Kerry's Scorecard At LCV and Public Citizen (Record of A True Progressive)

[DrFunkenstein]

Public Citizen:

http://www.citizen.org/congress/voting/

(If you need a Mass. zipcode, 02101 will work)

'95-'96
Kerry (D-MA) 90%

'96-'97
Kerry (D-MA) 92%

'98-'99
Kerry 83%
(Public Citizen opposed trade relations with China and the Caribbean Basin Initiative)

'99-'03
No individual scores, but you can see a detailed scorecard of Kerry's impressive (and progressive) record here.

http://action.citizen.org/pc/officials/congress/?lvl=C&only_votes=1&azip=02101

Note that while Public Citizen opposed "Fast Track," they noted that the Kerry Amendment would fix many of the problems they saw with that legislation.

Trade: Motion to Table Kerry Amendment to Repair Failed NAFTA Investment Provisions

This vote was to table (kill) the amendment sponsored by Sen. John Kerry to repair the flawed investor protection model of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The amendment was a modest reform that guaranteed much-needed changes in the NAFTA Chapter 11 investment model in future trade agreements.

Under the model, foreign investors may file a claim in secret NAFTA tribunals to seek compensation when government public interest regulations in any way diminish the value of their investment. In doing so, the amendment would have instructed U.S. trade negotiators to ensure that future investor provisions do not grant foreign investors rights beyond what the U.S. Constitution provides.

http://action.citizen.org/pc/issues/votes/?votenum=121&chamber=S&congress=1072

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

League of Conservation Voters

107th Congress (2001-2002) 92%
107th, 2nd Session (2002) 94%
107th, 1st Session (2001) 88%
106th Congress (1999-2000) 94%
105th Congress (1997-1998) 100%

Lifetime score: 96.5%

Please click here to see his position on individual legislation:

http://capwiz.com/lcv/bio/keyvotes/?id=298&congress=1072&lvl=C

"John Kerry leads where others falter." - Deb Callahan, national president of the League of Conservation Voters.

<>

[JohnKleeb]

1. Thats a bad Kerry ;)

Nice personal reference by the League of Conservation of Voters.

[DrFunkenstein]

2. Deb Callahan Shows Up In Kerry's Bio Video

<>

http://www.johnkerry.com/videos/

It's the one in the top right corner.

[oasis]

3. Outstanding credentials. Kerry in 2004.

:bounce:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. Yes they are

and your enthusiasm is appreciated.

[Octafish]

5. Kerry administration would be first LIBERAL administration since LBJ.

That's waaaaaay to long a time of right wing pukes with the ocassional "middle-of-the-road-to-conservative" Democratic term or two thrown in.

Think about it, America. We have a chance at a LIBERAL war hero serving as President of the United States. So what? Liberal Democrats MADE this country great. Think Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson, FDR, Truman, and JFK, even LBJ. They used the power of government to make life better for ALL the people, not just the rich.

[DrFunkenstein]

6. What About Josiah Bartlet?

<>

A little bit of Kennedy, a little bit Cllinton, a little bit Kerry?

(Sorkin was one of the first people to endorse Kerry)

[AP]

8. Clinton would have been more liberal if not for congress.

however, he was a little fucked up vis globalization. I'm with Stiglitz on this one, I think (haven't decided yet).

[AP]

7. Some people don't realize it, but there's a good crop of liberal democrats

running for office, and then there's Dean.

I can't help but think that all this "cockroach", "spineless dems", 'where were they in '92" stuff is really dishonest spin.

Kucinich, Sharpton, and Edwards have send tremendously liberal things in every debate. Kerry has articulated a platform that is probably as progressive as (if not more than) Clinton's. Mosley-Braun is carrying the banner for the feminists. Even Lieberman on race and taxes has his liberal moments. Gephardt is the most pro-labor candidate in decades, perhaps. Compared to 2000, the primaries have taken a big step to the left (Bradley had a few moments when he said very liberal truths about society, Gore not so much).

Only Kucinich would have a real home in the Green Party, but of the ones I've mentioned, all of them are to the left of the 2000 nominee.

[sandnsea]

10. Maybe the Reagan Democrats are back

That would explain the attraction to Dean and Clark. We thought they learned, but maybe they never really were quite the liberals they thought they were. Just a thought.

[AP]

12. I think Clark the man is probably pretty liberal

However, I think Clark, as a symbol, is sort of conservative...or, at least, he appeals to a very conservative impulse in America which is probably driven by the mood of low-level fascism created by the Republicans.

In 21st century America we should be electing people like Debbie Stabenow and Ruth Ann Minner. To me, Clark represents the opposite of that mood. Which isn't good.

[gottaB]

14. clark the symbol

Perspicacious.

Let me ask you if you see things as I do. I see multiple intermeshing layers here: being, existence, self, person, candidate, public image and symbol. But candidate Clark, what goes into that? I'm actually thinking, having been following the primary a little, that the candidate is to a large extent defined by the campaign, the way of politicking. Putting forward the person is always one campaign strategy, but it's not always successful, and has its inherent limitations.

Clark, starting as late as he did, is still in his infancy as a candidate. By laying out for so long, he missed a lot of the courtship process with the traditional constituencies. Still, he does have consitutuents. His netroots campaign (the real one along with the backers of his "virtual" netroots campaign), the military vote to some extent, his home state, region, Washington insiders, people who watch CNN?--I don't know for sure, but I think he does have a constituency of people who are drawn to the image of the man, General Clark. These people are making political claims, regardless whether they articulate them as coherent sets of policy items or via the symbol of General Clark, and whatever metaphorical entailments get teased out of that--yeah, can't overlook the neofacist impulse among the electorate.

As I see it, the question becomes, how's Clark going to answer for these political claims? If the bulk of it's taking place on a symbolic plane, that leaves some room for negotiation (or manipulation if you choose to see it as deceitful--me, I'm not so sure). Oh, but that's a tricky business, wrapping oneself in symbols. Ahem. Because as a candidate you also have to persuade people to trust you, and at heart I think most people recognize that symbols are multivalent--even as they cling to them and insist on owning their meanings. The contested nature of symbols is just too obvious to most people for them not to have doubts.

Candidate Clark is assuredly more liberal than Reagan, and could develop into as liberal candidate as say Al Gore was, although I don't see that quite happening. There's still time to decide what his candidacy means.

Just some thoughts.

gB

[Donna Zen]

15. Trying to understand?

The last two lines of your post confuse, unless, I do understand them and disagree.

What I see after following Clark closely:

He hits all of the high points on the liberal scale...choice, affirmative action, tax-cut rollback, fair trade vs free trade, alternative energy r & d, gay rights, environmental protection, dump the Patriot Bill,.....etc

Plus he brings some liberal issues to the table that the others, except for perhaps Kucinich are avoiding:

Dropping the Cuban embargo, and cuts in the military budget. All of which he can get away with. Why? See above.

Because Clark is perceived as a centrist, and because he comes with a military background, the buzz says "he's a moderate." In my way of the thinking, this is the beauty of it all. Most voters will make that decision based on a non-specific perception. I mean look at Howard Dean; a center-right candidate who is touted by the left while they ignore great candidates who have walked the walk for them. Clark is left alone to be as liberal as he wants to be. So bring on the multilateralism and healthcare.

Once the "mood" is defined, I will understand better what the point of this is. Nevertheless, fwiw, I see Clark evolving into a muckraker. Again, the same spin about is he a Democrat or isn't he, misses the point. He is a liberal who spent years nonaligned, and that nonpartisan lens gives him a clear view of what's going on and what's going wrong.

[gottaB]

19. well...

Carol is on record opposing the current Cuba policy and she's more of a pacifist.

Peace Action has a handy guide on defense issues. Clark didn't respond to their questionnaire, and his quotes on some issues were kind of unclear. On overall budget cuts, he is one four candidates putting that on the table (the other being Al Sharpton), which suggests he's more liberal than the other five, but until we know his full positions on the other issues it's hard to say exactly how liberal he his.

Clark speaks in generalities, and some of those generalities sound pretty liberal, but then again....

Is his commitment to choice and the right of privacy as strong as Carol's? I'll admit, from what I've heard, he's committed himself to a firm position that's pretty liberal. I'd like to see him questioned more deeply, but basically I trust his position.

Affirmative action? Now, there's one where he may be liberal, but know that Colin Powell also supports affirmative action and he's a loyal Republican. I reckon Clark gets it, but how important is it to him? More important than it is to Carol or even Joe? Could be he's pretty liberal there. He's certainly shy of the NAACP and that's a start.

Tax the rich?--there's sticking your neck out. If you're arguing Clark doesn't support Reagonomics, taxation would be a key point, but I haven't really heard him articulate an economic vision that sounds truly Democratic. My bad? No, not really. I've seen in several debates and forums, read a few interviews and listened to a few more, but I just don't recall hearing that sort of vision.

Trade? That doesn't strike me as a big issue for Clark. I've read some of his stronger statements, but they lack punch. Like some DLCer's he'll criticize Bush's administration of trade policy, but not the legal framework itself.

Alternative energy r&d? All the Dems are for that, and a few Republicans too. It's a broad category. What's Clark's stand on nuclear energy? I don't believe he's a green.

Gay rights. According to ngltf Carol's the most liberal. HRC ranks Carol, Dennis and Al as the most gay-friendly. Clark seems like he's more in the Dean, Kerry, Gephardt camp, i.e. pro-civil-unions, critical of don't ask don't tell, opposed to discrimination, in Kerry's case and maybe Dean's supportive of hate-crimes legislation and amending the civil rights act to protect gays. That's a pretty liberal camp, but Clark has been evasive on issues like gays in the military. You could say that he's as liberal on gay rights as a realist can be, but that's not the same thing as being liberal.

Environmental protection. I don't know. Kucinich and Kerry have awfully strong records there. Lieberman too actually. And what's Clark's position on nuclear power? (hint).

Patriot Act? I believe Carol is the strongest critic; Kucinich supporters believe thier candidate is the strongest critic. I've heard Clark say some intelligent things. On the other hand, Edwards has come around to making more intelligent criticisms, so I believe that if he were to vote on it today, he would not pass it. So on civil liberties, Clark is more liberal than Ashcroft and Bush, but how exactly he ranks among the others I'm not so sure of.

Multilateralism? Nothing special there, really.

Healthcare. Al Sharpton is the radical. Carol, Dennis are the most liberal. The others have okayish plans and talk about universal health care as the ultimate goal. What's special about Clark?

Having summed up these issues, let me say that I was one who wondered about Clark's politics, but I've decided that I liked the things he's been saying and, should he win the nomination, would gladly support him against George Bush. But what you see as beauty, I see as walking a tightrope. I wouldn't feel comfortable voting in the primary for Clark or any candidate who was as coy as he has been on fundamental issues.

As the weeks go on and we get more opportunities to see how Clark responds to interrogation and debate, then it may indeed become clear just what kind of liberal Clark is. In the meantime, the argument about him appealing to Reagan Democrats holds water, and that is something to give a lefty pause. You know, better the devil you know.

[AP]

20. I think Clark

I think Clark taps into a mood that we're scared, and we need to be lead around by someone firm, and who wears a uniform.

You're lucky if you pick someone to do that who's a liberal. However, think a little harder about what you're asking for. You're asking for something that is sort of antithetical to the notion of participatory democracy. And it's a notion that's going to make the real participatory democracy candidates (the candidates who look like and care about us -- candidates like Stabenow and Minner, candidates like Matt Gonzalez even) seem like they're on the wrong wavelength.

This is hard to explain right now, because I'm just starting to put it together. However, I think of Clarks as a product of this dialectic: 9/11/Bush's fascism is the thesis, Clark is the antithesis, and the political mood created as a result of a Clark victory would by the synthesis.

I don't want an America in which the mood of government is so determined by Bush's fascism. I understand that it will have to be – it’s too late to have world that ignores what happened. But I don’t want 9/11 to be the central determining factor of the American mood. We were on such a good track before Bush working toward progress (sort of – we could have done more under Clinton to reduce the hegemony of Wall St.). Had Bush lost, we'd be talking about how the Republicans might be on the their way out and the new axis of debate was going to be Green-Dem. That would have been great.

I think part of the Bush plan is intentionally to create a world in which the only democrats who can get elected are ones like Wesley Clark, because he creates a mood that, if you're liberal on race, taxes, budget, well that's just a fortunate consequence, not the central most important issues. Those should be the REASONS we vote for liberals. They shouldn't be thought of as fortunate consequences. Welsley Clark may be a great guy, and I guess we should consider ourselves fortunate that he appears to be liberal on the issues (he’s stealing some of his issues from John Edwards). However, he’s playing the game on the Republicans home field – national insecurity and the fear of terrorists.

[SahaleArm]

9. Huntin' for Bush.

And maybe a few buckshots for Dean:evilgrin:

[DrFunkenstein]

11. I Don't Know - Bush Was A Cheerleader, After All

I wouldn't mess with him!

<>

[RetroLounge]

16. Easier to Shoot Dean in the backside

when you are always trailing behind him. :)

[MaineDem]

18. That pic of Kerry will get him votes in my district

Especially this time of year. :)

[fujiyama]

13. Kerry

has a lot of respect from me. Having checked his record, it is very impressive. Aside from his confusing war stance, he has a great liberal record on most issues.

Here's an issue most people don't know about. It's the bankruptcy overhaul bill that floated by in this administration. It's appauling how many democrats went with that bill, which basically was a give a way to credit card companies and a big F-you to working class and middle class Americans.

Hillary went along with this bill after her husband actualy VETOED the damn thing (she's not the flaming liberal contrary to what the r-wingers have to say). Edwards and Lieberman also went along with this horrible piece of legislation.

This is the kind of legislation I'd really wonder whether they'd sign or not if they were president. We know Kerry wouldn't.

[HFishbine]

17. Public Citizen

You must have missed the Public Citizen individual scores for 2001 to 2003.

2003
----
Kerry: 17%
Edwards: 33%
Lieberman: 0%

(http://action.citizen.org/pc/scorecard/?chamber=S&session=108&x=16&y=11)

2001 - 2002
------------
Kerry: 85%
Edwards: 81%
Lieberman: 85%

(http://action.citizen.org/pc/scorecard/?chamber=S&session=107&x=11&y=11)

House Member Ratings are also available:

2003
-----
Gephardt: 50%
Kucinich: 100%

2001 - 2002
-----------
Gephardt: 86%
Kucinich: 91%

1990 - 2000
-----------
Gephardt: 100%
Kucinich: 100%

(http://action.citizen.org/pc/issues/votes/ - select from menu at bottom of page)

[DrFunkenstein]

21. Actually, It Should Read 100%

If you weren't counting votes he missed trying to get a true progressive in the White House. Kerry didn't vote against any of their positions.

And the 2001-2002 was included in the one I mentioned. Kerry got 85% only because of Fast Track, and as I've said, Kerry moved to plug alot of the holes in Fast Track that concerned Public Citizen.

<>

[HFishbine]

22. Hmmm

Somehow Kucincih mamaged to get 100% while campaigning. Maybe you should take it up with Public Citizen and convince them to count votes not cast.