Who Is John Kerry? (from The Onion)

[Paragon]

[Zeke]

1. I Voted For Dean...

I voted for Dean because he was the only Dem to shout what was right: NO MORE WAR!

Kerry's the standerd-bearer, but damn if he appears to be morphing into a middle of the road ME TOO candidate on the issues.

On almost every issue, Kerry says ME TOO when national polls all say the country is heading in the wrong directions.

[burythehatchet]

2. Dean because he was the only Dem to shout what was right: NO MORE WAR!

Dennis Kucinich

[lancdem]

3. The Onion is satire

[Bill McBlueState]

5. don't ruin it!

It's a lot more fun when that little fact gets noted after a bunch of people have posted. ;)

[sangh0]

10. In that case, I'll whisper

psst, dean never said "no more war"

[cindyw]

12. I was wondering if someone would point that out.

Psst...don't confuse them with the facts, just let them bathe in the glory of the misconception.

[felonious thunk]

4. A candidate HAS to go middle of the road to win

In order to win an election, you have to appeal to the moderates. Otherwise you lose. Kerry has done a nice job so far of making sure he can appeal to moderates without losing his core Democratic values. Give him a chance. Let him run his campaign and just know that he has a career of being a solid Democrat and will be a solid Democrat as president, but he MUST get moderate votes in order to win.

[DrFunkenstein]

6. Perhaps The "Greenest" Man In The Senate

He is one of the most progressive figures in the Senate, but he believes you don't go anywhere by asking for everything at one time. His own foreign policy is extremely forward-thinking, addressing the roots - not just the symptoms - of international problems, and has one of, if not the best environmental record in the Senate.

If he could run the campaign according to what he wants to say, not just what people want addressed, you could be damn sure that Energy Independence based on clean, domestic renewables would be at the top of the list.

Then think about getting two liberals (at least) onto the Supreme Court.

But in order to do that, he has to convince the 20% of un-polarized, apolitical folk that he is the man for the job.

[no name no slogan]

13. Just like Al Gore and Jimmy Carter?

Going to the "middle" does NOT guarantee a win-- appealing to the views of MOST VOTERS wins.

Both parties are decidedly to the right these days-- even Richard Nixon 1972 is more liberal than John Kerry of today. However, most people still think that trade agreements favor corporations over workers, most people want a healthcare system that covers EVERYONE, most people believe we need to spend more money on our schools and infrastructure, even if it means foregoing tax cuts.

For John Kerry to go to the TRUE middle, he'd need to move TO THE LEFT of his current positions on these issues.

If you take a principled stand, as a candidate, and stick up for that stand, voters will respect you even if they don't agree with you. In Minnesota, we had a fair number of Republicans vote for Wellstone election after election, even if they didn't agree with him.

Why? Because he was not afraid to TAKE A STAND, and fight for his position. People knew he had integrity. They knew where he stood. They knew that, even if they didn't agree with him, he considered his options and stood for what he believed was right.

Kerry needs to take DEFINATIVE stands on the issues. Right now, it's way too easy for the Repubs to define him, since he appears to be all over the map on most issues. Voters don't like this one bit-- hence the reason why Al Gore's "win" was so close it was stolen from him.

[felonious thunk]

15. Of course it doesn't guarantee a win

But you're guaranteed to lose if you don't appeal to moderate voters. It worked for Carter in one election, but not the second one. So what, should he campaign like McGovern? Dukakis? Name for me one president since FDR that won without appealing to moderates.

The thing you are losing site of here is that Bush is not appealing to the middle this time, and it's going to cost him.

Your claim that Nixon was more liberal than Kerry is sadly laughable, as is you assertion that he has to move left to be in the middle. The middle shifts, and Kerry does not hold one view that could be considered right wing.

Kerry is not afraid to take stands. He's been one of the most principled Senators we've been lucky enough to have in the last 20 years. His record shows solid support for Democratic issues and causes. So he may not be left enough for you. Newsflash, you will never get a president that is as far left as you'd like, because this country is filled with people across the political spectrum. Bush's win in 2000 was a fluke, idealogues do not win presidential elections. They can win state elections, but not national elections.

You aren't even giving Kerry a chance, you've already decided that he's unacceptable. It's six months until the election. He hasn't even unveiled his strategy. He gets too definitive right now, he risks peaking too early. Let Bush falter, then make your definitive statements.

[no name no slogan]

21. Kennedy, for one

Kennedy was an unabashed liberal in his time. He spoke out forcefully for liberal issues and causes, and did so with a vision that tapped into the optimism and can-do attitude of an entire generation.

ALso, you stated:
The thing you are losing site of here is that Bush is not appealing to the middle this time, and it's going to cost him.

EXACTLY!!! Do you honestly think that a "moderate" who voted for Bush last time will vote for him again? Seriously? Bush has done nothing but show the country that he's a far-right-wing idealogue whose only interest is advancing his rich buddies bank accounts. He's presided of job loss, deficit explosion, and HUGE tax cuts for the rich.

Kerry ALREADY appeals to this "moderate" base-- just look at his voting record over the last 10 years. He's been very close to the middle in the Senate-- and hardly the liberal most here are promiting him as being. He supported NAFTA, balancing the budget, and a slew of other corporate-friendly laws that benefitted business more than workers.

And, given the nature of our two-party system, will the disaffected Bush-voting "moderates" vote for anybody else BUT Kerry? Highly doubtful.

In the past few presidential elections, we've barely gotten 50% of the voters to even vote AT ALL. Most of those non-voters are people who are concerned about big issues that the major parties have refused to address: corporate-friendly (and worker-hostile) trade agreements, healthcare reform, an unfair tax system that favors the wealthy, and a slew of other "bread and butter" issues that the DLC-led Democratic party has forsaken in its attempt to appeal to monied corporate interests.

Kerry will already get at least 45% of the vote, that is a given. Toss in another 4-5% for the "moderates" who voted for Bush last time, and you're getting close to 50%.

That's half, but it's NOT a majority.

To decisively win this election, Kerry needs to appeal to another 4-5% of the eligible voting population to WIN. He can further moderate himself by groveling to the Republicans, or he can reach out to a FRACTION of the non-voting public who are concerned about their jobs going overseas, a healthcare system that puts people first, not profits, and a foreign policy that's not based on invading other countries in the interest of "national security".

These are people who would naturally vote for Kerry, but they may not this year given "the Nader factor". It would not take much to appeal to these voters, either. A couple of courageous stands on the issues would do the trick-- nothing he has not done before in his career.

Do we want another "squeeker" that can be stolen like last time, or do we want a solid WIN that will withstand the test of the SCOTUS?

[Nederland]

16. Nixon more liberal than Kerry?

Given that Nixon was pro-life and anti-gay, I doubt this very much.

[no name no slogan]

20. Depends on what you mean by "liberal"

Nixon may not have been a "social liberal" (which apparently is the only kind of liberalism that matters to "New Democrats" these days), but he was much more liberal than Kerry on many economic issues.

Nixon supported a universal national health care system. Kerry's "health care plan" is not universal, and leaves many people without coverage.

Nixon supporterd a guaranteed living wage, and supported living wages for welfare recipients Kerry does not, or at least has not addressed this issue.

Nixon created the EPA. He also signed into law the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and many other environmental laws. Kerry, although a good environmentalist, has not done anything as big as this.

And BTW, by today's standards, both Humphrey and McGovern would be considered "pro-life", too. They both spoke out against "abortion on demand" in 1972. Many other Democrats were "pro-life" back then, too and remained so well into the 80s. Al Gore and Dick Gephardt, for example.

[Nederland]

22. I Guess My Bias is Revealed

I freely admit being free market, socially liberal, Clinton Democrat. I guess that explains it, huh? :)

[Radical Activist]

7. Actually Dean said "only a few more years of war!"

Just like Kerry and Bush.
Anyway, I love the Onion and that was hillarious.

[DrFunkenstein]

8. Well, Kerry Does Have Big Hands...

[SheilaT]

9. Sometimes the Onion nails it,

and in my opinion this is one of those times.

As far as I'm concerned, the ONLY thing in Kerry's favor is that he's not surrounded by right wing conservative fundamentalists who want to make over the country in their image.

Here's another time that the Onion got it right:
http://chak.org/pages/onion/bush_nightmare.html

[cosmik debris]

17. I've had that link in my favorites for three years.

I thought everyone else had forgotten

[fujiyama]

11. That last one

is the best! I think that should by itself get a lot of people to vote for Kerry.

[no name no slogan]

14. Scary picture, though....

Reminds me a lot of Ed Muskie.

Were they separated at birth? YOU DECIDE.



John Forbes Kerry




Ed "The Man From Maine" Muskie

[Larkspur]

18. I liked #1 and #5 from the top

Those 2 points sum up Kerry for me.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. LOL, Kerry's having an identity crisis...

J/K (no pun intended). Kerry will begin to define himself when it becomes necessary. Right now Bush is making such an ass of himself that Kerry is getting a lot of votes just for being the alternative. When it comes closer to the election, I think he will do a better job of defining himself.