Can somebody tell me why Kerry insists in being in a list of people

[Mass]

where the leadership has more or less dismissed him as passe or ignored him for the last 12 months (if not before). The DLC list is on and he is still in. I cant make any sense of that.

EDIT: I take it back for the new list. It is still an old list that is no more linked to the DLC website but somebody obviously saved the link. But I stand by my question.

[emulatorloo]

1. birthday crowd, did you bring that up?

My guess is Kerry joined under pressure when it was "the thing to do." Kinda like Rotary Club -- everybody has to go and eat the rubber chicken and be seen.

At any rate, DU Kerry bashers seem to get a lot of mileage out of making wild claims based on this.

[Mass]

2. I just wished that he would withdraw his name as Obama did

At this point, for him to be in this list is kind of masochist (though he is not the only one who has nothing to do with the leadership), and is certainly hurting more than helping.

[TayTay]

3. There were really 3 things that qualified JK for this

Education and the willingness to look at school vouchers programs. (That were not vouchers programs as the Rethugs thought about them, honest.) DLC liked the 'original ideas' part of this and the willingness to review the way unions and education are operating.

Trade. Oh boy, trade. Sen Kerry voted against CAFTA in 2005. That may have been the first trade bill he voted against. He did vote for NAFTA and for other bills. (Again, I have had issues with my taller Senator and his support for trade bills in the past was a very big one that I had major problems with over the years, sigh.) This is DLC stuff, lock, stock and barrel.

Budgets. JK has always been against running deficits and for pay-go and other ideas. (Goes way back.) This sounds like DLC stuff. However, there are other factors to consider.

This is the basis of the ammunition that JK is DLC. (I'm not buying it. I never bought it. I could see being in the Senatorial New Democratic Network. I could even make the case that he sort of, kind of, maybe, still is, but not really. Ahm, last I looked, JK is still funding Casey in PA and Cantwell in Washington State. I think he full well understand that the Dem Party has to build Center-LEft coalitions that work. But DLC, ahm, not really. Well, kind of, but not really, maybe, in a sort of I believed this anyway and this is your flavor of the month stuff, not mine, way.)

[karynnj]

4. Also, officially leaving implies a change

where in fact there really never was one. Kerry has an easy answer which is that he believes in a broad Democratic party - as he said concerning supporting Casey. It's also clear that he votes each issue as he really thinks he should.

I love his comments in the last few years on trade. It was refreshing to hear a Senator explain that he voted for NAFTA because ( ), but experience shows it hasn't worked out that way. His comments on the effects in the third world were beautiful and reflected his real values, which seem to go beyond political ideologies. He seems simply pragmatic in his view that globalization is a reality that can't realistically be legislated away - not that he was in favor of increasing the power of the global corporations.

If he weren't a member, he likely wouldn't join. But, the action of overtly rejecting a wing of the party before he runs would likely not help. Those who have a problem with it, won't really give him credit anyway.

[TayTay]

5. Phew! I concur.

I have no wish to re-open an old wound that has healed over, especially since 2002. I think the trade agreements were a great idea that the Rethugs screwed up. I think JK's heart was always in the right place on this, but the agreements themselves were 'not trustworthy' as implemented. But, now I have warm and fuzzy feelings all over the place on this issue and JK and have no wish to re-open it past CAFTA. (Which JK voted against. Yeah! Cuz, that ain't free trade.)

Sigh!

[Mass]

7. The problem is that the DLC at this point is more defined by

his will not to fight Bush than by anything else and attacking those who want to fight as extreme activists.

Whenever you read their website, you realize that they dont think grassroots and netroots have a role to play, which is clearly something Kerry disagrees with.

Actually, one of his main problem is not that he is (or not) DLC. It is that the DLC maintains this list of DLC elected officials. Dean, Edwards, and Gore were able to distance themselves without problems because they are no more elected and were dropped off the list automatically. I am not sure that it would not be good for him to be dropped off the list because each times some idiot in the leadership says something like Vilsack said last week (that we should not fight Bush on the NSA wiretapping), it reflects on all members, even those who have led the fight against this subject (Kerry and Feinstein in this case).

[karynnj]

10. Kerry is prominent enough and his views and positions

on these things are well enough known, that I doubt anyone would go through the mental gymnastics needed to say that he supported the DLC positions vs the positions that he clearly and strongly took. Very few people know who Frome or other DLC leaders are, almost everyone knows who Kerry is. Vilsack's comment reflects on Vilsack, and how many people outside of Iowa even know who he is.

On this wiretap issue, former prosecutor Kerry has already said that in his opinion, they broke the law- Bush can wire tap, but he needs to get a warrant. Just as Kerry was able to talk about how much care went into getting a warrant right in the Alito hearing, that background lets him speak about warrants in a personal way. As the unspoken charge is that Bush may have spied on political enemies or anti-war activists, Kerry likely has a personal connection to this (even if they didn't spy on the Democrats) from when the FBI spied on him. (I wonder if they had a warrant then - Kerry hadn't broken any laws.)

[ProSense]

6. The entire DLC debate is

bullshit. I don't agree with a lot of the opinions put forth by the organization's leaders. Most of the people on that list don't share those opinions. Look at the DLC statement on Alito and then look at how many of the Senators on the list supported the filibuster. Feinstein kicked ass yesterday on Gonzales. How realistic is the notion that everyone in political office should be in complete agreement with each other on every issue and at the same time be in complete agreement with me on every issue?

[Mass]

8. I have to disagree - The pb is that, since last year, I have cringed at

basically each statement published by the DLC leadership. I know that Kerry, for the most part, has not been following these statements, but, if it was not Kerry, I would just say he is an hypocrit at some level. For Kerry, I just give him the benefit of the doubt and wonder.

[TayTay]

9. I agree.

Ahm, also a technicality should be noted. Sen. Kerry was in the Senate New Democrat Network, not the DLC per se. (Well, they did sort of split off and everyone is now huffy with everyone else.)

Sen. Clinton is the obvious preferred choice of Al From and the DLC people. From will cut everyone else loose. I completely agree with your analysis that the DLC wants 'Repub-lite' candidates who never talk about real differences with Bush. This is dumb beyond belief, but it's what the DLC does. Ahm, in that sense, JK has indeed removed himself from the DLC list for good. (The Alito filibuster infuriated the DLC crowd. Good. I think Sen. Kerry is now off their Christmas card list for the forseeable future for showing some balls and courage. Again, good.)

[karynnj]

12. Maybe Kerry is waiting to be kicked out

:)

[ProSense]

13. That's the curious thing.

From was opposed to the filibuster and wants Republican light, but here are more examples of the disconnect with what From says and wants and what people on the list do:

Bayh, Clinton, Dodd and Feinstein supported the filibuster

Rush holt voted against authorizing military force in Iraq (the argument is that the DLC members are warmongers).

[ProSense]

11. Mass, what are you disagreeing with?

I don't agree with the DLC statements. And to your point: then a lot of people on the list, not just Kerry, aren't paying attention to it. Eliot Spitzer as corporatist doesn't fly. Hell, Conyers said he'd amend the Constitution so Granholm could run for president. The problem is that people can't come to grips with the fact that this is a group loosely aligned by various interest with supporting Democrats as the primary objective. Al From can have his opinions, but when he issues a statement there isn't an endorsement statement from the members attached to it.

[MH1]

14. Kerry is a team player and coalition builder, right?

If being part of a certain group might help him win crucial support on issues he cares about, then he'll associate with that group, if only loosely. A politician should be judged based on his own record, not the groups that he tries to work with to find common ground for progress.

I don't buy all the "evil DLC" stuff and (most of) my own positions are pretty liberal. If corporations have too much influence in politics, it's not the fault of organizations like the DLC who try to harness some of that for the non-right-wing-nutjob side (okay centrist side), it's the fault of the rules. We need to change the rules. (Of course if the DLC tries to stop us from changing the rules, then that would be evil - assuming the proposed rules changes are fair, which they generally aren't.)

One of the things I most appreciate about JK's approach to politics is the "third way", truly progressive attitude of trying to negotiate a win-win for all sides. The ultra-lefties (who like to call themselves "progressive" but need to look the word up in the dictionary) will always hate this because they want it all and win-win usually means nobody gets everything they thought they wanted, but instead, everybody gets something.

I couldn't care less whether John Kerry is listed on some official roster of the DLC or not - what counts is the political causes he himself works to further. If he's on the list and asks to be removed, wouldn't that just burn (or at least singe) some bridges that are best left in place?

Just my .02. You asked. :-)

[TayTay]

15. Agree with that.

He did work with Jesse Helsm over drug-running and other very conservative members of Congress on other issues. That's how it's supposed to work, pre 109th Weasel Congress. Sigh!

[ProSense]

16. Excellent points! n/t

[karynnj]

17. Fantastic explanation

I agree completely

[FreedomAngel82]

18. It's an old list because of Warner

Warner is no longer a governor and I believe Dean used to be a DLCer too until he got out of the governorship.

[JI7]

19. maybe he just doesn't see it as an issue

it's like when some of us ask why he still talks positively about McCain. for Kerry he sees the reality out there. it's not about personal feelings over what other politicos are saying about him. it's about getting things done for the people.

also he knows who is often on his side on liberal issues and who is not. Reid, Byrd and others who are not dlc are often on the wrong side.

but it is something that would be good to ask him about whenever any of us gets the chance. i would like to hear what he has to say about it.

[JI7]

20. but i do think Kerry should speak out against them publicly

i know Kerry isn't one to do that against anyone. at least not in a personal way. but in his own respectable way he can do it by making it about the issue more than the person or group. how and why he is right and they are wrong.