Do People Here Spend More Time Nitpicking Our Candidate Over Bush?

[DrFunkenstein]

Listen, I agree that if there are policy differences that you would like ot be addressed, then fire away. But so often, people here will zero in on the 1% of things they find wrong with Kerry over the 99% they agree with OR the 100% of Bush they disagree with.

I'm not looking for people to "fall in line," but there is something to be said for rooting for the home team. The GOP slime machine does fine on its own, without people here trying to undermine our best hope for the next 4 years.

Kerry is very strong - almost to put it mildly - on the environment, has led the fight on several progressive issues (check out his record at Public Citizen), and has the real potential to drastically overhaul our health care and energy consumption.

Inside 4 years, we could be very far down the road to universal health care and cars getting 80 mpg on renewable energy. We'll have signed Kyoto, re-engaged the global community, established civil unions as the norm, re-affirmed Roe v. Wade and planned parenting, begun to secure loose nuclear materials, waged "war" on the AIDS pandemic, and quite possibly stacked the court with (up to 3 new) liberals!

There is so much to recommend Kerry, yet people still want to exhaust their spite. I have been researching Kerry for a long, long time now, and believe me when I say that the deeper you go, the more you will find Kerry to be a Godsend to the progressive cause.

[GumboYaYa]

1. Give people time to get over the primaries.

A lot of people have been deeply involved with various candidates' campaigns. Sometimes it takes a while to get out of the combative frame of mind and jump on board with your former competitor.

With the passage of time and a new focus on the differences between Bush and Kerry, I predict that the vast majority of the "nitpickers" will be Kerry supporters in the not-so-distant future.

[AntiCoup2K4]

2. Everybody already KNOWS that Junior is a lying criminal fascist unelected.

..piece of shit, so that's not an issue.

If 1% of Kerry's positions were all I found objectionable, I could deal with that. But it's far more than 1%. It's damn near every vote for the last three years. It's his endorsement of the PPI bullshit which is nothing more than PNAC in a shiny new wrapper. It's his praise for Sharon's tribute to the Berlin wall, or the Warsaw ghetto, or whatever that monstrosity is. These are NOT minor issues, oh Doctor of Funk!

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

26. Minor issues

Of little consequence, really.

[charlie105]

3. I agree. I'm new

to this forum as you can see from the number of my postings, but sometimes I get the feeling that we are not doing ourselves any favor by casting doubts on the only hope we have. The point would be to not follow blindly but focus on the goal, and that holy goal is to cleanse the White House of the filth that's currently drowning any sense of dignity we may still have left. And if the path to that goal is a little cracked, so be it. It's still the only path and I'd take that any day.

[THUNDER HANDS]

4. ah just ignore them

Anyone who's still angry at Kerry now isn't going to change their opinion. Better just to let them cry and occasionally hand them a tissue.

[Hav]

15. .

"Better just to let them cry and occasionally hand them a tissue."

That will do great as an addition to my sig..

[Guaranteed]

18. Have a look at

MY sig. ;)

[GreenArrow]

5. many, if not most, people here are information junkies

who want to know as much as they can. Naturally, when they get new information, most of them want to discuss it, and it doesn't much matter who the subject is.

[Malikshah]

6. Funny, I heard this same statement before

Say...during the primaries...when folks were ripping in to each other.

Of course, memories are very very short these days.

Of course * is the number one focus--that is a given.

But let us look at the issues of collective action and resource mobiliztion--

Groups w/ disparate interests will coalesce against an agreed upon enemy, subordinating their primary interests for a time. When the goal has been reached, however, the strength of said coalition will be proportional to the hold of said primary interests from each group.
In other words-- once the dust has cleared, all hell will break loose, unless the primary interests of each group are addressed. That will be determined by the group that "wins out" in the end. They have a LOT of work to do.

From what I've seen from some of the supporters of the "dominant group"--I fear for the future.

[ordentros]

7. right!

I don't know where you get your statistics, but I saw an article that noted 20% of the people who voted for Kerry didn't even know his positions. For those people, they might just be putting a quarter into another slot machine since they weren't winning with on the one they were playing.

According to http://tinyurl.com/2aftq, Kerry is only seeking a CAFE standard of 26 mpg, not 80 mpg, although I think that we already have hybrids that get this mileage.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. If

20% of the people who voted for Kerry didn't even know his positions, imagine how high the percentage of people who voted against him were misinformed about his positions.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

21. Or...

What percentage of people voted for a different candidate because that candidate had much better positions than John Kerry?

TWL

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. A very small percentage

which is why Kerry has won all but 3 primaries. I don't think the voters are stupid or misinformed.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

24. Can't agree

Stupid? No not many. Misinformed? Yes quite a few, or at the least UNinformed. Or do you know of a different media than the one I do? :)

TWL

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. You and I both have the same media, and the same opportunities

to be informed as anyone else. I don't presume myself to be smarter, or better informed than anyone else. Perhaps it's different for you.

[DrFunkenstein]

16. I Wasn't Speaking Of CAFE Standards, But Since You Mention It...

I was talking about the possibility of cars (hybrids, in all probability) that get 80 mpg. That is not an impossible statistic even, considering the mileage some of the Japanese cars are getting these days.

Kerry would be pressing to make these cars more mainstream on the American highways through tax credits - as opposed to Bush's SUV tax credit!

As for CAFE standards, you seem to be aware of the modest Kerry-McCain initiative. If you read his "Manhattan Project" speech, I think you'll be very impressed:

"The road to more energy independence depends on making our cars and trucks more energy efficient. One out of every seven barrels of oil in the world is consumed on America's highways. Instead, I propose both economic incentives to build the cars, the trucks, the SUVs, and the buses of the future - and higher standards for gas mileage for every new vehicle produced or sold in this country.

We have the technology to manufacture cars with far better gas mileage - and we can and must do it now. Not a single American will have to give up driving an SUV, or a pick-up truck. President Bush is stopping this progress - not because American ingenuity isn't up to the task, but because they're playing politics. When I'm President, that will come to an end.

The research shows that the best way to reduce oil dependence in the near term is to increase fuel efficiency in the near term. A recent study found that raising fuel standards accounts for 80 percent of the savings in oil we can achieve by 2012. We can build the right kind of cars, SUVs, minivans and trucks. We can do it affordably and efficiently.

As we require higher fuel efficiency, we have to help companies and consumers alike make the transition -- and my plan does exactly that. It offers tax incentives to buy efficient vehicles, and new incentives for manufacturers to convert factories to build them. My plan invests $1 billion a year to help the auto industry convert to new plants to build more energy-efficient vehicles - to make sure the jobs of the future stay right here in America."

Read on!

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0613.html

[Guaranteed]

19. That number seems low to me. nt

[DinahMoeHum]

8. It's called the "Nothing-But-The-Best-For-The-Oppressed

Syndrome"

A common disease among our collegues on the left/progressive side of the spectrum.


:kick:

[salin]

9. Here is what frustrates me per the ongoing bickering.

1) Personally, I believe there is a great deal of ground around which different folks have concerns about the direction of the party over the past number of years, including a sense that the democrats are playing from the old "strategy and bipartisan action and incremental change (and be cautious)" play book while the repubs (most notably DeLay and Rove/Cheney... but also Frist etal) have rewritten the book and are working to radically alter the entire system. And while Sen. Kerry has been a fighter over the years.... he seems to have fought the powers that be more directly in earlier years... and been more strategic (e.g., the strategy I mention above) in more recent years. I believe that is understandable - as that is what it takes to get things done. BUT with the rules "changed" by the GOP - I think that some read the more strategic/incremental approach as a sign of more of the same, be it warranted or not.

2) I also believe that some of the calls to unity - and more the subsequent flamewars that grow on the threads - come off as reading : your concerns are illegitimate (used to be "so you think the repubs are going to be any better... of course you will vote for us" to various constituencies). Unless there is validation - that some of the concerns - not necessarily about Kerry - but the overall party's appearance to have overlooked key basic concerns (take real poverty issues - by focusing on Middle Class more exclusively because it brings in more votes) that some have some legitimacy - then there will be no conversation.

3) I also think that Kerry, is at his core, quite liberal. Among the more liberal elected officials in the country. But, as I expressed above, that because he engages in political calculus (strategic incrementalism), he is not perceived by some to be as liberal as I believe that he really is. (wow - did that read circular - or what?).

When I imagine a president Kerry with today's congress, I see him frustrated as was Clinton - and by default due to congressional strong arm politics - that in the end he won't be able to accomplish much more than Clinton did. A self fulfilling prophecy - if you will.

When I imagine a president Kerry with a democratic (but moderate) congress, I see him moving the congress a little more to the left and accomplishing a bit more than Clinton - but still from the incrementalist mode.

When I imagine a president Kerry with a democratic congress that has a strong progressive core/presence, I see him as having tremendous power to move this country into a different direction. A very different direction.

4. Based on point #3; I think that the winds are shifting, and if we find ways to keep the public engaged in the primaries (a challenge for late primary states like my own - but important in increasing commitment to the overall race... and I think that local efforts geared at "sending a message" could help keep turnout rates decent, but that it would take a great deal of local efforts), that we can keep raising momentum that will give a great deal of coattails. Six months ago it did not look possible, but it is very possible that we can retake at least one house of congress. But it won't "just happen."

But this will not lead to a progressive core - that is a long term project that takes direct, intentional action that includes both supporting groups that are trying to build and elect such a core (think Progressive Majority, Emily's List, MoveOn, etc.) AND working to change public discourse which has drastically altered the way the public thinks about issues. Trickle down was all but discredited by most of the public through the eighties (including only nominal reaction to Clinton's reversal of those policies.) But it is back with a vengence - and for whatever delusional reason the much of the public has rebought into the idea - even in continued absense to the contrary - that we can "grow" our way out of the deficit by giving more $$ to the investor class and directly to the corporations with no strings attached (as opposed to using targeted tax break strategies.)

....

Point being - there are many places of engagement for those who are concerned that Kerry will not bring the degree of changes desired. Get involved in moving congress. Get involved in progressive media and or policy/activist groups. Empower an elected Kerry to push more and more progressive and liberal policies not just as election issues - but as actual implemented (e.g., passed into law) plans. Create the pipeline for the next generation of progressive political leaders - and a climate where from all regions of the country there is receptivity to a Vision of an America where equality and opportunity are reality and not at the expense of the many for the benefit of the few.

In sum - the bickering is pointless. Distracts from real discussions - including starting to nurture and foster local efforts and/or support and/or participate in broader efforts that work towards ends that we ALL agree upon -and that go much further than simply beating bush in 04 which is important... but not enough.

[DrFunkenstein]

17. Very Eloquently Put

I think you nailed it on the head about Kerry's personal progressivism and his belief in "strategic incrementalism." Can I borrow the phrase?

BTW - I hope I made it clear that I am not opposed to voicing reforms that you wish to see enacted. That is what our elementary school teachers called "constructive criticism." I'm worried about the destructive criticism.

[salin]

20. Please do

(use the term, that is) - just recognize that for some it will be better embraced and for same it will be perceived as a potential "flag" (as in ... will it or will it not be more of the same). That said - the ensuing discussions CAN then look to things we can do to facilitate change by helping create an environment that allows for more than just incrementalism.

No, I didn't read that at all ... I just thought that this thread was a good place to voice my concerns about the ongoing bickering - because I read your initial post to also be a little concerned about the "talking passed" each other (though more a descriptive result... rather than talking about the process of the dynamic itself - which is what I have done - along with trying to point out an avenue for collective engagement.)

I agree. I also think that if more folks come to "see" the pressure or trigger points ... or, imo, where some of that criticism comes from (perspective wise)... and how certain types of responses push the criticism which may begin as more neutral (not quite positive) into more shrill and/or negative. My point - is that we can often avoid or move beyond the dynamics that quickly move to polarization and destructive negativism that alienates, frustrates, and prevents real collective action.

Of course we also just have some among us who - from both directions - like to yank each others' chains. Not much we can do about it, but to ignore it and not let our chains get yanked.

Please consider my comments as written as a bit of a complementary nonsequitor to the conversation. :D

[jonnyblitz]

25. good post salin.

:thumbsup:

[waldenx]

29. already rationalizing a failed Kerry presidency, I see

You basically are saying DU is no place for engagement of real concerns?

[John_H]

10. Remember--the twenty-percenters on DU are one-percenters in reality

Don't sweat it.

[molly]

11. Yes - that has been obvious

I just wonder if they will EVER back our candidate? :shrug:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. There are a few different groups.

Some are actually third party, people, anarchists (which I do not mean as a pejoritive term), and others who would find any Democrat to be too 'status quo'. Others feel so strongly about their disagreement with Kerry on certain votes that it overrides other considerations. Others are still adjusting to the fact that their candidate was not successful. And some are simply misinformed about Kerry's record or unable to accept the proposition that their earlier opinion of his record could have been wrong.

[molly]

13. And some are more idealistic than realistic

[flaminbats]

22. We agree on something at last!

Turning political allies into political enemies sometimes seems to be a favorite hobby here at DU.

Yet there are those who will never be political allies benefiting from every new enemy we succeed in alienating. The American people voted Democratic for years, because our party was always the more friendly and welcoming to new voters and diversity. And this is one image we cannot afford to sacrifice in the name of political loyalty. :kick:

[waldenx]

28. nitpicking??

Interesting you don't find Kerry's major flaws important to discuss at all. Why do you want DU to be 100% cheerleading? It has nothing to do with spite or undermining, it is a matter of honesty.

[BruinAlum]

30. I think the nitpickers are waning - that's why I signed in today.

There are some that are never going to go away, but they are only hurting themselves, I am convinced of that.

There are some that I notice can't agree on whether the sun shines every day or not, as long as their candidate is not gracing this race. There is no sense even engaging in a debate with someone like that.

Those who take the time to actually study Kerry's positions closely and with an open mind know he is a respectable and fine candidate that would make a great leader.