Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

OK guys, Kerry is elected in November, But instead of

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:34 AM
Original message
OK guys, Kerry is elected in November, But instead of
stopping all of the madness, he starts off where the BFEE left off.

-More tax cuts for corporations under the guise of creating jobs

-Authorizes conscription

-Involves the US in other conflicts

-Sunrises the Patriot Act

-And bends us over and gives it to us.

Then what the heck are we gonna do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. bend over and kiss our asses goodbye?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynzM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
2. There will be even more
Edited on Fri Mar-26-04 11:38 AM by LynzM
VERY angry people if that happens. So many people are investing so much emotionally and financially in getting Bush out of office, I think we would have riots if Kerry started doing that.

What makes you think it would happen? Besides the "all politicians are scum" theory. Is there something in particular?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. I am always spouting off foilage, for one.
Second I believe that Peak Oil will leave us with no other choices.

All the country's money has been stolen.

Our Constitution shredded.

The Dem's watched and conspired with them.

There are others but I will stop here and change direction.

Mysterious way Kerry advanced from the middle of the pack of candidates, to front runner, annointed one overnight basically.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
19. What makes us think?
If you look at a number of key issues, Kerry and Bush are cut from the same cloth. Economically, militarily, etc.

We're banking on Kerry being different, but some of us are still very reluctant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulfcoastliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
3. Move to New Zealand
Buh Bye, Fascist States of America
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
4. Kerry "might be evil" versus bush* standard PURE EVIL?
I'll take my chances.

Besides, as soon as a dem is in charge the repukes will lose their taste for war, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. I don't think we have a choice the last time I looked.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gWbush is Mabus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
5. support Democray For America
HD will still fight for us.
we will still fight for us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
6. Whaddya mean "what if"
What makes you think he won't do ALL of that?

Voted for IWR (just didn't invade the way Kerry wanted to, with a 'coalition' which everyone knows could not have been obtained, because no one wanted the invasion)

NOW pushing corporate tax cuts in his campaign (paging Robert Rubin to give Kerry some lessons how how to grow the economy)

When has he said he wants to dismantle the nascent draft? (I haven't heard him mention it)

Yeah, I'm voting for him because I'm just hoping he hires non-ideologues to run and expand Pax Americana and perhaps there won't be so many Jesus Freaks in positions of power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Well I do think that that is what is going to happen.
And I am just stirring up shit this morning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. So you admit to being disruptive?
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. No. I truly believe this is what is gonna happen.
I am pulling my like-minded friends into the discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. I didn't ask if you believe it
I asked if you are being intentionally disruptive?

And I'm not surprised to see you avoid answering that question
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #22
31. I didn't avoid it. I said No. What else do you want from me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #31
48. Explain " I am just stirring up shit this morning"
How does that NOT show you're being deliberately disruptive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. I just was being a smart butt. I know that when foil is posted on
Edited on Fri Mar-26-04 03:30 PM by liberalnproud
this board people get their panties in a knot, as evidenced by a few of the posts in this thread. I know everyone is very excited this week with Clarke's book, appearances and testimony. I knew my post would stir up people that wish to remain in denial. Look I am just as happy to see scumbush* having the troubles he has been having. I just don't see his retirement as being the end of our troubles. How is that being disruptive. Offering up a scenario that many people absolutely refuse to accept is disruptive?

on edit sp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. No
Offering up a scenario that has never happened is disruptive
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Like offering up a scenario on a
October surprise, Syrian or Iranian attack, what if we lose in 04, Bush is toast, and on and on and on and on. You are the one sir being disruptive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
strategery blunder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
70. A question
When has he said he wants to dismantle the nascent draft? (I haven't heard him mention it)

Is the draft even known outside of DU yet? And if he brings it up before dubya (who will not except in another ill-advised wmd joke), will everyone outside of DU accuse him of pulling up stuff that doesn't exist?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
youngred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
7. while he isn't progressive
I doubt he's as bad as Bush or will be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patricia92243 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
10. Why would he do all that? Do you know something about him? I just became
a Kerry supporter (was Dean) so I don't know that much about him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
12. Do you still beat your wife?
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. I am a wife.
I beat the dog though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
28. Classic fallacy ...
From : Logic and Fallacies : .. http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#complexq

Complex question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of Presupposition

This is the interrogative form of 'Begging the Question' (Petitio Principii). One example is the classic loaded question:

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

The question presupposes a definite answer to another question which has not even been asked. This trick is often used by lawyers in cross-examination, when they ask questions like:

"Where did you hide the money you stole?"
Similarly, politicians often ask loaded questions such as:

"How long will this EU interference in our affairs be allowed to continue?"
or

"Does the Chancellor plan two more years of ruinous privatization?"
Another form of this fallacy is to ask for an explanation of something which is untrue or not yet established
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
13. But what if ...
He takes office, and he suddenly rips His skin off, revealing he is ACTUALLY THE ANTICHRIST ! ...

Cue the majestic evil music .... and line up the heathens ....

But ... what if: He is actually Richard Simmons, and makes us work out TO THE OLDIES ?? ..

WHAT will we do then ..?? .. eh ? ..

I could go on and on ...

This is silly ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
15. I'm going to Disneyland!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBHagman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
18. Did anyone else see the Tony Kushner interview in Mother Jones?
One of the things the playwright mentioned was that we couldn't afford to sit back even if "our" candidate wins. We're still going to have to push for the legislative and executive action that furthers the progressive agenda. A positive election outcome is not an excuse to be inactive for four years.

Besides, if the House remains in GOP hands, you know the Republicans are going to sulk like teenagers on a family trip. If Bush v. Gore had gone the other way and Gore were president, Tom DeLay and his ilk would have been relentlessly combative -- something they promised, by the way, during the recount battle.

The current GOP leadership appears to adhere to the Grover Norquist "bipartisanship is another name for date rape" mantra. Since Bush is in the White House, they do what they please, occasionally get a Democratic ally (May Zell Miller's name be ever cursed), and then prance around telling us how kind and bipartisan they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aquarian_Conspirator Donating Member (148 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. Exactly! That's why we need you to join Democracy for America!
Because, let's be honest, the fight just begins when Kerry gets into office. Let us prepare for phase two, taking back the democratic party, and our nation, now.


A New Day
March 17, 2004

My run for the White House ended last month. But for me, and for supporters around the country, our work to take this country back has just begun. That’s why I have formed Democracy For America, a new organization building on the phenomenal grassroots support for our presidential campaign.

I need your help. Defeating George W. Bush will not be easy. His strategists have a $100 million war chest available to transform his failed record into an avalanche of misleading "morning in America" advertising.

What is the best response? To defeat George Bush, the Democratic Party and its nominee must stand up strong for our principles, not paper over our differences with the most radical White House in our lifetime. We must directly expose the ways in which George Bush’s policies benefit the privileged and right-wing ideologues.

To win, we must confidently advance an agenda rooted in hope and real American values –opportunity, integrity, corporate responsibility, and community. People want back the country they believed in, a fair country where middle-class people could make a decent living and send their kids to college. That is not only the right way to take on George Bush; it is also the most effective way to succeed with voters who might be tempted to support independent or third-party candidates.

First, Democracy for America will be committed to strong, sustained grassroots involvement in the democratic process. Today, half of Americans don’t even bother to vote. People see what the problems are, but they are cynical about the system and prospects for change. Only through acting will people recognize the power they have to change this country.

Second, Democracy for America will be committed to promoting an America where candidates and office holders tell the truth about policy choices and stand up for what they believe. The era when politicians equivocate about matters as fundamental as war and peace must end.

Third, Democracy for America will be committed to fighting against the influence and agenda of the two pillars of George W. Bush’s Washington: the far right wing and their radical, divisive policies, and the selfish special interests who for too long have dominated politics.

Fourth, Democracy for America will be committed to fighting for progressive policies, like health care for all; investment in children; equal rights under law; fiscal responsibility; and a national security policy that makes America stronger by advancing progressive values.

To help defeat George W. Bush and his agenda in 2004, Democracy for America will focus on key battleground states, mobilizing our supporters and the groundbreaking organizing tools we developed during our campaign – planting seeds on the Internet, meeting face to face at the grassroots, bringing new people into the process. We will use these same tools to support congressional, state, and local candidates across America who stand for our principles.

In the coming months, we will:

1. Recruit and encourage progressive candidates to run for office at every level. We will help them find the resources to campaign successfully with small donations from grassroots supporters, to begin to break the stranglehold special interests have on the political process.

2. Raise funds for Congressional candidates for whom financial support could be the key to winning, and whose election will be key to winning back a House of Representatives that has become the tool of the Republican right wing.

3. Develop strategic partnerships with other progressive organizations to maximize resources for candidate recruitment, training, and organization.

4. Build relationships with other political initiatives to focus on the failed, destructive policies of the Bush administration.

5. Harness the power of the Internet to enlarge and support our grassroots organization committed to taking back America from special interests that control the right wing leadership of our Congress and the White House.

The Democrats will win in November – if we can continue the innovative campaign techniques learned through our nominating process -- and if we have the have the courage to stand up and tell the truth about our stark differences with this failed President.

Please join me in making Democracy for America a powerful tool to continue the battle for America’s future. I hope you will support us with your ideas and your energy, as well as financially, as we move toward the November elections and beyond.

Sincerely,

Howard Dean
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aquarian_Conspirator Donating Member (148 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. http://www.democracyforamerica.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #18
36. I agree, totally

Kerry is a politician, and politicians must be held accountable. Therefore, we must do our best to hold his feet to the fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
20. Off to the doctor for my psych meds. Will check back.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
21. The approach is silly; the question is not
Two things:

1) Beat Bush.

2) Keep writing, calling, etc. the Kerry campaign and telling him to back off from corporate welfare, Venezuela, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Classical_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. Your right
and the Kushner interview spells it out well too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ACK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
23. One at a time
-More tax cuts for corporations under the guise of creating jobs

The man proposes a carrot and stick approach cutting all the tax cuts for corporations that ship jobs overseas while rewarding businesses that create jobs in the US. Hell, I can live with that.

-Authorizes conscription

This is just ABK bait. I think the idea of national voluntary service is a cool idea and the idea of community service in high school based on hours with choices can be a good idea but think that it will go nowhere.

A draft. If a Demoncrat tried to push a draft through a Republican congress they would hang him from the roof of the Senate and invite Sean Hannity, Limpballs and the rest to come piss on the corpse for the cspan cameras. It ain't gonna happen.

-Involves the US in other conflicts

Once again, it is fine for a chickenhawk Repuke pres to involve the country in international conflicts but for a Democrat they will persecute him as the anti-christ killing our young brave boys for fun.

Any military effort would have to be quick, overwhelming and get the US out in short order.

I trust Kerry a hell of a lot more than I do Bush in this regard.

-Sunrises the Patriot Act

It will only happen over a veto unless major provisions of the bill are edited to better secure civil liberties. He made this a plank in his election campaign already.

-And bends us over and gives it to us.

He made some politically motivated stupid votes. The ones that tick us off are the Patriot Act and the Authorization of force in Iraq. The one that was still stupid that does not tick us off is the vote against the 87 billion of whatever to rebuild Iraq. That was the one politically he should have voted with and either abstained, not shown up or better voted against the other two.

This all masks something. Kerry is Northeastern liberal. The one part about Kerry the Repukes have right is that he has a solidly liberal voting record if you look at his long term record.

From Porject Vote Smart

Abortion Issues
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood considered to be the most important from 1995 to 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 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 National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2002 On the votes that the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association considered to be the most important in 1999-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1996-2003 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood (Senate) considered to be the most important, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Agriculture Issues
(Back to top)

2002 Based on a 2002 survey given to all congressional candidates Vote Hemp chose to rate Senator Kerry as Fence Sitter.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Farmers Union considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 90 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the American Farm Bureau Federation considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 83 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Farmers Union considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 91 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the American Farm Bureau Federation considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 60 percent of the time.

Animal Rights and Wildlife Issues
(Back to top)

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Fund for Animals considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Humane Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Animal Protection Institute considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Doris Day Animal League considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Fund for Animals considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Humane Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Doris Day Animal League considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Animal Protection Institute considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Arts and Humanities
(Back to top)

2000 On the votes that the Americans for the Arts considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Budget, Spending and Taxes
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 10 percent of the time.

2002 According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 2002 Senator Kerry, on ALL votes dealing with spending, voted to reduce or not increase spending 18 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Citizens Against Government Waste considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 13 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2001-2002, the Concord Coalition gave Senator Kerry a rating of 65 percent.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Tax Limitation Committee considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 3 percent of the time.

2001 According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 2001 Senator Kerry, on ALL votes dealing with spending, voted to reduce or not increase spending 7 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 5 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Citizens Against Government Waste considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 5 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Taxpayers for Common Sense considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 27 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the American Shareholders Association considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 15 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2000, the Concord Coalition gave Senator Kerry a rating of 33 percent.

2000 On the votes that the Taxpayers for Common Sense considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 59 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Citizens Against Government Waste considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 28 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Tax Limitation Committee considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 3 percent of the time.

1999 According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 1999 Senator Kerry, on ALL votes dealing with spending, voted to reduce or not increase spending 11 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 1999, the Concord Coalition gave Senator Kerry a rating of 45 percent.

Business and Consumers
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Associated Builders & Contractors considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the American Bankers Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Business-Industry Political Action Committee considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 41 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the National Retail Federation considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 25 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the American Coalition for Ethanol considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 55 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Federation of Independent Business considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 25 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Small Business Survival Committee considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 7 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Business-Industry Political Action Committee considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 5 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Federation of Independent Business considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 17 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 38 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 50 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Small Business Survival Committee considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Business-Industry Political Action Committee considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 7 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Small Business Survival Committee considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Consumer Federation of America considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Associated Builders & Contractors considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 53 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Federation of Independent Business considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 16 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Associated Builders & Contractors considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Consumer Federation of America considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

Civil Liberties
(Back to top)

2001-2002 On the votes that the American Civil Liberties Union considered to be the most important in 2001-2002 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 60 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the American Civil Liberties Union considered to be the most important in 2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 71 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Liberty Lobby considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Republican Liberty Caucus considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 20 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Liberty Lobby considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

Civil Rights
(Back to top)

2003 Bsed on legislative votes, sponsorship of legislation not voted upon, and endorsements of special "dear colleague" letters that the Arab American Institute considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry supported their preferred position 33 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorships the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time..

2001-2002 Bsed on legislative votes, sponsorship of legislation not voted upon, and endorsements of special "dear colleague" letters that the Arab American Institute considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry supported their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 81 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 82 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 93 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 94 percent of the time.

Conservative
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Christian Coalition considered to be the most important in 2003 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Eagle Forum considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Campaign for Working Families considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 7 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the American Conservative Union considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 13 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Eagle Forum considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 18 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the American Conservative Union considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 20 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Conservative Index - The John Birch Society considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 11 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Campaign for Working Families considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 7 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Conservative Index - The John Birch Society considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 5 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the American Conservative Union considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 4 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Christian Coalition considered to be the most important in 2001 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the American Conservative Union considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 12 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Conservative Index - The John Birch Society considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 12 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the Christian Coalition considered to be the most important in 1999-2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 15 percent of the time.

Crime Issues
(Back to top)

1999-2000 On the votes that the Citizens United for Rehabilition of Errants considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 63 percent of the time.

Education
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the National Education Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the National Education Association considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Education Association 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 National Education Association considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Environmental Issues
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 53 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 92 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Comprehensive US Sustainable Population considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 73 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Parks Consevation Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 94 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Parks Conservation Association considered to be the most important in 1999-2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the Comprehensive US Sustainable Population considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 84 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the American Lands Alliance considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Family and Children Issues
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Family Research Council considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the American Family Voices considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 78 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Children's Defense Fund considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 91 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Children's Defense Fund considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 90 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Family Research Council considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

Foreign Aid and Policy Issues
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel (JPPI) considered to be the most important in 2003, a point system was established for both the Senate and the House. In the Senate, total possible points range from a high of +3 and a low of -4. In the House, points range from +9 to -7. The Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel (JPPI) assigned Senator Kerry a score of -1.

2003 On the votes that the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation considered to be the most important in 2003, a point system was established for both the Senate and the House. In the Senate, total possible points range from a high of +3 and a low of -4. In the House, points range from +9 to -7. The U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation assigned Senator Kerry a score of -1.

2002 On the votes that the Peace Action considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 40 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the American Security Council considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel (JPPI) considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, a point system was established for both the Senate and the House. In the Senate, total possible points range from a high of +1 and a low of -5. In the House, points range from +6 to -6. The Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel (JPPI) assigned Senator Kerry a score of -3.

2001-2002 On the votes , introduction of legislation, sponsorship or co-sponsorship of legislation and public speaking on legislation, for legistation, that the American Muslims for Jerusalem considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry, rated -3.

2001-2002 On the votes that the American Foreign Service Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Campaign for U.N. Reform considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 57 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Peace Action considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 43 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Peace Action considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 44 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Council for a Livable World considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the PeacePac considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the Campaign for U.N. Reform considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 63 percent of the time.

1998-2002 On the votes that the Center for Security Policy considered to be the most important in 1998-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 25 percent of the time.

Gender Issues
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Business and Professional Women USA considered to be the most important during the 107th Congress, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 80 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Concerned Women for America considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the American Association of University Women considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the American Association of University Women considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Business and Professional Women/USA considered to be the most important during the 107th Congress, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Concerned Women for America considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 33 percent of the time.

2001-2002

2001 On the votes that the American Association of University Women 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 Concerned Women for America considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

1998 On the votes that the National Organization for Women considered to be the most important in 1998, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 85 percent of the time.

Government Reform
(Back to top)

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Association of Counties considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 78 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the co-sponsorship of bills or resolutions that the Radical Middle considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry sponsored their preferred bills or resolutions 45 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Council for Government Reform considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the National Association of Counties considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 66 percent of the time.

Gun Issues
(Back to top)

2003 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

2002 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2002, the National Rifle Association assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

2002 On the votes that the The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

2001-2002 On the votes that the American Bar Association--Special Committee on Gun Violence considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence considered to be the most important in 1999-2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the American Bar Association--Special Committee on Gun Violence considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F- (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

Health Issues
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the American Public Health Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the American Public Health Association considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 86 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on legislative votes, sponsorship of legislation not voted upon, and endorsements of special "dear colleague" letters that the National Breast Cancer Coalition considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry supported their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the American Public Health Association considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the American Medical Association considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 Based on legislative votes, sponsorship of legislation not voted upon, and endorsements of special "dear colleague" letters that the National Breast Cancer Coalition considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry supported their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the American Public Health Association considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Housing and Property Issues
(Back to top)

2001-2002 On the votes that the League of Private Property Voters considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the League of Private Property Voters considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the League of Private Property Voters considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

Immigration
(Back to top)

2002 On the votes that the American Immigration Lawyers Association considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Californians for Population Stabilization considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1989-2003 Based on the votes, committee votes, co-sponsorships and other leadership actions that the Americans for Better Immigration considered to be the most important in 1989-2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 18 percent of the time.

1989-2002 Based on the votes, committee votes, co-sponsorships and other leadership actions that the Americans for Better Immigration considered to be the most important in 1989-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 20 percent of the time.

1989-2001 Based on the votes, committee votes, co-sponsorships and other leadership actions that the Americans for Better Immigration considered to be the most important in 1989-2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 20 percent of the time.

Labor
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Non Commissioned Officers Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Transportation Communications Union 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 United Auto Workers considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 102 percent of the time. Those who supported or provided other assistance in connection with a UAW organizing drive are given an extra 10% bonus.

2003 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 86 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the AFL-CIO 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 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 80 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 50 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 25 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the American Federation of Government Employees considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Non Commissioned Officers Association considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Transportation Communications Union considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 91 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 43 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the AFL-CIO considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 92 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the United Auto Workers considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 85 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Communications Workers of America considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 86 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Association of Social Workers considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the American Postal Workers Union considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 90 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 87 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the United Food & Commercial Workers considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the United Auto Workers considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 86 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the American Federation of Government Employees considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 93 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the AFL-CIO considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Transportation Communications Union considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers IU. considered to be the most important in 2001 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Non Commissioned Officers Association 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 American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 85 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the AFL-CIO considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Teamsters considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 50 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the American Federation of Government Employees considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 82 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the United Auto Workers considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 92 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Communications Workers of America considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 43 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Association of Social Workers considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 90 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the International Association of Fire Fighters considered to be the most important in 1999-2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 86 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Transportation Communications Union considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Communications Workers of America considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Liberal
(Back to top)

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 Public Citizen's Congress Watch considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 27 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 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.

2001-2002 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 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.

National Journal
(Back to top)

2003 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2003, Senator Kerry voted more conservative on economic policy issues than 0 percent of the Senators.

2003 According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2003, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 97 percent of the Senators.

2003 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2003, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on economic policy issues than 93 percent of the Senators.

2003 According to the National Journal - Composite Conservative Score's calculations, in 2003, Senator Kerry voted more conservative on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 4 percent of the Senators.

2002 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2002, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on economic policy issues than 95 percent of the Senators.

2002 According to the National Journal - Composite Conservative Score's calculations, in 2002, Senator Kerry voted more conservative on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 13 percent of the Senators.

2002 According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2002, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 87 percent of the Senators.

2002 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2002, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on foreign policy issues than 73 percent of the Senators.

2002 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2002, Senator Kerry voted more conservative on economic policy issues than 0 percent of the Senators.

2002 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Social Policy's calculations, in 2002, Senator Kerry voted more conservative on social policy issues than 0 percent of the Senators.

2002 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2002, Senator Kerry voted more conservative on foreign policy issues than 26 percent of the Senators.

2002 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2002, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on social policy issues than 82 percent of the Senators.

2001 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2001, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on social policy issues than 81 percent of the Senators.

2001 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2001, Senator Kerry voted more conservative on foreign policy issues than 14 percent of the Senators.

2001 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2001, Senator Kerry voted more conservative on economic policy issues than 0 percent of the Senators.

2001 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Social Policy's calculations, in 2001, Senator Kerry voted more conservative on social policy issues than 8 percent of the Senators.

2001 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2001, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on foreign policy issues than 74 percent of the Senators.

2001 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2001, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on economic policy issues than 93 percent of the Senators.

Science and Medical Research
(Back to top)

2002 On the votes that the Information Technology Industry Council considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 71 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Information Technology Industry Council considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 83 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Information Technology Industry Council considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 40 percent of the time.

Senior and Social Security Issues
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Alliance for Retired Americans considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the National Association of Retired Federal Employees considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Alliance for Retired Americans considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Alliance for Retired Americans considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Association of Retired Federal Employees considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the United Seniors Association considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 11 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the United Seniors Association considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

Social Issues
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Population Connection 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 NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 80 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Population Connection considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 33 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Bread for the World considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the People for the American Way 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 Zero Population Growth 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 Zero Population Growth considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Bread for the World considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 82 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 82 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Bread for the World considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Trade Issues
(Back to top)

2001-2002 On the votes that the CATO Institute--Center for Trade Policy Studies considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 33 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the trade votes that the CATO Trade considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 87 percent of the time.

Veterans Issues
(Back to top)

2000 On the votes that the The Retired Officers Association considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 66 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Disabled American Veterans considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #23
35. That is quite a bit there.
"The man proposes a carrot and stick approach cutting all the tax cuts for corporations that ship jobs overseas while rewarding businesses that create jobs in the US. Hell, I can live with that."

That is what he is proposing, remember the man is asking us to put him in office. You can propose anything, and the congress can chew the crap out of it. You look like the good guy for offering up such a progressive idea, knowing that it will never fly.

"This is just ABK bait. I think the idea of national voluntary service is a cool idea and the idea of community service in high school based on hours with choices can be a good idea but think that it will go nowhere."

I think the idea is anything but cool. I have a 16 year old son. He is very busy with homework and is a star baseball player, probably will end up with a baseball scholarship if all doesn't go to hell by them.

"A draft. If a Demoncrat tried to push a draft through a Republican congress they would hang him from the roof of the Senate and invite Sean Hannity, Limpballs and the rest to come piss on the corpse for the cspan cameras. It ain't gonna happen."

A democrat already has written a bill that has been referred to the Armed Service committee. You are assuming that they are not all in on it. It will happen if they need one, that you can take to the bank.

"
Once again, it is fine for a chickenhawk Repuke pres to involve the country in international conflicts but for a Democrat they will persecute him as the anti-christ killing our young brave boys for fun.

Any military effort would have to be quick, overwhelming and get the US out in short order.

I trust Kerry a hell of a lot more than I do Bush in this regard."

We are already involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are also messing around in South America and Africa. If there is another attack (LIHOP, MIHOP) on the US the public and the congress will rally around the president. That is the way I imagine that this will happen, something like a catestrophic attack or a Gulf of Tonkin type incident.

"It will only happen over a veto unless major provisions of the bill are edited to better secure civil liberties. He made this a plank in his election campaign already."

They went through all the trouble to insert provisions of the Patriot II into appropriations bills with the dems as their cohorts. The elite have been waiting for years to do this. I don't see them back-peddaling now.

"This all masks something. Kerry is Northeastern liberal. The one part about Kerry the Repukes have right is that he has a solidly liberal voting record if you look at his long term record."

If what I suspect is true, this man has been groomed for years for the position of president. Voting records really don't mean anything. I ask myself "did the bill pass." Dems can grandstand and put on a show on cspan, the bottom line is this, what ultimately happened with the legislation, did it have enough votes, did the dems roll in the end for some lame excuse? Were they complicit one....more....time. Spineless dems my ars they are in on it.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ACK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. You are a hell of fortune teller
Edited on Fri Mar-26-04 02:52 PM by ACK
That is fine.

Ignore the fact that everytime Clinton tried to pull anything militarily he was ridiculed and demonized by the Repukes.

Ignore the fact that an unpopular draft would be the perfect "gays in the military" issue for the Repukes to skewer Kerry.

Ignore the fact that Kerry never asked for a draft to begin with.

You say in one comment that such and such good idea will never pass and then hammer another Kerry point that I said would never float. What is it?

Is he going to be the all-powerful drafting forging war-mongering dictator or is the ineffective Dem President against a Congress of Repukes?

Don't look at the man's record.

Just be ABK vote Nader (or whoever else you want to) and be done with it.

You have already assumed the man guilty and tried him despite his record and assumed he is part of the grand conspiracy on top of that.

The Dems don't have the House or the Senate and they have traitors like Zell Miller in their midst yet we cannot even bother to rally around and try to turn the party around.

Nope time to form the circular firing squads.

BTW, I thought you argued that is all hypothetical? Sounds like you know exactly what is going to happen.

This conspiracy involves a man with a 19 year liberal voting record who served in Vietnam, fought against the war and served his country as a senator?

He is now going to betray his country. For what?

You seen to know an awfull lot about this stuff.

Are you a mole for the evil conspriacy?

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #42
55. I will vote for Kerry, I have no other choice.
I am not a fortune teller, just not optimistic as you are. You are ignoring my argument that all the singing and dancing in the Senate is a dog and pony show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ACK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #55
62. I did not ignore it.
I just think it is simplistic.

Between the repuke-lite DLC clones, the Zell Miller traitors and the fact the Repulicans hold both houses of Congress and the Presidency, there is not a hell of a lot that can be done except showing the horse and pony show.

I am not a complete apologists for the Democrats who ran a house of puke-lite candidates in 2002.

I understand that the Democrats need to take hints from good campaigning techniques:

Paul Wellstone style grassroots campaigning.
Howard Dean use of new media.
Howard Dean style inspiration of small contributors (vital to get off the DLC tit of big money)
Bill Clinton style oratory skills.
Mark Warner who actually Campaigned for the region he was running in.

Even if you do not like some of the people I listed above it is vital for Democrats to use the above techniques to forge a real strategy to campaigning that can be used around the country.

Also, the message is very important.

A populist progressive platform just left of center is vital that addresses the concerns of the middle class voter and actually takes the time to explain why progressive policies are good for the country, and the individual voters themselves.

It simply is amazing that the first Northeastern liberal candidate to run for president in years is blasted so hard by other liberals.

Some actually say that a rich man cannot be for the environment even though his voting record on environmental issues has been historically very good.

Others assail play into the limousine liberal hate line that the repukes love blindly playing into the hands of freepers everywhere.

Why? Two stupid votes the man should have never made. The Patriot Act and the vote to authorize the shrub to use for in Iraq. There is no defense of these two votes.

He was doomed in the pacifist labelling themselves as liberals eyes in that moment. No way around it.

If he does half the things you list above the Repukes will take him out, we will not even have to worry about it. Even if he plays into their hands they will not endure a Democratic President without trying to oust him.

I am not optimistic instead I look to the man's record. A liberal record for a liberal candidate who is hating by liberals.

We do eat our own after all. Unfortunate but true.

_
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
27. Be interesting to see if he could pull it off being a person with a (D)
after his name.

Hell, Michael Moore says that Clinton was the best Republican president we've had in a long time. Yet, despite parroting some of the very same things the Repukes proposed (and the Repukes claimed he was stealing their agenda!), they fought him tooth and nail.

Do you think that, given a Kerry victory, but the Repukes still controlling the House and Senate, that they would allow the smallest Democratic Party victory? If he cut the Capital Gains tax to zero, raised taxes on the other 98 percent of the population, and dropped the tax rate to 20 percent on people making more than 200K a year, the Repukes would be the ones to suddenly "remember the little guys" and scream about it. Of course, they would vote for that, but only after declaring that they really wrote the legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #27
73. Thats what sucks
They will do what they did with Clinton. Take all the pro corporate points from Kerry's agenda pass them say they are being "bipartisan" and stuff all the progressive points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadProphetMargin Donating Member (756 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
29. We'll burn that bridge when we get to it. However slight, there IS a
better chance that Kerry will respond to the will of the people.

We've already seen Bush's response to the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SarahB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
30. Start getting those emigration papers in order (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DennisReveni Donating Member (203 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
32. More likely he will continue policies as Clinton did
Edited on Fri Mar-26-04 03:27 PM by Skinner


http://antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=2089
" 2004: Choose Your Favorite Pro-War Candidate
by John Pilger

A myth equal to the fable of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is gaining strength on both sides of the Atlantic. It is that John Kerry offers a world-view different from that of George W Bush. Watch this big lie grow as Kerry is crowned the Democratic candidate and the "anyone but Bush" movement becomes a liberal cause celebre.

While the rise to power of the Bush gang, the neoconservatives, belatedly preoccupied the American media, the message of their equivalents in the Democratic Party has been of little interest. Yet the similarities are compelling. Shortly before Bush's "election" in 2000, the Project for the New American Century, the neoconservative pressure group, published an ideological blueprint for "maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests." Every one of its recommendations for aggression and conquest was adopted by the administration.

One year later, the Progressive Policy Institute, an arm of the Democratic Leadership Council, published a 19-page manifesto for the "New Democrats," who include all the principal Democratic Party candidates, and especially John Kerry. This called for "the bold exercise of American power" at the heart of "a new Democratic strategy, grounded in the party's tradition of muscular internationalism." Such a strategy would "keep Americans safer than the Republicans' go-it-alone policy, which has alienated our natural allies and overstretched our resources. We aim to rebuild the moral foundation of US global leadership . . ."

What is the difference from the vainglorious claptrap of Bush? Apart from euphemisms, there is none. All the leading Democratic presidential candidates supported the invasion of Iraq, bar one: Howard Dean. Kerry not only voted for the invasion, but expressed his disappointment that it had not gone according to plan. He told Rolling Stone magazine: "Did I expect George Bush to f*** it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did." Neither Kerry nor any of the other candidates has called for an end to the bloody and illegal occupation; on the contrary, all of them have demanded more troops for Iraq. Kerry has called for another "40,000 active service troops." He has supported Bush's continuing bloody assault on Afghanistan, and the administration's plans to "return Latin America to American leadership" by subverting democracy in Venezuela.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. you post an editorial from a Libertarian site
that calls Bill Clinton a "crypto fascist" and expect to be taken seriously?

You call Democrats "bastards"?

You refer to Democrats as "two faced lying scumbags"?

What is your real agenda on this board, Mr. Revini?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Instead of attacking the messenger. Let's try refuting the points
made. FYI there are some lying two faced scumbag bastard dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #39
51. John Pilger is not a messenger
He's a far left extremist ideologue, and I take him no more seriously than anyone on the far right.

To say that Bill Clinton is a "crypto fascist" is absurd beyond the point of argument, and I've got better ways to waste my time - like working toward getting GW Bush out of office, something that Mr. Pilger apparently doesn't consider very important, since, in his world, both Bush and Kerry are the same.

Is John Kerry a lying two faced scumbag bastard? Are you hoping he is? 'Cause that seems to be the point of your thread.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. I have a preteen and a teenage boy.
How could I possible wish something so horrible. I have done alot of research since I came to DU a couple of years ago. I have evolved into one of the skeptical ones. I don't believe we get to choose are leaders. I believe they are chosen for us, sadly.


"Is John Kerry a lying two faced scumbag bastard? Are you hoping he is? 'Cause that seems to be the point of your thread."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #54
61. skepticism is a good thing
as long as you apply it equally. There are those on the left just as willing to distort for political purpose as those on the right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #37
45. How about globalresearch, are they Libertarian?


'It's Time to Get Over It'
John Kerry Tells Antiwar Movement to Move On
by Mark Hand
Press Action, 9 Feb 2004
www.globalresearch.ca 19 March 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HAN403A.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Researchers and investigative reporters are fascinated with the neoconservatives, that group of American empire peddlers who turned George W. Bush into a junkie war criminal. A similar group, the New Democrats, has been pushing its own dangerous brand of U.S. hegemony but with much less fanfare.

The leading mouthpiece for the New Democrats' radical interventionist program could be our next president. John Kerry, the frontrunner in the quest for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, has been promoting a foreign policy perspective called "progressive internationalism." It's a concept concocted by establishment Democrats seeking to convince potential backers in the corporate and political world that, if installed in the White House, they would preserve U.S. power and influence around the world, but in a kinder, gentler fashion than the current administration.

In the domestic battle to captain the American empire, the neocons have in their corner the Project for a New American Century while the New Democrats have the Progressive Policy Institute. Come November, who will get your vote? Coke or Pepsi?

In fall 2000, PNAC released Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. It's a blueprint for "maintaining global U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests."

In fall 2003, members of PPI joined with other tough-minded Democrats to unveil Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy, a 19-page manifesto that calls for "the bold exercise of American power, not to dominate but to shape alliances and international institutions that share a common commitment to liberal values."

The New Democrats don't begrudge the Bush administration for invading Iraq. They take issue with the Bush administration's strategy of refusing to invite key members of the international community to the invasion until it was too late. The neocons' unilateralist approach, the New Democrats believe, will ultimately harm U.S. political and economic dominance around the world.

"We are confident that a new Democratic strategy, grounded in the party’s tradition of muscular internationalism, can keep Americans safer than the Republicans’ go-it-alone policy, which has alienated our natural allies and overstretched our resources," the New Democrats say in their foreign policy manifesto. "We aim to rebuild the moral foundation of U.S. global leadership by harnessing America’s awesome power to universal values of liberal democracy. A new progressive internationalism can point the way."

Proponents of "progressive internationalism" are a lock to control leadership positions at the State Department and key civilian posts at the Pentagon in a John Kerry administration. How do we know this? Because these New Democrats obviously ghostwrote Kerry's campaign book, A Call to Service: My Vision for A Better America. Place the Progressive Internationalism manifesto and Kerry's chapter on foreign policy side by side and you'll immediately notice the similarities.

On page 40 of In A Call to Service, Kerry writes: "The time has come to renew that tradition and revive a bold vision of progressive internationalism." What is this tradition to which Kerry refers? As he describes it, Democrats need to honor "the tough-minded strategy of international engagement and leadership forged by Wilson and Roosevelt in the two world wars and championed by Truman and Kennedy in the cold war."

Now, turn to page 3 of the New Democrats' manifesto. It reads:

"As Democrats, we are proud of our party’s tradition of tough-minded internationalism and strong record in defending America. Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman led the United States to victory in two world wars and designed the post-war international institutions that have been a cornerstone of global security and prosperity ever since. President Truman forged democratic alliances such as NATO that eventually triumphed in the Cold War. President Kennedy epitomized America’s commitment to “the survival and success of liberty.” Like the neocons, Kerry was not impressed by France's stance against the U.S. invasion of Iraq. On page 51 of his book, he writes:

"I hope by the time you read this book that the UN has been usefully employed as a partner in the reconstruction of Iraq and that Jacque Chirac has ceased his foolish rebellion against the very idea of the Atlantic Alliance. America, which has always shown magnanimity in victory, should in turn meet repentant Europeans halfway, not ratchet up the badgering unilateralism that fed European fears in the first place." There's much to digest in this paragraph. Perhaps the most interesting nugget is Kerry's statement that the United States should "meet repentant Europeans halfway." Hmmm, John, could you elaborate on what sins the Europeans committed for which they must repent?

On page 50, Kerry details his beef with Old Europe:

"The Bush administration is by no means the only culprit in the breakdown in U.S.-UN relations over Iraq. France, Germany and Russia never supported or offered a feasible policy to verify that UN resolutions on Iraq were actually being carried out. … Our British, Spanish and Eastern European coalition allies are eager to rebuild European unity." Throughout the foreign policy sections of the book, Kerry does his best to convince the reader that he would not run from his role as war criminal in chief if elected president.

Perhaps the most repulsive section of the book is where Kerry discusses the Vietnam War and the antiwar movement. On page 42, Kerry writes:

"I could never agree with those in the antiwar movement who dismissed our troops as war criminals or our country as the villain in the drama. That's one reason, in fact, that I eventually parted ways with the VVAW organizations and instead helped found the Vietnam Veterans of America." If the United States was not a villain in the "drama" of the Vietnam war, then who is to blame for the million-plus Vietnamese who were killed during the 20-year period of naked U.S. aggression that ended in 1975? Surely, John, you don't wish to blame certain communist dead-enders in Vietnam for the carnage?

On the next page, Kerry informs his reader that it's time we stop questioning U.S. foreign policy intentions:

"As a veteran of both the Vietnam War and the Vietnam protest movement, I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's time to get over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example, of the U.S. military engagements of the twentieth century. If those of us who carried the physical and emotional burdens of that conflict can regain perspective and move on, so can those whose involvement was vicarious or who knew nothing of the war other than ideology and legend." This last passage is probably the most unsettling part of Kerry's book and one that every advocate of the Anyone-But-Bush 2004 election strategy should read before heading to the polling station in November.

In this one passage, Kerry seeks to justify the millions of people slaughtered by the U.S. military and its surrogates during the twentieth century, suggests that concern about U.S. war crimes in Vietnam is no longer necessary, and dismisses the antiwar movement as the work of know-nothings.

Kerry and his comrades in the progressive internationalist movement are as gung-ho about U.S. military action as their counterparts in the White House. The only noteworthy difference between the two groups battling for power in Washington is that the neocons are willing to pursue their imperial ambitions in full view of the international community, while the progressive internationalists prefer to keep their imperial agenda hidden behind the cloak of multilateralism.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #45
57. Global Research are a bunch of tin hat conspiracy theorists
The CIA was behind the Madrid bombings!

You like tin foil? How's this - Global Research is funded by the right in order to distract impressionable reactionaries from engaging in political action that might have an effect on the real political landscape.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #57
59. If you don't like the sources linked
Just google "Progressive Internationalism" and see what you find.


PPI | Press Release | October 30, 2003
PPI Joins In Unveiling National Security Strategy
"Progressive Internationalism" Offers Alternative to Bush Administration's Failed Policies


For Immediate Release
Contact: Karin Kullman Freedman/John Bray: (202) 547-0001

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A group of leading foreign affairs and defense specialists, including analysts from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), today unveiled a new agenda for national security that updates the Democratic Party's tradition of tough-minded internationalism.

In "Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy," the group assesses the Bush administration's growing list of foreign policy failures as well the mounting political and economic costs of its unilateral diplomacy. "Instead of mobilizing our friends and isolating our enemies, this administration is isolating the United States from the rest of the world, squandering the good will and alliances buildup over decades by successive U.S. leaders. American military strength is at an all-time high but our moral authority around the world is at an all-time low," the document states.

Noting that criticism of the Bush administration alone will not allay public doubts about Democrats' willingness to pursue the tough security policies today's world demands, the authors also propose a progressive alternative for making Americans safer and restoring respect around the world for U.S. global leadership.

"We begin by reaffirming the Democratic Party's commitment to progressive internationalism -- the belief that America can best defend itself by building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy," the document states. "The way to keep America safe and strong is not to impose our will on others or pursue a narrow, selfish nationalism that betrays our best values, but to lead the world toward political and economic freedom." http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=252146
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. I don't accept that "progressive internationalism"
and the PNAC agenda are the same thing, and I find attempts by the fringe left to tie the two together disingenuous at best.

If Kerry is truly the ogre that pundits like Mr. Hand and Mr. Pilger seem to think he is, well.... I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. Then Mr. Center Left please point out the differences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. Whoa. Sobering read.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rustydog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
33. take who we voted in office better than one inserted by the court
Edited on Fri Mar-26-04 01:47 PM by rustydog
Why don't you worry about aliens attacking us too or an asteroid wipingout the planet while you worried about kerry.

this president will raise taxes. he will also cut taxes. he will also favor special interests like all presidents do.

Will he pass No Child legislation and refuse to fund it?
will he pass clean air initiatives that pollute our air?
Will he fight terror by sutting FBI budget requests by 1 billion dollars?
I don't think so.

Kerry is a billion miles better than the murdering lying george bush and company.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
34. Most will support him for nominating pro-choice judges.
And that's the end of it. I will be protesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
40. What a strange fantasy! What did you have for lunch?
If this happens, then we hold his feet to the fire.

On the otherhand, I do not expect this miraculous conversion of JK, just as I do not expect that GWB will see the error of his ways and become a great president should he be re-elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. I know it is long, but did you even read post 32. These are things
that scare me. From the post

"
Just as the plans of the Bush gang were written by the neoconservatives, so John Kerry in his campaign book, A Call to Service, lifts almost word for word the New Democrats' warmongering manifesto. "The time has come," he writes, "to revive a bold vision of progressive internationalism" along with a "tradition" that honors "the tough-minded strategy of international engagement and leadership forged by Wilson and Roosevelt . . . and championed by Truman and Kennedy in the cold war." Almost identical thoughts appear on page three of the New Democrats' manifesto:

As Democrats, we are proud of our party's tradition of tough-minded internationalism and strong record in defending America. Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D Roosevelt and Harry Truman led the United States to victory in two world wars . . . eventually triumphed in the cold war. President Kennedy epitomized America's commitment to "the survival and success of liberty."

Mark the historical lies in that statement: the "victory" of the US with its brief intervention in the First World War; the airbrushing of the decisive role of the Soviet Union in the Second World War; the American elite's nonexistent "triumph" over internally triggered events that brought down the Soviet Union; and John F Kennedy's famous devotion to "liberty" that oversaw the deaths of some three million people in Indo-China.

"Perhaps the most repulsive section of book," writes Mark Hand, editor of Press Action, the American media monitoring group, "is where Kerry discusses the Vietnam war and the antiwar movement." Self-promoted as a war hero, Kerry briefly joined the protest movement on his return from Vietnam. In this twin capacity, he writes: "I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's time to get over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example of the US military engagements of the 20th century."

Please comment on how this makes you fell. Or debunk it, but lets have a discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ButterflyBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
41. What if it turns out Kerry's body has been taken over by aliens?
and they use him as a puppet so they can invade and control the Earth?
What if it turns out Kerry has multiple personalities and the other one his Hitler?

If you're going to bring up such ridiculous hypotheticals, why not dream big
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Instead of ridiculing why don't you add something substansive
to the discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. I did add something in my simple way
By reversing your argument - sorry if you were offended by a little good natured teasing re how eating something bad can cause weird dreams.

A Kerry conversion is as credible as a Bush conversion to "Left Wing Democrat."

Kerry is not perfect, there are things that many people disagree with. But he is not going to reverse his core as a dem, just as GWB will not reverse his.

But if he does these things we will hold his feet to the fire.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. Please read posts 32 and 43
Tell me what you think? I am not offended I just want to discuss this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
47. We can be in denial or we can take a look.
Edited on Fri Mar-26-04 03:22 PM by liberalnproud
Introduction

As Democrats, we are proud of our party's tradition of tough-minded internationalism and strong record in defending America. Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman led the United States to victory in two world wars and designed the post-war international institutions that have been a cornerstone of global security and prosperity ever since. President Truman forged democratic alliances such as NATO that eventually triumphed in the Cold War. President Kennedy epitomized America's commitment to "the survival and success of liberty." Jimmy Carter placed the defense of human rights at the center of our foreign policy. And Bill Clinton led the way in building a post-Cold War Europe whole, free, and at peace in a new partnership with Russia. Around the world the names of these Democratic statesmen elicit admiration and respect.

Today America is threatened once again. Our country needs a new generation of Democratic leaders to step forward and provide the same caliber of leadership as their 20th century predecessors.

Two years ago, terrorists declared war on America by killing thousands of innocent civilians. But America was not the only target: The September 11 hijackers acted in the name of a hateful ideology inimical to the cause of liberty everywhere. Like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years, but decades. Once again the United States must rally the forces of freedom and democracy around the world to defeat this new menace and build a better world.

The 21st century has brought a new set of threats whose origins are different but whose consequences are potentially as dangerous as the totalitarian challenges of the last century. We were fortunate that our terrorist enemies did not yet have the capacity to inflict catastrophic harm on us with weapons of mass destruction. Preventing a deadly fusion of terrorism and rogue states on the one hand and mass destruction weapons on the other is one of the paramount challenges of our time.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=252144&subsecid=900020&knlgAreaID=450004
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #47
81. what are we in denial of?
What's objectionable about the statement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. If you click on the link there is much more
In times of danger, Americans put aside partisanship and unite in the defense of our country. That is why, as Democrats, we supported the Bush administration's toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. We also backed the goal of ousting Saddam Hussein's malignant regime in Iraq, because the previous policy of containment was failing, because Saddam posed a grave danger to America as well as his own brutalized people, and because his blatant defiance of more than a decade's worth of United Nations Security Council resolutions was undermining both collective security and international law. We believed then, and we believe now, that this threat was less imminent than the administration claimed and that the United States should have done much more to win international backing and better prepare for post-war reconstruction. Nonetheless, we are convinced that the Iraqi people, the region and the world are better off now that this barbaric dictator is gone.

At the same time, we believe President Bush is in many respects leading America in the wrong direction on national security. Having triumphed on the battlefield in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we are now in danger of losing the peace in both countries. By insisting on our right to act unilaterally, by ignoring intelligence assessments that conflicted with his desire to act, and by underestimating the resources needed to accomplish the missions, the president is putting America's battlefield gains in jeopardy. By focusing too much on U.S. military might as its main foreign policy instrument, the administration is abdicating its responsibility to fashion an effective, long-term political and economic strategy for changing the conditions in which Islamic fundamentalism breeds and from which new threats to our national security are most likely to arise. And by pushing ideologically motivated tax cuts and repudiating the nation's hard-won commitment to fiscal discipline, President Bush also is reducing our future capacity to act around the world and weakening American economic leadership and leverage.

In addition, the administration has yet to put an effective check on the dangerous nuclear ambitions of North Korea or Iran, or to make any progress toward ending the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. On the domestic front, it has failed to devote sufficient energy, focus, and resources to the pressing task of defending our homeland against another terror attack. Instead of mobilizing our friends and isolating our enemies, this administration is isolating the United States from the rest of the world, squandering the good will and alliances built up over decades by successive U.S. leaders. American military strength is at an all-time high but our moral authority around the world is at an all-time low.

We recognize, however, that Democrats must do more than criticize this administration's increasingly incompetent handling of our nation's security. That alone will do little to allay the doubts that too many Americans have about our party's willingness or ability to pursue the tough defense and security policies today's world demands. To re-establish our credibility on national security, Democrats must offer a positive vision that spells out how we would do a better job of keeping Americans safe and restoring America's capacity to lead.

snip>

It appears to me they just want to put a friendlier face on quest for global domination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
50. in the beginning I will accept
1) a real ELECTED president
2) a president who can speak grammatically correct sentences withougt a freaking teleprompter.

Is that so much to ask ???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. No it is not Skittles.
I am sure he will live up to your expectations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
60. I'm heading to The Mall
And I'm camping there until things change. I commit to that and hope others will join me in making that pledge. Give him something we know he'll understand.

But I honestly don't think it'll be remotely necessary. You naysayers are going to be SHOCKED by John Kerry, The President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Todd Donating Member (245 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
64. Ah, it does a newcomer's heart good...
... to see that there's a place where Democrats aren't too 'unified' to ask such questions and talk about them seriously.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the implicit question was really intended to be "What the heck are we gonna do now to guard against the possibility that we'll wind up with something like this in November if we win?"

Well, if the DLC and its friends hadn't decided to play hardball and (s)elect a nominee other than the one whom the voters were leaning strongly toward until their shepherds got actively into the act, we likely wouldn't feel it necessary to ask such questions. But as the situation stands today, here's one way to look at things:

A man for whom I have limited admiration in other areas once made the memorable comment, "When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." One might suspect that the party thinks that it has people like me by the balls this year, but I prefer to look at it a different way: since the game is already hardball, I'm perfectly willing to make it clear that the party will have neither my support nor my vote unless it acts to compensate - visibly and credibly - for some of the actions of its leadership which got us where we are today.

If enough people stand up and make this clear, and if the election appears likely to be a close one, then the balls in hand will be those of the party and its leadership, rather than those of its constituents. All other considerations aside, this will be satisfying as it is the way things should be - but have not been for a rather long time now. But more particularly, it will give us the opportunity to steer the party in the proper direction now, in a manner not only calculated to avoid the need for major course-corrections later but also effective in regaining the support of those who have already left the fold in search of more compatible pastures.

Of course, that would make it necessary to reach some effective level of agreement on what that new course should be, in a timely manner - not necessarily a trivial matter in itself. But first things first.

- bill

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #64
68. the balls in hand are yours,Mr. Todd
and it's Bush who's got ahold of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Todd Donating Member (245 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #68
71. I suspect that you're projecting, Paul
He may have your balls in hand, but he doesn't have mine. Neither does Kerry. My balls are my own.

- bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #71
76. so you haven't been affected by the Bush presidency?
The last three years have been just hunky-dory?

That's how I interpret your post - I mean, if the Democrats don't do what you want, you'll withhold your support and your vote. So four more years of Bush must be OK by you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #76
79. I did not once hear anyone say they were voting for bushwad*
Do you think that the last three years happened by accident?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. Mr. Todd did say he might not vote for the only opponent capable
of defeating him. Which amounts to the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
66. I might get off my lazy ass.

And volunteer to do some work for the party. I already donate more than average on the money side. The only thing that has gotten me so far are a lot of solicitations for more money.

I have noticed a horrible lack of infrastructure in the Democratic party. For example, my donations are in the form of a hundred bucks to the DNC each month. Yet I have never been approached by a local Democrat asking me for money. And the only individual who ever invites me to fund raisers or just plain "pressing the flesh" events is a personal friend who was doing that before. What does this tell me? It tells me the DNC does not tell local Democratic leaders who in their districts are donating to the DNC.

When I graduated college in 1984, I tried submitting a job application to the DNC as a computer programer. They told me they had no computers. I'm sure that has changed, but I wonder just how much?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alenne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
67. How do we know that any of the candidates wouldn't do this?
Look how Kucinich changed his position on abortion when he started his campaign.

We can't exactly know how Dean or Clark would have voted on the issues that Kerry gets criticized the most for.

With all of these candidates we take our chances that they are telling us the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. We don't.
I just hope and pray that I am paranoid and I am wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
72. Can we recall the president?
I'm just curious. If Kerry turns into 'Bush - The Sequel', can we get rid of him? I don't want to wait 4 years to get rid of a pseudo-dictator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #72
78. it's called impeachment and removal. But that's only for emergencies...
like blowjobs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IronLionZion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
74. shut up
Kerry may be part of the establishment but so was Clinton. He may scratch the backs of his donors and special interests but he will certainly not screw us the way Bush is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #74
77. I can see that you are banking on it.
"shut up"

Make me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsw_81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
75. Yeah, that's really going to happen
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-27-04 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
83. How about some actual EVIDENCE that he will do this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC