Deleted message

[Name removed]

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

[JI7]

1. i love the christian coalition one

i remember looking through candidates ratings from some conservative groups and being proud of those who got low scores.

[my_2_cents]

2. What I have learned from DU is that

He voted YES for the war resolution so therefore, that cancels out all of his very real liberal accomplishments.

I have also learned that he and Gary Trudeau were members of the Skull and Bones so that must mean they are in on the Bush plan (although from viewing post war Iraq, it appears there is NO Bush plan)

But I read it here first so it must be true.

[Evanstondem]

4. Kerry also voted for No Child Left Behind

That bill is becomine one of the Bush Administration's top emerging disasters. Dean was against NCLB, so he's in the best position to exploit this issue in the general election.

[blm]

8. Bush didn't FUND it as the bill intended.

Democratic Senators are battling Bush on this in Congress.

[JohnKleeb]

11. I think all of the congresspeople did

I think Kucinich did as well yet he has a great education plan that is very unique and being Dennis K just great.

[welshTerrier2]

14. Agreed

this is the essential point ... it is meaningless to argue that Kerry supported NCLB unless you want to argue that it was bad legislation ...

i actually think Kerry is in a better position to exploit the issue because bush's "say one thing and fail to fund it" is the essence of his administration and it should be the essence of a campaign against him ...

[clar]

17. I'm one

that believes NCLB is bad one size fits all legislation. The 7-12 school in my town- not a bad school at all- was labelled as failing. The school board voted to decline federal funding rather than come into compliance. The effect on rural schools is going to be disasterous.

[Evanstondem]

20. No amount of money can fix NCLB

The Dems in Congress grabbed for the money that they thought would be there and didn't pay attention to the draconian test performance standards.

[eileen_d]

5. lol

That's the "progressive" message I got about Kerry too (although I do believe it is a minority of posters who actually promote this view).

So I'm kicking this post. Kerry is a great Democratic candidate.

[HFishbine]

3. Not to mention

the IWR vote.

[wtmusic]

6. I wouldn't vote for him on his NEA record alone

The NEA is single-handedly destroying American public education.

Not to mention the IWR vote.

[JohnKleeb]

9. No offense music does that mean you wouldnt vote for anyone who is a membe

of congress. I skimmed and saw that all of the others have good grades from the NEA.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=002449M&PHPSESSID=a6702580e3a7c59de13eccf91e362242

[boxster]

10. Singlehandedly? I think not.

I think you're giving Mr. Bush a little too little credit.

[clar]

7. He has a great record

and I'm convinced he'd be an excellent President. Unfortunately, I don't think he's a great candidate.

[blm]

12. He battles Republicans better than he does other Democrats,

because his heart isn't into stepping on fellow Dems. Dean has ALOT of experience in crushing progressive Dems in Vermont, so he doesn't think twice about battling Democrats in a primary race. However, his 11 year record of compromising with the GOP will prove more difficult a battle for him in the general.

[clar]

16. Why even bother

saying this to me when you know I disagree? The Dean is an evil liberal/progressive slayer doesn't fly with this liberal Vermonter, and I've told you that several times. Why not just accept my complement of your candidate graciously instead of adding on a gratuitous swipe at Dean?

[blm]

22. Because I am also battling those who battle Democrats

and helped make liberal a pejorative term in the general public.

[phillybri]

13. Kick for Kerry

:kick:

[THUNDER HANDS]

15. I'm still undecided

After bouncing back and forth between Kerry and Dean and Dean and Clark and Kerry and Clark and Dean and Kerry and Clark....

Honestly, I still think Kerry would make the best president. I mean, the guy already looks like he was personally carved out of Mt. Rushmore.

I can't take credit for that line, I think Chris Matthews said it.

[welshTerrier2]

18. my latest take on Kerry

OK, Pete, Since You Exempted IWR, let's talk about the $87 billion ... i saw Kerry's interview yesterday morning with the "Georges" ... he talked about all sorts of amendments to the $87 billion that he has, and will, offer ...

he was then asked the following question (i paraphrase):

if all the amendments fail, would you vote for or against the $87 billion ??

Kerry's response (i paraphrase again):

I can't say ... we'll have to see exactly how the bill is worded ...

Now ... that's certainly reasonable ... it's always good to read the final wording before you sign anything ...

BUT, and it's a big but, this doesn't show Kerry in a leadership role ... i'm sorry but it just doesn't ... if he wants to carry the democratic banner into battle, he needs to take a position now ... he needs to get other democrats to sign on to HIS position now ... it's not just about his one vote on the issue ... it's about leadership ... introducing amendments is fine ... i hope he's successful ... but he needs to stake out a position for democrats ... we either go along with continued funding for this madness or we don't ...

to worry about "mincing words" and "the fine print", while not unimportant, misses the point on the broader issues of right and wrong ... if you're running for president, you stake out your turf and fight for it ... Kerry needs to show that he's more than a legislator, he needs to show that he has what it takes to lead the country ...

i keep hoping he'll hear this message ... time is running out for him ...

[THUNDER HANDS]

19. he'll support it in the end

He just has a lot of questions he wants to raise.

Not unreasonable.

[welshTerrier2]

23. Kerry must vote "NO !!!!" on the $87 Billion

i'm not sure if what you're saying is "it's not unreasonable to support the $87 billion in the end" or "it's not unreasonable to wait until some of the details are ironed out" ...

because, for me, it's very unreasonable to continue "extra funding" for "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (give me a break !!!) without a clearly defined, very specific exit strategy ...

if Kerry is going to "just go along in the end", he will be mirroring the same lack of leadership he showed on the IWR ... the democrats need to say no to the madness of king george ... when will it all end? if democrats "just go along" with bush as they did during the IWR vote, they will have precious little daylight between their position and bush's ... you cannot vote for something and then argue that it should have been handled differently ... that dog just won't hunt ....

It's obvious Kerry has had all sorts of problems with his IWR vote ... it's so bad on DU, and I don't suggest that DU is representative, that "poor old Pete" has to keep exempting the issue ... well, i have no problem turning down the noise on IWR ... but this is Kerry's big chance to say that he either opposes what's going on now or supports it ... if you vote for the $87 billion, you've endorsed the policy ... all the after-the-fact tapdancing in the world won't change that ... then "poor old Pete" will have to exempt criticisms of Kerry for both IWR AND the $87 billion ...

the point is, you cannot vote for a war, and then vote to continue to fund the war, and then say you disagree with the war ... i understand Kerry would do things very differently ... but voting for the $87 billion will completely undercut any position in opposition to bush ...

the time to vote "NO FUCKING WAY !!!" is NOW ... it's a risk ... that's what leadership is about ... taking a stand and fighting for it ... if Kerry wants to lead a party, you don't do it by waiting for the ink on the fine print to dry ... Kerry must vote "NO !!!!"

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[welshTerrier2]

25. Just Couldn't Resist

poking a little fun at you, Pete ...

i agree it's been debated to death and i have never argued Kerry's position was "muddled" although many have ... Kerry's position on Iraq was clear, consistent and wrong ... at your request, i won't pursue the argument again in this thread ...

Kerry has a great opportunity to show some real leadership on the issue based on what we know now and where we are today ... i believe he used the phrase yesterday, in response to a question about this, "i have never engaged in revisionism" or words to that effect ...

It's important for Kerry to see that it would not be "flip-flopping" to oppose the $87 billion even though he voted for the IWR ... bush's lies have been exposed ... public mistrust of our Iraq policy is at an all time high ... our soldiers are dying every day ... and most of the world has turned against us ...

bush and his minions have been pushing back ... "we are hunting down the bad guys and weeding them out" ... to this i respond, look at the difference in military capability between Israel and the Palestinians ... every American can see the difference easily ... and yet, after almost 50 years, Israel cannot live in peace ... there is an endless supply of terrorists ... and new ones are created every day ... so why, then, would anyone believe the U.S. can "round up" the last few bad guys and then Iraq can live in peace under the great American umbrella? it's nonsense ... and why then would anyone vote to continue funding the madness ?? it's the job of Congress to shut off funding for war when the war is not right for America and when there is no clear exit strategy !!!

i'm afraid Kerry will indeed vote for the $87 Billion ... if he does, he will do little more than repeat the same mistake of empowering bush once again ... i hope he awakens and "gets out in front" this time ...

[Adjoran]

21. I don't think anyone questions Kerry's record

except for the Iraq war vote.

Kerry's problem is demonstrating some effectiveness as a campaigner. For better or worse, elections are not won in this country by presenting a better record "on paper" or by the depth of proposed solutions to problems. A winning candidate has to have some charm. Voters want to like the guy they vote for, to feel he has made a connection with them.

Look at the winners of recent Presidential elections: Most of the winners connected with voters on a personal level - Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter, Reagan, Clinton. Two rode coattails to victory - LBJ on JFK's legacy, Bush I on Reagan's popularity. Only Nixon ran and won on competence and experience with no personality, and we all know how that turned out.

Excellent Democratic candidates "on paper" but lacking personal skills usually lost: Adlai Stevenson, Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, Al Gore.

Kerry's campaign has not been effective to date, IMHO. He was the putative frontrunner from early this year, admittedly not always the easiest way to start, since your progress is taken for granted and your failures are seen as "the wheels coming off." But he has lost ground to Dean in his backyard NH, hasn't been that strong in IA, hasn't made any progress in SC. He needs a breakthrough to turn things around, or the perceptive of his campaign as a sinking ship will become the reality.

I'm uncommitted and have nothing against Kerry or any of the others. Trying to be objective, though, only Dean has run a good campaign so far. Clark has not set the world on fire despite his dramatic entry into the race, and Gephardt seems to be spinning his wheels a lot. No one else has shown any signs of gaining serious traction with the electorate.

I don't mean to "bash" any candidate. My only concern is picking the nominee who has the best chance to win next year. After all, isn't that the point?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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