Kerry to Reach Out to 'People on the Right'

[Rose Siding]

ALBUQUERQUE — Counting on his liberal base to stick by him, Sen. John F. Kerry plans to aggressively court more conservative voters with a message that emphasizes traditional values of service, faith and family.

Following his pick last week of a running mate with potential appeal to rural communities, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee said he was not content to target the narrow band of swing voters that the two parties were expected to fight over in roughly 20 swing states.

"I'm going to talk to people on the right," Kerry told The Times on Friday during a joint interview with his vice presidential pick, Sen. John Edwards. "I want to talk to conservatives"
...
Democratic centrists, who expressed alarm about former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean during the party's presidential primaries, are thrilled with the approach of the new ticket.

"This campaign is building on Clintonism," Al From, head of the Democratic Leadership Council, said approvingly.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-kerry11jul11,1,4949986.story

[annxburns]

1. Sigh, I guess this bugs me ...

.... but at this point, with Bush Co threatening marshal law and postponing the election. ABB baby, ABB.

[peacetalksforall]

2. Kerry should reach out to me.

[mzmolly]

3. Dean planned to reach out to the moderates on the right at some point

also. But, Al From couldn't wait for Dean to show he was capable of uniting the public. :(

"It's a frankly stunning assertion, given the fact that John Kerry is the most liberal member of the United States Senate, who picked for his running mate the fourth-most liberal member," said Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for Bush's campaign. Schmidt was referring to recent rating of lawmakers by the National Journal, a nonpartisan Washington magazine.

Los Angeles City Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa said he had heard no complaints from liberal constituency groups about the tenor of Kerry's campaign.

"I represent that wing," said Villaraigosa, a national co-chairman of Kerry's campaign. "People recognize that our success in November hinges on our ability to reach out to a broad cross-section of America."

[TahitiNut]

58. "the National Journal, a nonpartisan Washington magazine."???

"nonpartisan"??

:eyes:

[CharlesGroce]

4. It worries me that....

the Kerry campaign doesn't consider what its been doing all along as reaching out to conservatives. I think a lot of people are in for a surprise.

Doesn't affect me though, I've managed the courage to vote third party:

http://www.wsws.org

[mzmolly]

6. Actually, I think real courage is in voting for someone who has a chance

of winning. I will have to answer for my vote. You on the other hand can always say "don't blame me, I voted third party."

[primavera]

46. Why does "a chance of winning" equate with conservatism?

Yes, I know. surveys show that the vast majority of registered voters are already decided and one could thus argue that the three percent left over of undecided centrist swing voters could turn the election. But what of the 40% of voters who never go to the polls?

I'm thinking about the mayoral election in DC some years ago in which Marion Barry was re-elected by a vast landslide because he, unlike everyone else, chose not to ignore the poor black neighborhoods in Washington in his campaign for re-election. Instead, he undertook an unprecedented voter mobilization effort to reach out to the politically disenfranchised, organized motor pools to drive voters to the polling places, just bent over backwards to reach out to and ensure that those people voted. And the results speak for themselves. Running after a conviction and prison term for crack use, he scarcely received so much as a single vote amongst the affluent white neighborhoods of Washington, even though those neighborhoods, like all the rest of DC, are overwhelmingly registered Democrats, yet it didn't matter in the slightest. The tsunami of votes from the ignored communities of wards 7 and 8 in particular, people who for the most part had never voted, totally wiped out the moderate Republican challenger Carol Schwartz, even though she enjoyed substantial support even from Democrats in the more respectable neighborhoods who couldn't bring themselves to vote for a former crack addict for mayor, regardless of his party.

Voter turnout is a much greater issue for independently-minded Dems vulnerable to disillusionment than it is for the armies of mindless sheeple Republicans who turn out and pull the lever simply because it's their traditional duty to do so. The statistics in every study confirm this time and time again. It thus follows that there is a vast pool of untapped votes to be had by mobilizing disenfranchised, apathetic voters, the overwhelming majority of which are likely to be Democratic.

Trying to be the most milquetoast candidate possible is only going to increase the numbers of such apathetic voters; it's going to reinforce the message that these people's votes don't count and that they have no representation or stake in the political process, so why the hell should they bother to turn out on election day? And we're going to shut ourselves off from this vast body of voters in order to go after a tiny handful of centrists swing voters? Excuse me? What the hell is wrong with this picture? Why have we allowed the DLC to brainwash us into believing that our only hope of carrying an election lies in appealing to their minority point of view?

[mzmolly]

47. Actually, I am voting for the person who best represents ME in this

election. John Kerry.

I would ask what does voting for the most liberal senator in the senate, have to do with voting for a conservate agenda?

I would also ask what does voting for a union busting, Halliburton stock holder, who's trying to sell his latest book, have to do with "liberalism"?

Also, why is it that we've allowed Nader and his ilk to brainwash us into thinking that were not voting our conscience, if we vote for the guy who can actually beat Bush?

[primavera]

51. I'm happy for you

I'm glad that Kerry represents your interests, you at least will be happy with him. Unfortunately, the issues that matter most to me, such as universal healthcare, the illegal war against Iraq, income inequality, and campaign finance reform are all areas in which Dean offered a more unequivocally appealing response (to me personally) than Kerry. Now, don't get all in a tizzy, Kerry's got my vote and he's undeniably a damn sight better than der Fuehrer,I'm not going to go throw my vote away on some independent candidate with no chance of winning. But from Kerry's recent voting record, i.e., voting to support the war on Iraq, and his moderate pitches during his campaign, i.e., carefully avoiding anything too contentious or controversial, I have not perceived in him a visionary willing to go to the mats to take on the republican propaganda that liberalism is inherently evil. Dean, I suspect, might have had it in him to challenge that propaganda that has so long gone unchallenged as to emerge as a new fundamental in our country, with the predictable consequence being a steady drifting to the right of the political spectrum.

As for Dean selling his book, I'm sure you would not be so hypocritical as to impugne Dean for writing a book when you yourself no doubt stood in line to get your copy of John Kerry's book. Incidentally, have you purchased Bill Clinton's book yet? That evil, mercenary bastard, writing a book!

[mzmolly]

53. I supported Dean. I was talking about Nader who is selling a book

and mentions it every chance he gets.

True, Dean was selling a book, but he didn't plug it at debates as Nader has done.

Just for the record: ME LOOOVVE DEAN! :hi:

Sorry bout the confusion. I'm a huge Deanie from waaay back. I think I best change my avatar back to a Deancentric one?

Dean didn't own stock in Haliburton BTW, Nader did.

You'll be glad to know, Kerry has an excellent proposal for Health Care and he promised Dean that would be his first goal upon stepping into office. He has also proposed an increase in the minimum wage.

Let it also be known, while I do consider Kerry Deanlight, I will also be voting for him in November. :hi:

[neverborn]

56. Increases in the minimum wage

Sound good, bad for the economy.

[mzmolly]

57. Good for the economy.

:hi:

When we all do well, we all do well.

[neverborn]

60. No.

Costs corporations more to pay their minimum wage employees. They then get rid of some employees and make the remaining consolidate jobs. (Unemployment) Alternately, they can just pass the increased cost of production onto the consumer. (Inflation)

[stevedeshazer]

64. Got a source to support your argument?

[mzmolly]

69. Check the Limbaugh discussion boards.

;)

[stevedeshazer]

73. Well, hell

Someone had to ask! :)

[neverborn]

100. Yes, personally attack me!

If you know me, I'm far from a Repub or a Limbaugh listener.

[mzmolly]

68. I take it your supporting Bush's "successful" economic plan?

http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/minimum%20wage.htm

"Now, I've studied the arguments and the evidence for and against a minimum wage increase. I believe the weight of the evidence is that a modest increase does not cost jobs, and may even lure people back into the job market." ~ President Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, Jan. 24, 1995

I prefer the Clinton years myself.

[neverborn]

99. Not supporting Bush's anything.

A modest min wage increase is fine. Wasn't Kerry upping it to $7/hr? I thought I heard that.

[TeacherCreature]

102. personally I think it should be 10 dollars an hour

scare tactics about business laying off emplyees don't impress me.

[primavera]

79. Bear in mind the statistics you're using

Economic indexes are very poor indicators of general social welfare in that they leave so much out in their calculations. Republicans love to push this notion that increased productivity automatically equates with increased social well-being, yet this is a serious fallacy in that increased productivity does not reflect income distribution. Frequently, a company will increase its productivity and its profits, yet wages will drop. In other words, the increased earnings are simply lining the executive parasites' pockets, they aren't trickling down to the workers who did the actual work.

Consider it this way: say you live in a country of ten people. Under one economic scenario, all ten of them make $50,000/year, so their GDP is $500,000. Under a model more like the US', efficiency is maximized, so the overall GDP goes up to $1 million, but one of the ten citizens receives a compensation of $900,000, leaving everyone else to earn only $10,000/year. As one of the nine, which economic scenario would you rather live under, the one where you had lower GDP but made five times more, or the one with the higher GDP, but where you made a fifth as much as you could have made?

Economics as a discipline makes no study of such considerations. You talk about unemployment, great, let's talk about that. Unemployment in this country is only measured by first time jobless claims. So, if you were repeatedly laid off by first one job and then another, then you aren't considered to be unemployed. Similarly, when you cease to receive unemployment benefits, you're eliminated from the statistics: then you're no longer unemployed, rather you're enjoying Operation Weekday Freedom.

You talk about prices, great, let's talk about those. Cheap prices are only meaningful if your earning potential is low. Where would you rather live: a place where a box of cereal cost $1, but your weekly wage was $10, or a place where a box of cereal was $5, but your weekly wage was $100? Once again, you're failing to consider the consequences of the low prices you're valuing. Great, so I can go to MalWart and buy a piece of cheap plastic crap for 99 cents. But in order for me to be able to buy that cheap plastic crap for 99 cents, MalWart has to cut its salaries and benefits to all of their employees. Then, in order to stay competitive, Target and Woolworth and everyone else needs to follow suit and lower their wages and benefits to their employees so that they too can offer you cheap plastic crap for 99 cents. It becomes a viscous downward cycle with everyone trying to cut the most costs at the expense of their employees. Now, suddenly, they've created their own market: since nobody makes more than $10/week, nobody can afford to pay more than $1 for that box of cereal, so they have to go to the MalWarts, thus ensuring that MalWart continues to thrive and the Walton family becomes the richest family on the face of the planet. Where does it stop? Why not lower the minimum wage? Hell, why bother paying employees anything at all, just make them work for food like slaves in bygone days. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but, from a purely economic point of view, slavery was one hell of a great system, it was efficient as all get out. It just wasn't all that great if you happened to be one of the slaves.

[arlib]

84. Funny...

...how this is always mentioned by the GOP as a "rationale", but whenever the minimum wage is raised, it never has these catastrophic effects.

[stevedeshazer]

62. And the evidence?

Please explain how raising the minimum wage is bad for the economy.

<waits, taps foot impatiently>

[raifield]

95. Well, no hard evidence

But I do remember my college Economics course last semester, whose book advocated that exact theory: that increased minimum wage merely leads to increased costs, as businesses react to the greater amount of money available to them. The Economics course was just to finish off my Social Science requirement, so I can't really give an educated opinion on it.

It does make sense, at least on paper: If the average wage increased from $10 to $100, why wouldn't Company A increase it's prices tenfold? In the longterm, that is extremely damaging to the economy, but since when has any company looked into the long term?

[TankLV]

96. You "read it in a book in college'? That's your source?

And an economics department, let alone a required reading book, would NEVER LIE, or hold a conservative, captialist, corporate bias, right?

That is just too funny for words.

I read it someplace - so it must be true!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Thanx for the comedy.

[stevedeshazer]

97. Thanks, Tank!

Or Tanks, thank. Or whatever. :)

[neverborn]

101. An Economics Book holds more water than "some guy on DU" to me...

[0rganism]

107. Careful, that's not what the "price increase" theory says

In a competitive equilibrium, MP = MC.

If the minimum wage increases, some portion of the MC will increase because it costs more to pay the low-wage employees. This effect is nowhere near as drastic as neocon propagandists like to claim, as it is distributed across the entire quantity traded, and only represents a fraction of the total production cost to begin with.

On the other hand, some people will have more money to spend -- in particular, those people making tradeoffs like rent vs. clothing for the kids, or toothpaste vs. the water bill. They are an untapped source of demand, and will gladly buy an additional quantum of product given the chance. The money from a minimum wage increase does not get sewn into matresses, it gets SPENT.

Increasing the minimum wage has the potential to be a tremendous economic stiumulous.

You might think that companies will suddenly fire lots of workers. Well, a study of the effect on employment from the 1995 minimum wage increase showed no measurable loss of jobs. And why should comptetive equilibrium companies fire people due to an across-the-board wage increase? They're getting the money back to the tune of QS X MC, which covers the cost of labor regardless.

[primavera]

71. So conservative economists keep telling us

Yet miraculously, the economies of Europe continue to stand despite all reason.

[neverborn]

110. Hrm.

What the study finds is that US GDP per head was a stunning 32 per cent higher than the EU average in 2000 and that the gap shows little sign of closing. Higher GDP per head allows the average American to spend about dollars 9,700 (GBP 5,276) more on consumption every year than the average European. As the study says: "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near."

http://www.troyrecord.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12038181&BRD=1170&PAG=740&dept_id=226959&rfi=6

[primavera]

70. Oops, pardon my two cents

Sorry, I thought you were talking about Dean. I agree, I'm pissed as hell as Nader - no argument there.

[mzmolly]

72. No problem man. I've done it myself.

:hi:

[Imperialism Inc.]

54. It doesn't necessarily.

You are right on target mentioning the 40% that stay at home. I can't get inside the head of the party leaders but my instinct tells me that the leaders of both parties prefer it that way. That is the real reason for running to the center. They know if that 40% comes out their corporate wet dreams will likely be quickly lost.

I'm reminded of a talk given by Robert McChesney, a media and social analyst, http://www.robertmcchesney.com/ . He was talking about Chile around 1973. 95% voter turnout, 12 daily papers, a well informed, involved populace. They of course elected the socialist Allende. Well, we can't have that so he must be overthrown and in its a place a society with much lower numbers of daily papers and low voter turnout put in its place.

===
Forgive the reference to "liberals" and Carter and do realize that this is the "good" side of the issue. On the other side of the coin are the conseratives who take it even further.

"Crisis of Democracy"
http://www.terrelibere.it/chomsky_eng.htm
Chomsky: They don’t care because they are under tremendous pressure – this is not Italy but the world – to try to remove the population from the political arena. That gets called neoliberal, which has its core in Britain and the United States – again the most advanced countries – but it’s spread all over, which is a major effort to reverse what happened in the 1960s. What happened in the 1960s was extremely frightening to international elites. You see this very strikingly, and perhaps most strikingly, in The Crisis of Democracy.

Pacitti: It was published in 1975 and was the first major study of the Trilateral Commission founded by David Rockefeller. Is that correct?

Chomsky: Yes. The Commission was an elite, a mostly liberal internationalist elite, from Europe, the United States and Japan. And it was mostly people like the Carter administration, which was made up almost entirely from liberals, liberal in the American sense of social democrats and internationalists. They were deeply concerned about what happened in the 1960s around the world. What they were concerned about was an increase in democracy, that is, through the 1960s parts of the public which had usually been apathetic and passive began to get organised and began to enter the political arena and press their demands and so on. That included women, working people, minorities, the elderly, in general the large part of the population which was usually passive. They began to enter and to encroach on forbidden territory. The way the thing’s supposed to work is that the political system is supposed to be in the hands of private tyrannies, private power, and that was beginning to erode. That’s the crisis of democracy. And what they said is that there’s too much democracy and that’s no good, it’s a crisis, that we have to have more moderation in democracy and we have to restore people to passive apathy. They said that they had to prove that they were worried about what they called the institutions responsible for the indoctrination of the young – their words, not mine. That means the schools, the officials, media, the churches – they were not indoctrinating people, they were becoming too independent and thoughtful, too active, and something had to be done to reverse this, the crisis of democracy. Since then there have been major efforts to restore people to their marginal existence, and this takes many forms. One form is what’s called minimising the state within the neoliberal framework. So remove decisions from the public arena and back into private hands, one or another form of privatisation. Another form is the centralisation of financial authorities. So the European central bank has enormous authority and it’s not accountable to parliament. Still more important is the liberalisation of finance since the 1970s, dismantling the Bretton Woods system. That creates what economists call a virtual parliament and you have to pay attention to what investors say or else they can destroy the economy. And that restricts enormously what governments can do. But right now there are extremely important meetings on the general agreement for trade in services. And the idea is to privatise services, services meaning anything the government can do – education, health, etc. And the idea is to liberalise, meaning open them to private competition, and that’s got to mean private control.

Pacitti: This is exactly along the lines of what Berlusconi has in mind, incidentally.

Chomsky: That’s exactly it. But let’s remember that this is a small part of something going on internationally, trying to deal with a major problem that arose because of the democratising process. And it’s showing up all over the place and in an effort to undermine the Left. You can no longer control people by violence in the West. You can’t just throw them into a torture chamber. You have to find other means. One means is propaganda. Another means is rabid consumerism, to try to drive people into massive consumption. In the United States the economy has suffered under the neoliberal policies, as has been the case worldwide, and is maintained to a high extent by consumer spending. Household debt is now higher than disposable funds. And that’s good because it traps people, and trapped into debt you can’t do much. You’ve got to just work harder and try not to think about it. So from infancy children are deluged by propaganda telling them: buy, buy, buy, and so on. The same is done with countries. The Third World is trapped by debt which was imposed by immense propaganda from the IMF and the World Banking Organisation. These are devices to try to control the populations and ensure that the private tyrannies endure. So that’s what you have to do in times of increasing freedom.

[primavera]

77. Cool!

Great snippet, I love Chomsky - thanks for posting it! :hi:

[AndyTiedye]

10. Sorta Like the "Courage" to play with matches in a room full of gasoline

I must assume that the certain loss of abortion rights and gay rights
and everything else the Scalia court would do is of no consequence to you.
For the US to invade a few more hapless countries to enrich Halliburton's coffers
is OK with you then.

[kiahzero]

25. The country's coming down around my head

But don't blame me... my hands are clean! CLEEAAAAN!

Some courage. :eyes:

[jumptheshadow]

33. The "courage" to vote for a third party?

With the stakes in this election being so high, "courage" is not the word that comes to mind when I think of anybody who plans to vote third party:

* World stability
* U.S. stability
* The future of the environment
* The future of our Bill of Rights
* The separation of Church and State
* The future of the Supreme Court
* The future of our national security
* The future of our retirement system
* The financial solvency of the U.S.
* The future of our educational system

etc., etc.,

And the issue that touches me to the core, the right, as a gay person, not to be accorded secondary citizenship because looney religious conservatives have decided to enshrine discrimination in the constitution. Yes, the SAME religious conservatives who are so fervently supporting Nader.

So forgive me if I hurl when I hear about the "courage" of third party voters.

[moez]

35. Damn Straight!

You're only "courageous" if you vote the way that I tell you to, dammit!

Otherwise, you're a blathering idiot worthy only of my scorn.

[TahitiNut]

61. (grin) It seems you've decoded ...

... the dark art of the partisan ad hominem. "Vote For Quisling!" :silly:

[jumptheshadow]

82. Well you're right about one thing

I don't think that people who vote for a guy, Nader, whose candidacy is being embraced and supported by right-wing advocacy groups, are deep thinkers.

Vote for whichever candidate floats your boat. I have every right, however, to look upon you as an enabler of bigotry.

[crossroads]

91. Courage???

Excuse me... I can say no more... Get real!
:eyes:

[wyethwire]

5. Remember ...

there are two steps in getting elected.

1. Convincing voters to fire the incumbent.
2. Convincing voters that the challenger is credible.

This means demonstrating that Kerry isn't some caricacure of a liberal with devil horns.

It's good politics

[mzmolly]

7. Agreed.

:hi:

[AlGore-08.com]

49. No, there are three steps to getting elected

1.) Determine the size of your base
2.) Determine the size of the persuadables
3.) Create a campaign that keeps your base and convinces the persuadables

You cannot win an election by losing your base. That's Politics 101.

And people will not vote for you just because the incumbent s*cks. That's politics 102.

Kerry can loose this election if a significant section of the base is not motivated to vote for him. The closer the race is, the smaller that section can be and still effect the race. Every poll I have seen has shown that Smirk's conservative base is solidly behind him, but up to 30% of the progressive Dems are "persuadable" - - that they are willing to at least consider voting for somebody else besides Kerry - - or not voting at all.

Kerry is gambling that when election day finally rolls around, they will hold their noses and vote for him rather than vote 3rd party or stay home in disgust.

[sangh0]

88. I don't believe you

Every poll I've seen lately says that only about 20% of the total electorate are "persuadable", so I don't see how 30% of progressive Dems are "persuadable" unless you define "progressive Dem" so tightly that it only includes you and two of your friends.

[TeacherCreature]

103. you need to think about the math again

It is perfectly possible for 20% of the total electorate to be persuadable and also translate to 30 percent of the liberal base.

[Placebo]

8. John Kerry: "Life Begins At Conception."

He dropped that little bomb the other day. I hate to see him pretending to be more conservative just to court a few more votes.

Why is it okay to call yourself a conservative in america but not a liberal? Why is liberal such a dirty word? It's more in touch with American values than conservatism.

[fearnobush]

11. That term has been demonized by the media and the party of greed and fear.

It will take a long time to right that wrong, but it's already happening a little. When confronted as a "liberal" I respond. what do you have something against liberty, statue of liberty, freedom? They shut up quick because they know they challanged the wrong person. When confronted with conviction, this people are usually bunch sissy's.

[James T. Kirk]

13. Also: John Kerry: Marriage = One Man & One Woman

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/02/12/kerry_opposed_gay_marriage_ban_in_letter/

[demoman123]

29. Well, one woman at a time.

First, Philadelphia heiress Julia Thorne, then Heinz heiress, Teresa. Serial monogamy.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

75. Yes, nice RW talking point you're repeating.

Kerry got married to a wealthy woman... twice! Blah, blah, blah... :eyes:

[demoman123]

93. There are also left wing critics of Mr. Kerry

So don't jump to conclusions.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

43. That's the Catholic John Kerry speaking

and I have no problem with that.

[James T. Kirk]

90. Do you have a problem with civil unions instead marriage as JK favors?

[TeacherCreature]

104. of course you have no actual female body parts

so why would it bother you? :eyes:
As a woman it bothers me that he chose to pander to the anti-choice nuts.

[MasonJar]

14. John Kerry does believe that, but he does not impose his

conscience on other people. He recognizes as St Paul said in 1 Corinthians 10:29. "Why should my liberty be subject to someone else's conscience?" It's about time these holier than thou clergy look more closely at the Bible.

[truthisfreedom]

20. exactly. the difference between Kerry and bushco on this is that Kerry

is a Freedom-Loving American who believes in the Constitution and Separation of church and state, and states rights, and bushco wants to lay their hands on women's bodies and use "states rights" as a code word for racism.

[primavera]

80. Maybe, but he's also validating a major plank in the anti-choice platform

The entire focus of the anti-choice community for decades has been about getting acknowledgement of zygotes as a form of life. The more you go along with the notion that a fetus shares the same attributes as we do, the easier it becomes to assert that they should enjoy the same protections. Regardless of what Kerry's personal views may be, he can't take a stand on this slippery slope without helping or hindering somebody's point of view and, in this case, it looks like the side he's chosen to help is going to be the one which bombs abortion clinics and pushes pregnant women into moving traffic rather than see them have an abortion.

[Placebo]

87. That's what I was thinking

.

[yardwork]

27. Kerry is not pretending anything. He's Catholic.

He probably does think that life begins at conception.

So do I.

I'm still pro-choice. So is Kerry.

[candy331]

37. Liberal means to want forward change, conservative means to

want reverse change that is to paddle backwards by any means necessary.

[TahitiNut]

63. Considering the direction we're headed, "forward" isn't the course ...

... I'd want a helmsman to steer. :eyes:

[Crachet2004]

9. Talk is fine, but action is better...throw that silly-ass gun control...

Language out of the platform, and we would'nt have to give up ANYTHING else...and we would win in a landslide.

Forget those phonied-up polls that say a majority support it-our side knows how to manipulate a poll as well as the GOP.

This is a pretty left-leaning bunch on DU, but it seems to me that practically all but a diehard few have given up on control, not because we might not win on this issue, but because given Bush, Patriot, etc..., it is just a BAD idea.

[Sagan]

12. It's a sound strategy

Chimpco is doing everything it can to hold onto their conservative base, which even so is slipping. They have no room to maneuver for the moderates or, naturally, the liberals.

Kerry has to keep Chimpco penned in and pushing issues like the gay marriage thing and the anti-black stuff in order to keep the fundamentalists happy.

[MasonJar]

16. I do NOT know who was paying attention, but the evangelicals at

their conference repudiated the idea of supporting one party, reminding each other that the Bible says that man is to protect the environment and help the poor. Even they are suddenly recognizing the error of their policies. I hope that it is time to help.

[iconoclastic cat]

19. Links? I never hear about that!

Fill me in, MasonJar!
(sorry. cheesy humor.)

[Piperay]

31. I agree

this is the way to go, chimp is boxed in and can't make a move beyond his base. :-)

[alarimer]

15. I am getting pretty disgusted

So far I am not encouraged by Kerry. "the most liberal memeber of the Senate" my ass.

I want Kerry to win only because he will (marginally) be better than Bush and for the Supreme Court but I am thoroughly disgusted. I am so tired of the Democrats turning to the right. It sucks. Catering to RW assholes is not going to work. Those idiots will never vote for Kerry and he will only end up alientating REAL Demcrats. What the fuck is wrong with these people???? WHere are the real fucking Democrats????

[NMDemDist2]

17. the "real" democrats are getting their clocks cleaned on two issues

in half the country

Abortion
Gun Control


:shrug: i just don't get it

how can anyone in good conscience support these RW wacko's because of two lousy issues that won't affect most of the people voting the RW ticket anyway?

[JayS]

24. There is more than one brand of gun control on the market and...

...the one pushed by the Democrats has grown moldy on the shelves.

For many, the issue of gun control is more of an issue of crime control. It is an excellent litmus test for how a candidate will do on the most basic issue there is.

[alarimer]

98. I'd give up gun control

If it meant they would repeal the entirety of the Patriot Act, not just bits and pieces of it and it meant we could have real social justice. But I don't think it works that way.

[Union Thug]

18. We SHOULD reach out to people on the right...

...with an oral/rectal pear.

Piss on that. Kerry: motivate the left, motivate the base and YOU WIN. SCORE. And you don't look like a sell out!

[umtalal]

21. And What About this Base, the Left Base??? n/t

[flaminbats]

22. Kerry and Edwards are already conservative enough for me!

On the issue of the Iraqi War, Kerry is as conservative as I can tolerate but still win my vote. He supports the repeal of some of Bush's tax-cuts, while I would prefer repealing them all. On healthcare he thinks the uninsured and small businesses should be able to buy into the same private options that members of Congress can. This is better than nothing...but what about national healthcare?

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=111&subid=137&contentid=252417

I would not feel very motivated to vote if Kerry suddenly decided his current position on healthcare was just too liberal...I guess this issue would put him to the right of even John Breaux! If he decides that we do not need an exit strategy in Iraq, but decides that America should send more men there..I would question his sincerity on how we should be treating those in the military. And on taxes it is nice to know he would repeal most of the Bush tax-cuts, but if Kerry will not agree to repeal them all..then he should stop promising voters new tax-cuts!

Kerry-Edwards can appeal to swing voters and independents without moving more to the right. When conservatives demand a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage in Congress..Kerry can respond by promoting his own Constitutional Amendment that would make election day a holiday, abolish the Electoral College, and introduce IRV into all federal elections. If conservatives really want their amendment to pass, they should have to water it down and include Kerry's amendment as well. Kerry can win moderate voters by simply telling them the truth, that it was Bush´s incompetence that caused 9/11. And he should tell the nation that we can never be secure with this weak idiot in office. On immigration Kerry should change our policy. We should have a policy that allows legal immigration based on population growth, not as a form of foreign aid. We should allow enough legal immigrants in on those years when our population is falling to make up for the difference. And we should increase the ratio of Africans and Asians included on the years immigration occurs. Then we should phase out any federal programs which encourage illegal immigration and corporate outsourcing.

No one is better qualified to speak out on our nation's moral issues than John Kerry. Kerry can speak to the moral necessity that our nation again becomes the dream of every person on Earth, the new Atlantis. We can have universal healthcare in America, but only if Americans have the moral will power. We can must find a place for every member in our society, if Americans have the moral will power. We can pay down the national debt, make our government more efficient, and pass an era of peace and prosperity on to future generations...but only if voters have the moral will power to support this!

[shanti]

23. what's interesting about this

is that *ush NEVER talks to liberals or entertains their views. kerry yet again proves to be the bigger man.

[NJCher]

26. (cultural values) talk is cheap

The repukes learned that a long time ago. Talk it up big, whip those God fearing Christians into a lather. School prayer? Not a chance. Sex and violence on TV? Politicians don't have that much say about what program content is. The case could be made for other r-w "cultural" issues, too.

As pointed out on Bill Moyers (NOW) tonight, those fervent right wingers have absolutely nothing to show for their allegiance to republicans. They have done nothing for them.

So maybe Kerry realizes he can talk all he wants; he'll never have to deliver because the "competition" hasn't either.


Cher

[Bryan]

28. Exactly

I can appreciate that some people aren't satisfied with Kerry's, ah, "center-left" attitudes, but the cultural conservatives are the most credulous and unreasoning section of the voting public, the people too blinded by questions of perceived godliness to recognize that a nation with a positive international reputation and a balanced budget is better off than one without. Kerry might as well tell those folks that Bush is in league with the mole men in the hollow center of the earth, it might bring a few over...

[Piperay]

30. Chimp won't even reach out to the NAACP

because he can't afford to antagonize his base, Kerry can reach out to all Americans and not just a few.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

44. You nailed it! Great point!!!

You f'ing rock!

[coeur_de_lion]

85. You are so right!

There have to be so many Republicans who are disguested with *. Why not bring them into the fold? Kerry is smarter than I thought!

[TeacherCreature]

105. Dean can reach out to all americans

because he already got his liberal creds on the Iraqi war and several other issues. Kerry needs to reach out to his base because he blew it with the IWR and several other issues.
Kerry needs to reach out to his base.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

108. Several million dollars donated to Kerry so far

tells me you are wrong.
The base is motivated and ready to defeat Bush. Again.

[MadHound]

32. Ah yes, just one more step on the road

Towards a two party/same corporate master system of government. Face it, forty years ago Clinton's brand of "Democratic politics" would have been considered to be moderate Republican. Apparently Kerry is being fitted into the same mold, fiscally conservative, aggressive on the use of our armed forces, and paying lip service to leftists on social issues, but failing to follow through with concrete action:eyes:

"Counting on his liberal base to stick by him" Yep, as always, taking the base for granted while moving the party ever rightwards. Sorry John, but I've put up with this shit for decades now, and haven't received a thing in return. I want to be pandered to, I want one, just one, liberal plank put into the platform, and for you to aggresively work for it. Like say getting us the hell out of Iraq. Sad to say, but it isn't going to happen.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

38. Yarp.

There has been one, count 'em, one, Dem. president who has delivered a slate of liberal and progressive legislation in the last century. He ran as a centrist, business-friendly candidate but then stole the socialist party platform and basically instituted it. Maybe that's a good harbinger? :shrug:

[neverborn]

59. What's wrong with being fiscally conservative?

[MadHound]

67. Nothing wrong with being fiscally conservative,

However when that term is used in government, it is fine code talk for slashing the budget of social services. Clinton is referred to as "fiscally conservative", and we know what that got us, slashed social services, welfare "reform", and a free pass to corporate giveaways.

[dusty64]

34. The further they swing

to the rightwing the less enthused I become. Boy I'm sick of being taken for granted.

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

36. He'll be championing supply-side economics by August,

and endorsing the Patriot Act by September.

When I was first starting out on DU, I wished I could be an American just for a few days in November, so I could cast my vote against Bush; I believe he's nearly as big a threat to my country as he is to yours. Thanks to John Kerry, I don't wish that anymore.

[Bandit]

39. Whatever it takes to win this one but I swear to God that if things don't

change and I mean beginning immediately I will never vote Democratic again. It will be third party from now on. This is the Democrats last chance to "Get It". I am sure I am not alone in this sentiment either.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

40. Suggested bumper sticker: VOTE KERRY - HE WON'T TORTURE YOU

I'd just like some assurance that this is really true.
It would be a good start at reform.
Um...John?

[CWebster]

41. There he goes again

Another black mark in the no column. Only one in the yes column: He is not Bush.

No one should suffer any illusions about this.

[Forkboy]

42. I thought he already was

[AspenRose]

45. This might be why he's doing what he's doing

Republicans for Kerry
www.republicansforkerry.org

Conservatives for Kerry
www.conservativesforkerry.com

Last week a DUer said she went to her monthly Democrat meeting and there was a Republican in the back wanting to learn more about Kerry because he was FED UP with Bush*.

It ain't just for Zell Miller anymore (e.g. "Democrats for Bush").

[sendero]

48. "Reaching out" and "talking"...

... to the right is not the same as "legislating for the Right".

If you'll notice, even the Repugs are very good at talking about their views on social conservative issues, and pretty dismal at actually passing laws.

It's just possible that Kerry might have a message something like "we (Dems,liberals) are not as different from you as you think. We love our families, we believe in justice, fairness, honesty, hard work. Take a look at us - we are not the people some have been telling you we are".

If this is what he has in mind, I think he is very astute.

[Rose Siding]

50. Repubs didn't have to pass laws

...in order to send our tax money to Pat Robertson's organization or to pull out of the UN Family Planning fund, dooming thousands. They don't have to pass a single law to intensify polarization by tying up the Congress in a ridiculously doomed attempt to amend the Constitution. The insanity is *supported* and perpetuated when Bush says something about evolution like "the jury's still out on that".

That base gets serviced plenty.

[tom_paine]

52. As a moderate who thinks Al From is working for the Imperial Family

NOW I understand the caution and weakness and the same virulent hatred for Liberals.

And the same taking-for-granted.

I'm a Moderate and yet I strongly dislike the DLC and From, who should be closer to my belief.

You know what the "C" stands for in DLC?

Caution and Cowardice

[mzmolly]

55. I would caution DU-ers to read the articles posted here. As we know

the press will be doing their best to divide the left. The title of the article (I suggest) was calculated.

:shrug:

I'm with you on the Al From thing. I have almost as much contempt for him as I do George Bush.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

65. Good for Kerry!!

He should reach out to voters on the right. I don't see this as any different from Dean trying to reach out to Southern and rural voters. It doesn't mean Kerry is changing his platform to suit them; he's just trying to explain what his platform is.

"As for rank-and-file party members, Kerry said his record of strong support for environmental protection, gun control and abortion rights — all core Democratic issues — 'speaks for itself about my priorities in policy terms.'"

That doesn't sound like he's changing who he is.

"Kerry seemed certain that liberals would support him, saying that voters who want better wages, protection for the environment and affordable healthcare would realize that 'we're the right ticket.'"

Neither does that.

[duvinnie]

76. he's a magician!

Let's see now "strong support for environmental protection, gun control and abortion rights"...and is that the message he will have for right-wingers when he reaches out to them? Typical of Kerry, trying to be everything to everyone at the same time.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

78. Another RW talking point -- "Kerry the flip-flopper"

I think it was the "better wages" and "affordable healthcare" parts that might appeal to many regular Americans, Democratic or Republican. But you go ahead and pretend that Kerry is changing his message. This is standard campaigning procedure. There is nothing unusual about talking to voters from both parties. Anyone who thinks otherwise probably doesn't have much experience following real politics.

[duvinnie]

81. Sorry, but

that doesn't really address my point at all (and neither does
it help to dismiss me as a "right winger".)

The problem with Kerry is plain to see - he does not have
a defensible platform. How can you come out for gun control
and "hope to reach out to RWs"? How can you vote for
a republican president's Iraq war and hope to reach out to
moderates from either party?

[Ganja Ninja]

66. A pointless and wasted effort.

Didn't he learn anything from the attempt to reach out to McCain? Save your breath John. They said they want a Christian leader but they loathed Jimmy Carter. They said they wanted fiscally responsible leader yet they hated Bill Clinton so much they couldn't see straight. You can't please them so why bother trying. Bush will do more without trying, to drive them from the GOP than anything you could ever do. Take care of the people who support you and let conservatives vote for chimp if they dare.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

74. Kerry did not reach out to McCain.

That was a lie spread by the media and McCain himself has denied it.

You have some good points about Carter and Clinton, but I think that applies more to the diehard right-wingers. I think there are a lot of registered Republicans ready to vote for a Democrat this time. If some Republicans didn't vote for Carter and Clinton, how could they ever have won?

Kerry can "take care" of his current supporters while reaching out to new ones.

[Demeter]

83. What The Hell For???

Why is this learning curve so flat?

[Emillereid]

86. Sure wish this guy would reach out to his base on the left -- it's getting

so lonely on the left that that upstart suitor, Ralph Nader, is looking better by the day!

[quaker bill]

89. Clinton's triangulation is the wrong direction

Liberals have values, there is no need to go to the rightwing to find them. Per Robert Reich, with whom I agree, Clinton's "triangulation", specifically attempting to find the policy that was niether too left nor too right deprived him of a mandate in 1996. The absence of this mandate only fostered the repug attacks and deprived him of the ability to get any serious work done.

Liberals believe in standing up for the little guy against the corporate interests.

Liberals believe in and fight for a living wage.

Liberals believe that working people should be able to send their kids to good schools that provide them with a high quality education and the expanding opportunities that provides.

Liberals believe we should protect our civil rights.

Liberals believe in public morality, in that corporate crminals who steal the retirement savings of millions should pay a very high price. We understand that free markets only work when the highest standards of ethical behavior are shown by our business leaders.

Liberals believe that, if military force is ever to be used, it should only be used in the face of a truly imminent threat. We understand that the lives of our children and innocent civilians should never be spent sustaining a lie.

Liberals understand that strong environmental protection means that businesses pay the true cost of their activities. That the costs to clean up pollution need to be the responsibility of the business which profits from generating pollutants. That the very laws of physics dictate that the most efficient and cost effective manner to clean up pollution is to prevent it in the first place. That a cleaner environment leads to a more productive society.

The list goes on and on. The point being that Liberals have values and we should run on them.

[TeacherCreature]

106. Exactly right QB

Liberals have values. Why doesn't Kerry know this?

[SarahB]

109. I agree as well

While Clinton had many good points, they did not include such things as signing NAFTA, welfare reform, and all the assorted deregulations. It's like the Democratic Party in the 90's went to the direction of still adhering to the same stances on social issues, but basically sold out on far too many aspects of economic policies to the Republican agenda. There lied much of the appeal of Nadar to some people. Getting sucked into an agenda that is even farther right which is once again, trashing the economy (at least for those of us who don't make $200K+ per year) isn't the best thing for our country as a whole. I will still vote for Kerry no matter what, but I hope he reconsiders this direction.

[union_maid]

92. Reaching out to people on the Right is not the same as moving to the right

It's pretty much established that the lower income voters who vote Republican do so because of social values. Well, Democrats are not going to get the ones who go to sleep dreaming of slaying the "librul babykillers" but there are a lot of people out there who've been voting against themselves for 20 odd years and they've gained little on the social front. Those who can be convinced that despite differences, liberals don't threaten them any should be courted. Someone's got to explain how they're being scammed. I hope Kerry and Edwards can get that across to them.

[wurzel]

94. What is "Rightwing" about service, faith, and family values?