Will we ever again see a real Democrat run for president?

[realFedUp]

(Kerry gets my vote and my hope that he will
make the changes needed in this country)

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print.php?sid=17218

Randolph T. Holhut: 'Will we ever again see a real Democrat run for president?'
Date: Friday, July 30 @ 09:58:44 EDT

By Randolph T. Holhut

DUMMERSTON, Vt. - In talking to people around where I live, there's a distinct lack of enthusiasm for John Kerry.
Sure, most liberals in Vermont are going to vote for him on Nov. 2. But they will do so only because he's not George W. Bush.

That may be enough to make Kerry the next president, but it certainly isn't enough to inspire people to give him the kind of support that we saw our former governor, Howard Dean, receive last year when he was one of the few Democrats with enough guts to take on President Bush on his ill-fated choice to invade Iraq.

The Deaniacs are in Kerry's corner now, because there's nowhere else to go. To get rid of the worst president in our nation's history, Democrats have to support a man who was one of the founders of the Democratic Leadership Council who supported some of the worst policy ideas of the past decade.

snip

But I still feel an emptiness. I still see a Democratic Party that is too cautious and too afraid of bold ideas; a party that is trying too hard to repudiate liberalism despite the wreckage of past attempts to appeal to voters with tepid centrism.


continued-

[Melodybe]

1. I'm guessing that he missed the speech last night.

[The Sushi Bandit]

2. No.. real like Kucinich or Sharpton

[realFedUp]

4. I'm sure he did hear the speech

Let's be honest, Kerry did his duty last night
but really didn't mention a lot of controversial
issues that define the Dems from the Republican
party. The Dems took back the flag, the military
and church which are good things to be reminded
of but they don't address real concerns.

I have great expectations for Kerry but frankly
he's the only game we are playing.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. Why are you sure of that? Based on what evidence?

Reading the article, it doesn't sound like he heard Kerry's speech. It doesn't sound like he's talking about the real John Kerry that I have supported for ten years. It sounds like he is talking about the strawman-Kerry that has been erected so many times at DU.


And frankly, by saying Kerry didn't 'address real concerns', it doesn't sound like you heard Kerry's speech either, although perhaps you watched it....

[President Jesus]

3. How in the hell is Kerry not a real Democrat?

I've never understood how Dean is somehow more of a Democrat than Kerry. There is absolutely no basis for that.

How is a commitment to creating new energy sources, stem-cell research, protecting the environment, and health care for all not Democratic enough? These were not just themes in last night's speech, these have been the hallmarks of every one of Kerry's speeches since he started his campaign.

What am I missing?

[realFedUp]

5. These were mentioned in the article

snip-
He said there were 12 things that the Democrats wouldn't discuss at the convention in Boston: a crackdown on corporate crime, paying workers a living wage, withdrawal from GATT and NAFTA, revamping the income tax system, adoption of a single-payer health-care system, standing up to commercial energy interests, cutting the military budget, electoral reform, overhauling the criminal justice system, supporting a just two-state accord between Israel and the Palestinians, advocating a complete U.S. military and commercial withdrawal from Iraq and battling the so-called "tort reform" movement.

[phantom power]

6. he mentioned some of those in the speech

standing up to commercial energy interests, and the criminal justice system. He also covered tax reform and health-care.

[Melodybe]

7. All in good time, why blow our wad now?

We have Dean, and Sharpton, and Kucinich on our side I am not worried about where the ideas will come from.

[Green Lantern]

9. I will believe

that the DLC does not control this election process for the DP if, and only if, the party uses Howard, Dennis and Al in speeches all across the country every day possible from now to the election, and if and only if, the DLC does not script and approve their speeches.

The scritpting process, this "centrist" process, will cause the loss of liberals and progressives between the convention and the election (assuming it is not pre-empted by Bushwa), who are not Democrats. Can Kerry sustain that loss? Without strong labor support, I doubt it, and there was little in the speech for the working stiff.

The Kerry who spoke his conscience in April 1971 was the Kerry I could (and did) support. The Kerry of the DLC gives me great cause to pause.

Which Kerry will run for President?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. Based on your post, I am willing to predict your future.

I don't think you will ever be happy in the Democratic party. I think it is in your best interest emotionally to pursue a third party course. I don't think those efforts will do anything to make the world a better place, but it will probably be more emotionally satisfying for you.

[Green Lantern]

18. Future

Interesting.
See - my moniker.

Am not now nor have I ever been a Democrat, but the rest is insightful. I am intrigued. I was an Independent for over 30 years.

I live my beliefs and my beliefs have made my world better. I find your denial of my beliefs interesting. I question, analyse and synthesize. You prefer to follow others' established beliefs?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. Well, I mean no disrespect,

but I did not speculate as to what you believed, I have no idea what you believe or indeed whether you believe in anything - nor do I care. Nor did I make any comment that indicated whether I have a questioning nature, think for myself, follow others or anything like that.

I simply made a comment that apparently from what you've said in response, was 100% accurate.

[Green Lantern]

25. Hi

My point was simply that you assumed I was a Dem and that I should go hunting, when the reality was otherwise. Your thumbnail would have been dead on except for that and the assumption that my position would be unlikely to change the world. So as I noted, it was intriguing in that respect and very insightful as I said.. In other posts on DU I have commented that I was here to get a sense of the "new" Kerry and the DP platform before determining my vote for Nov. (BTW-it will not go to Bushwa under any circumstances.)

For the record, i was a face in the crowd during the 'Nam protests, and in support of Earth Day, so I think my positions have indeed been a small part of world change. I was a student marshall during the post Kent State riots in Boston in May of 1970.

I appreciate your comments. Only took a little umbrage at the idea that I would be too much the idealist to have a positive impact on the world.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Whenever you assume I mean something that I didnt say

you are probably wrong. Actually I am a little obsessive about precise language. You will note that my statement I don't think you will ever be happy in the Democratic party. in no way implies that you are a Dem. And yes I did note your handle. The fact is you were wrong when you read additional meaning into my words beyond what I said. OK?

There is no 'new' Kerry. The John Kerry I saw accept the Democratic nomination is the same John Kerry who inspired me all those years ago, with what he probably considered just another day in the Senate, that there was someone in government who really was on my side. He amazed me that day (cspan 93?) and I fervently hoped he would be President someday. I haven't agreed with him all the time but I only believe more strongly than ever that he is someone fighting for people like me, by which I mean, people.

I am highly disillusioned with third party efforts. Here in my town we had a pretty active effort with the New Party, that was basically crushed by out-of-town money. I just look at the array of posibilities, the historical record, and my conclusion is that the most effective organization for effecting positive political change in the US is the Democratic party.

Only took a little umbrage at the idea that I would be too much the idealist to have a positive impact on the world.

Again, I said nothing about you being 'too much the idealist to have a positive impact on the world'. What I said was that I think third parties are a waste of time and energy.

By the way did you notice what the first issue Kerry mentioned in his speech was? The environment.

[geek tragedy]

15. Let;'s take these individually

a crackdown on corporate crime (referred to Enron and CEO's ripping off workers)

paying workers a living wage (the labor folks seemed pretty happy--he talked about declining wages amongst workers)
, withdrawal from GATT and NAFTA (since when does one need to be a protectionist and isolationist to be a Democrat?)
revamping the income tax system (he's rolling back the tax cuts for the rich)
adoption of a single-payer health-care system (because the Clintons had so much success with that issue)
standing up to commercial energy interests (like Dick Cheney, Enron, and the Saudis)
cutting the military budget (does this guy want Kerry to lose the election?)
electoral reform (?)
overhauling the criminal justice system (?)
supporting a just two-state accord between Israel and the Palestinians (he didn't pander to Israel, which is good enough for me)
advocating a complete U.S. military and commercial withdrawal from Iraq (we can't afford to have it turn into Afghanistan--Bush broke it, we bought it)
battling the so-called "tort reform" movement (this is a campaign issue? The presence of Edwards on the ticket speaks volumes anyway)

[salonghorn70]

11. Can't Speak For Vermonters, But Here In Texas

All Texas Democrats I know are really excited about Kerry. And its more than just Anybody But Bush. There is a feeling that Kerry will make a great President. We just wish that we were a swing state.x(

[Cocoa]

12. I can't relate to any of that

I vaguely remember thinking that way before Bush, but that seems like a long long time ago.

[saccheradi]

13. my only concern is this...

Kerry thinks for himself, and that means that he has every right to change his mind or focus when he feels a change is called for...

But why did he say the war in Iraq wasn't called for when he himself voted in favor of it? It is a glaring contradiction that he must address, and if he doesn't, it will come back to bite him.

[paulk]

14. it will only bite him

from the same dog that's been biting him all along -

the high and mighty left, always more concerned with their self righteousness than with winning elections.

[saccheradi]

16. left or right, I just want to see his thinking...

If nothing more than to bolster that I'm voting for him because he will be a great president, not simply because Bush is a lousy one.

[paulk]

17. ...then read his floor speech on the IWR

it's a good introduction to his thinking...

Kerry never voted in "favor" of George Bush's war.

[saccheradi]

19. do you have a link to it???

[paulk]

21. here -

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

excerpt:


"As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs."

[saccheradi]

23. and another one I found interesting as well...

http://tristero.blogspot.com/2004_03_07_tristero_archive.html#107902197946063720

thank you for opening a door to the details we were missing Paul... I just hope some others who are reading will follow the links and read them as well.

[Elidor]

26. He has addressed it.

I don't know that I'm satisfied with his answer, and it's pretty long (longer than I'm going to go into now), but the media have given it little play. Will Pitt addressed it in a recent piece, the gist being that Kerry felt the resolution was for using the U.N. as a threat of force to ensure compliance with the weapons inspectors, and Bush abused the powers he extracted from a deer-in-the-headlights congress.

[DaveofCali]

20. Im tired of this..... but you have to give credit to Kerry

Im tired of pundits and picky unsatisfiable people that keep on trying to water down Kerry's speech. I heard how that speech was delivered, and anyone that saw the full glory of that speech could not honestly be able to try to water it down, unless their A) from the opposition, or B) picky and unsatisfiable (ex. far left liberals)

Whether or not Kerry can really solve these problems, one has to give Kerry credit for taking a stand for what most liberals knew and (indirectly) telling it as it is to the American people (including all the shots against Bush and the other Republicans for taking away civil liberties, manipulating culture wars, and also lashing out at Bush for his ties with the Saudis, almost reiterating Farenheit 9/11) This is a lot different than the complacent and timid Democrats that we used to know. And I give Kerry and the Democrats the credit for doing what would otherwise be dismissed as liberal.

[ComradeOgilvy]

24. Last real Democrat???

Kerry is certainly more liberal than Clinton, and Carter from what I can tell (I wasn't conscious during his presidency). Johnson was last Democratic president to establish any large social programs or reforms, but that came along with Vietnam. And McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis didn't have too strong of a shot to get into office.

I don't think the Democratic Party is a social democratic party, Kerry is a big step toward real liberalism rather than the Clinton's and the DLC's centrism and I'm grateful for that.

[newyawker99]

28. Hi ComradeOgilvy!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: