of reigning in corporate monoliths from buying our government, destroying our environment, and using draconian trade policies (enacted by said bought government)to buy slave labor abroad while outsourcing working class jobs at home?

I'm some sort of crazy leftist loon because I actually believe that the politician's I elect to represent me demonstrate some principles, courage and spine, at least once in a while if it doesn't interfere with their ambitions? Or at the very least hold them accountable for their votes?

Kerry had my vote since it was obvious he had the nomination. But just about any politician that has clawed his way up through this corrupt system to the point where he is in a position to be elected POTUS is the lesser of two evils. The contrast is just especially stark and earnest this time. That's just reality. I'm a realist but I'm no submissive party hack who will justify and apologize for anything to prop up the chosen one. I might as well join the GOP with that attitude.

[TeacherCreature]

52. that's okay, come join the brotherhood

:7

'You understand,' he said, 'that you will be fighting in the dark. You will always be in the dark. You will receive orders and you will obey them, without knowing why. Later I shall send you a book from which you will learn the true nature of the society we live in, and the strategy by which we shall destroy it. When you have read the book, you will be full members of the Brotherhood. But between the general aims that we are fighting for and the immediate tasks of the moment, you will never know anything. I tell you that the Brotherhood exists, but I cannot tell you whether it numbers a hundred members, or ten million. From your personal knowledge you will never be able to say that it numbers even as many as a dozen. You will have three or four contacts, who will be renewed from time to time as they disappear. As this was your first contact, it will be preserved. When you receive orders, they will come from me. If we find it necessary to communicate with you, it will be through Martin. When you are finally caught, you will confess. That is unavoidable. But you will have very little to confess, other than your own actions. You will not be able to betray more than a handful of unimportant people. Probably you will not even betray me. By that time I may be dead, or I shall have become a different person, with a different face.'

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[Zorra]

42. Your generalization of "liberals":

Definition of liberal: Respectful of the ideas and behavior of others; tolerant. Favoring democratic reform and the use of resources to effect social progress.

Categorizing "liberals" like you have in your post is how the RW has succeeded in making the word "liberal" a nasty word to many people, and, IMO, has been partly responsible for the increased electoral success of republicans since the Reagan era.

The RW is at this very moment attempting to denigrate Senator Kerry by painting him as a "liberal". Personally, I think being liberal is a positive thing.

I am an ardent liberal. I never post anything against John Kerry, am always highly supportive of him, and believe that it is critical that all Democrats unite behind Kerry and insure that he is elected to the Presidency.

[Kanary]

44. You keep letting us know that you don't need us.

Yet, you turn around and tell us to work hard and register people, and help the campaign.

Can't have it both ways.

You want us, or don't want us?

Which is it?

Kanary

[mr715]

50. Alright

I want people to believe the truth, and not succomb to lies they believe simply because of cognitive dissonance.

I am certainly not like most people here. I think Kerry is gonna win, but I frankly dont want a single person to vote for Kerry and have to hold their nose.

I want everyone to get real, understand the stakes and the facts ,and be proud to vote for John Kerry.

[incapsulated]

53. So, it's not enough to vote for Kerry...

We have to love him too? Oh, for chrissakes.

"Get real", you say? Take your own advice. Most Dem's are ABB, period. They would vote for whoever the nominee was. The fact that many here are going to vote for someone they would have never considered voting for says more for their understanding of the "stakes" than anything you have said, despite the insults you have made toward them.

[TeacherCreature]

58. You want everyone to drink the Kool Aid

If the only people who vote for Kerry are those not holding their noses, say hello to four more years of bush.
You simply can not denand that people agree with you. Unless you are giving forced lobotomies people are going to come to their own conclusions.

And please look up the meaning of congnitive dissonance.

[mr715]

62. I think

The only reason people are holding their noses is because they are people who do not know the facts and are either those guilt ridden victim people that just feel every state/corporation/politician is evil, or they are so upset their candidate didnt get thru, they will do all in their power to make Kerry seem like less than he is.

I am not insulting anyone. I am expressing how I feel. I'm not telling you what to do, I'm letting you know I think it is arrogant and intrusive to tell me how Kerry is "the lesser of two evils".

If the election is about PATRIOT Act, Palestinian murders (who are the good guys because they are 'weaker'), and Iraq, then we're gonna lose.

It isnt. Its holistic.

And dont patronize me. Cognitive dissonance is exactly what is referred to in my posts; a disavowal of reality because it doesnt sync with beliefs held dear.

Reality - Kerry is what you all want
Reality - He won
Belief Held Dear - The system never lets the best man win

QED - Kerry is evil

[maxanne]

61. you

are bound to be disappointed.

You are entitled to want as much, and as hard as you want - but you aren't entitled to make demands of others.

If the stakes are so almighty high, we should have been more careful chosing a candidate.

[jonnyblitz]

46. kerry sucks less then Bush

sorry that is what i think. I will vote for him for that reason, he isn't Bush. I totally do not like this man and try to keep my criticism to a minimum but these posts from moderates berating those of us on the "far left" (who spend a good chunk of our time and money on political activism) get hissed and snarled at by you moderates or whatever u call yourselfs is really fucking pissing me off bad. I am tired of people with thin fucking skins who think that just because we criticize some of his stances we need to be personally shredded. Do you really think most of us are NOT gonna vote for Kerry?!?! I will vote and encourage everybody i see (particulary when in New Hampshire) to vote for Kerry but here,on DU amongst fellow like minded, i wanna read and voice concerns without being attacked by the self appointed kerry thought police. SO lay the FUCK off the far leftie name calling shit and save it for the freepers where it belongs. Some of us just don't like some of his stances . allow us that right and the right to voice it. I am not returning to this flaime bait thread. BLEH :thumbsdown:

[liberalpragmatist]

47. I disagree with you STRONGLY over Israel-Palestine

BUT I heartily agree with the point of your post. Don't get me wrong. I'm VERY liberal - at least on many issues. Like many, I'm not totally black-and-white, and I have some more conservative stands. ON the whole, I'm quite liberal though.

And while I firmly believe that the left and far-left are an important block ofthe party that need to have a strong voice, it is a sham to say that Kerry is the "lesser of two evils". He is a strong progressive leader, a pragmatic politician who has sensible, workable ideas. Nobody is going to agree with you about everything. That's life. Elections are, at the core, races about the two most realistic options. I guess if you apply the "lesser of two evils" bill to that, then EVERY election is "lesser of two evils".

To further the point, let me use the idea of instant runoff voting. I like the system and I hope it's eventually widely adopted. However, it seems hypocritical to me that many on the far-left argue strenuously FOR IRV and then say they're voting against Kerry and the Dems b/c they're the "lesser of two evils". Wouldnt' Instant Runoff Voting eventually result in the exact same choice? IRV will eventually result in two final candidates, like any runoff. Won't the final choice STILL be "lesser of two evils"?

There is no "perfect candidate." Even the great presidents were seen as flawed candidates, as someone else pointed out (FDR, Lincoln). THe only person who matches your own views exactly is yourself. You are free to vote for whoever you want - it's your right, and if you want to make a statement against the war by voting third-party, I can try to convince you otherwise, but it's still your choice. Just don't whine about how Kerry was the lesser of two evils if he loses. You would have had a chance to get for most of what you wanted (incl. probably an honorable and good conclusion to the Iraq fiasco) but you sacrificed that for something else.

[WI_DEM]

51. yes, yes, yes the arrogance of the liberals

We are the ones who make the poor old democratic party look bad. Perhaps you would be happier if even more of them defected to the Greens then you could enjoy a nice DLC dominated party that has relatively few principles which will attract those swing voters who swing to the democrats in bad times and the GOP in good times.

[DemBones DemBones]

56. You've ruffled some feathers here with some

of your comments but many of us agree with you, up to a point. You don't seem to be concerned about the excessive corporate influence on politics and how it's made the Democratic Party more like the GOP.

There are certainly too many Dems, at DU and elsewhere, who continue to carp about our party's nominee after the primaries. It's my opinion that Kucinich was our best candidate but it's time to rally around Kerry now and quit bitching about what might have been (like yesterday's thread in GD about the golden past when Dean was revolutionizing the party, ignoring Dean's poor showing in the primaries.) Kerry is a good man, not some bozo we're voting for just to get Bush* out.

It's time to quit focusing on whatever flaws we individually see in Kerry and look for his good points. It's also wise to remember that he will change somewhat in the presidency, because he's an intelligent person and not an automaton, and may be more progressive than we skeptical progressives expect. Moreover, we can continue to communicate with him and attempt to convince him to change in a progressive way. John Kerry may end up being a great president. Let's give him a chance at greatness.

There's a thread in this very forum, posted by liberalpragmatist, discussing and linking to an excellent article about Kerry by Thomas Oliphant. It's a long article, very much worth the read, but here are two short quotes that summarize this problem of Dems picking at their candidates:


"Democrats (political writers, too) love second-guessing, relentless kibitzing, pseudo-biographical psychobabble. In today’s political culture, progressives tend to be neurotic, conservatives fanatical. "

<snip>

"John Kerry is a good, tough man. He is curious, grounded after a public and personal life that has not always been pleasant, a fan of ideas whose practical side has usually kept him from policy wonkery, a natural progressive with the added fixation on what works that made FDR and JFK so interesting. I know it is chic to be disdainful, but the modern Democratic neurosis gets in the way of a solid case for affection. Without embarrassment, and after a very long journey, I really like this guy. As one of his top campaign officials, himself a convert since the primaries ended, told me recently, this is pure Merle Haggard. It’s not love, but it's not bad."



Those who watched Bill Clinton speak at the Harkin Steak Fry will remember him saying something similar. Paraphrasing, Bill said, the trouble with Democrats is they have to fall in love. Republicans just fall in line.

DemBones says "It's insane to expect to fall in love with every Democratic presidential nominee. Sometimes you fall in love, the rest of the time you'd better fall in line. This country is always a better place to live when the Democrats have the White House."

[George_Bonanza]

60. "Liberal" is a term gone out of fashion

RWers use it to demonize left-of-centre (and beyond) candidates, while LWers use it in derision to left-of-centre candidates (thou aren't lefty enough).

[cyclezealot]

64. Too bad Democrats get bamboozled by Reagan slandering.

I am proud to be a liberal...Reagan knew how to employ nazi style slogans to destroy an ideology mean't to preserve our Civil liberties, provide equal opportunity, and promote the common good.'
Liberalism assures a free competitive market, protection against economic elites.... To turn our backs on liberalism is to turn our backs on Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt's promise.
Attacking liberalism is just an attempt to elevate economic elites to monopolistic high's never dreamed of.
Too bad educated people can't see how slanderous pr methods obficates public debate and denies us control of a economic nightmare that turns us into a third world country..Too many Democrats follow the party line at the cost of their own well being.
I will vote for kerry because the Republicans are steering us towards a one party, non-democratic society. ...But, I will look at Kerry's record on the war, trade, health care. It will not be easy for me to convince others to vote Kerry, when I have tremendous issue differences with the man.

[Hello_Kitty]

66. Very succinct view on Isreal and I agree - You rock!!! (n/m)

[zoeyfong]

69. Dems who oppose Kerry are not all 'liberal' or 'archliberal.'

I am pro-Israel, pro-gun-rights, anti-welfare without work, i'm not an environmental 'wacko,' and the reason i'm not voting for kerry is certainly not that he's not 'liberal' enough. Frankly, the man disgusts me to an extent that i don't think i could physically bring myself to fill in the circle next to his name. What disgusts me about him is his utter lack of priciple or scruple, and/or the lack of the backbone to stand for any principles he might have. Now, i understand how politics works, and i have voted for many candidates who were not 'perfect,' but i'm sorry, i draw the line at a candidate who is willing to get people killed for votes. With every passing day and every new example of meaningless, duplicitous, double-speak coming from the kerry campaign, it becomes more impossible for me to vote for him. it's not even a matter of disagreeing with him on this or that issue, the problem is you never know where he stands on *anything* because he's such a politician and double-speaker. I do know how he voted on IWR though, and that shows me that there is nothing that this man won't do to win, and that's a good reason not to vote for him.

[Seven]

74. Here is the worst thing to me...

..Kerry says life begins at conception and still has a great record on abortion from the liberal perspective....but wtf does that say about him as a person?

I don't believe life starts at conception..and if I did I certainly wouldn't be able to support abortion rights. I doubt many people would. Just seems like a bizaare position to hold onto.

[paulk]

81. it's a position of integrity

For a politician to uphold the will of his constituents, (not to mention the law) is one of integrity. It says a lot about him as a person, all of it positive.

It shows that Kerry is able to separate his religious convictions from his role as a public servant, which is essential in a secular state. Kerry stands on the constitution, not the Bible, and to criticize him for that strikes me as "bizarre".

[paulk]

80. I'm glad he's willing to do what it takes to win

considering his opponent was just as willing in 2000...

That's what it takes - and I can only conclude from your post that four more years of Bush is just fine with you.

There are some pretty valid reasons to vote for Kerry that don't begin or end with the candidate. Like his cabinet appointees, judicial nominees, etc.

[Greedy Oil Puritan]

70. From a support and active member of Canada's NDP

If you're struggling between Nader, the Greens, and Kerry, just remember what Bush will do to the judiciary if he gets elected.

[Seven]

72. I have no problem with you expressing these views..

..and no politician is ever going to bring everything to the table.

But since I profoudnly disagree with you on many things and Kerry on many things, I can't bring myself to vote for him.

I will campaign against him or work against him in any way.

You are free to express your views honestly, which you have done above.

So am I.

The fact is that I agree with John Kerry on very little.

I disagree with him on foreign policy in regards to Israel, Iraq, Venenzuela and Cuba (and I"m far from a commie ftr)

I disagree with him on the broad issue of free trade

I disagree with many of his votes..from NCLB to The Patriot Act.

If John Kerry had run for president in 1984 or 1988 I probably would have entusiastically supported his campaign. After all the man worked very hard to expose CIA malfaescence on top of having a strong record on social issues.

I do not see that John Kerry anymore.

And I will not vote for him.

[Walt Starr]

73. Yeah, we "Liberals" are with ya now

We'll vote for Kerry in 2004.

don't expect us back in 2008, though. you obviously don't want us to help re-elect Kerry.

[sangh0]

83. Extortion won't work

particularly when you don't have the votes to back up your threats

[JohnKleeb]

75. Personally though many will disagree

Kerry was the most liberal of the "electable candiates" that said he was my second choice in the primaries, and I was pleased to see him come back. He's not perfect, we don't agree on everything but that's fine, fact of the matter is Kerry will make a great president, he's a smart man.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Bread and Circus]

79. I like Kerry, but at times he seems like a political hack....

I guess they all do, it's what it takes to get elected.

p.s. If the dude can help get us closer to energy independence,
I will happily vote for him.

Also, Bush and his gang are about 3 steps away from fascism
if not already there. I don't Kerry is like that at all.