I'm still having a problem with this Kerry fellow

Let me begin by saying, before you flame me, I'm voting for Kerry, because out of all my choices, his is the only logical one left.  Having said that, for the past year now, I just cant seem to bring myself to like, or even respect, this guy. He seems to equivocate on everything, and his first reaction to almost every problem is "what is the best poitical solution"  Now with this abuse scandal, he should be out in front offering us something... ANYTHING, but he remains tense, Senatorial, aloof.  I look at his voting record, and I dont see the progressive list that is so often touted as proof of his credentials, I see the political votes of a man from Massachusettes. I think if he were from Texas or Idaho, he'd be as conservative as Jesse Helmes if I got him re-elected.  I would never vote for Bush, and I hate Nader. I cant in good conscience leave the top slot blank, not in as important a year as this one, and not in a Battleground state... Wisconsin.  All of you who proclaimed he was the best choice, explain this to me, a former Dean and Edwards man, because I feel that these two, or Clark, would be railing on Bush and have a solid lead.  I mean, if we lose this one, then we have to do some looking at the media and the primary system, cause both are failing us if we come up with this "douchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway" BS ever again.

There, Ive vented, please feel free to vent as well.

•  Venting

  Fine, I'll vent: Could you use smaller paragraphs next time? It'd make your post a lot easier to read. Gracias.

  by DavidNYC on Sun May 09, 2004 at 01:39:31 PM PDT

  •  sorry... will do

    by Matt in Wisconi on Sun May 09, 2004 at 01:40:03 PM PDT

•  Offerings

  Don't know if this counts, but he was out there calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. Maybe this isn't as strong as you might like, but for a presidential candidate in the U.S., not exactly nothing, either.

  Otherwise, your post seems pretty reasonable. If wishing did anything, I'd wish you didn't have the gut aversion to him, but, you know, if you don't like the guy, you don't like the guy, so what can ya do?

  by MattK D1 on Sun May 09, 2004 at 01:46:24 PM PDT

•  Matt, a good place to start...

  ...is to sift through past diaries and read through the discussions around this very topic. In fact, I'd bet that there is some dkos fatigue about hashing through it again.

  I also recommend reading Tour of Duty, by Douglas Brinkley. It's a place to start, if you are serious about getting to know what Kerry is all about.

  by cvcobb01 on Sun May 09, 2004 at 01:50:16 PM PDT

•  patience

  i think if he gains momentum month by month he'll look like the most brilliant stategist by November. I understand we want a 60/40 poll now but the populace is in war mode and it's going to take a long slog and i think the come from behind after the conventions may prove very wise. most folks don't really start getting super interested in a presidential race until the last 90 days. and don't forget he gets the VP bounce and the Convention bounce before that last 90 days.

  by wilfred on Sun May 09, 2004 at 01:51:02 PM PDT

•  My son

  keeps saying it might turn out ok cause Kerry is a spinless pol - if the public really turns against Bush and his policies in a big way Kerry will go along. So, we just have to pray the winds of change blow in on the heels of this disaster.

  Could be, I am beginning to think the American people will tolerate anything but failure. Afterall, the info from most of these scandals was out there last year, but no one cared as long as we were "winning".

  by PLS on Sun May 09, 2004 at 01:55:53 PM PDT

•  Why the worry?

  If you made up your mind against Bush, forget about it. No need to wring your hands.

  by Lush on Sun May 09, 2004 at 02:19:54 PM PDT

  •  Good point

    You can't say, ''I'm voting for Kerry because he's the only logical one,'' and then go on to complain about what a sorry-ass candidate he is. Your vote is the only power you have, and if you only use it to get George W. out of office, you have no right to compalin that John Kerry is a political coward. Fact is, you're a political coward as well. You could easily donate money to and campaign for Ralph Nader in an attempt to give Ralph some leverage to bring John Kerry back toward the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.
    Instead, you tell John Kerry you're gonna vote for him no matter what. Well, don't complain when that ''no matter what'' turns out to be stands on issues you disagree with.

    by dontkickthebaby on Sun May 09, 2004 at 05:18:19 PM PDT

•  Nice rant..

  I agree, Dean, Clark and maybe Edwards would have a solid lead by now and be on top of the news cycle.

  This look so much like his primary campaign where he led early then went into the death watch but managed to revive with Iowa. He's a dog right now.

  This isn't a primary either. I am very, very scared of the debates now where I wasn't a few months ago.

  by Demise on Sun May 09, 2004 at 02:35:35 PM PDT

  •  That's just wishful thinking

    There is no evidence to support that conclusion.  They couldn't even beat Kerry among Democratic Primary voters so there is no reason to think they'd be out-performing him today.  

    Moreover, if they were on the top of the news cycle it would be a BAD thing for us because it would make swing voters tune all this stuff out as mere partisan politics.  Instead, we have a public being unavoidably exposed to the dangers of Bush's (lack of) leadership without them viewing it as pure partisan politics.  

    Nina Totenberg correctly said on Washington Week (or whatever the CBS show is called) that Kerry can't really do much in this environment, but get out of the way and let this play out.  if he does, he'll be accused of piling on or being partisan at the expense of our troops and allowing Bush to change the subject to a political battle.  Instead, Kerry is starting to pound home a theme of the "buck will stop with me" and "I won't be the last to know what's happening under my command" when I am President.  
    (disclosure: I  was not a Kerry guy in the primary, but I'm quite happy with him).

    Let me give you all a reality check on a couple of things:

    --It's about the swing voters who don't pay much attention, not what we want to hear.

    --No matter how much we all want a knockout blow right now, there is no silver bullet sound bite that can Kerry can say to give him a sudden big lead.  

    -- All of the internal numbers suggest Bush is in trouble. Those are leading indicators for the horse race question.

    -- The country is still evenly divided on partisanship.

    -- Bush just spent a record amount on negative ads before Kerry had the $ to go on the air.

    -- The election is 6 months away.  

    -- Kerry is better positioned than any succesful challenger in decades.

    -- Kerry is not going overboard, but he is saying the right things.  For example, his speech about responsibility Friday, his comments in Miami the other day (read the diaries about them).  Right now the media is simply not choosing to cover it, but if Kerry says something so inflammatory as to force the media to cover it, we'll all feel good, but it will hurt among the swing.

    -- Everyone should just chill out.  The guy is well positioned and doing fine.

    by dcg on Sun May 09, 2004 at 02:57:53 PM PDT

    •  aoeu

      I stopped reading after your second sentence since you seem not to realize the set of people voting in the democratic primary is different than the set of people voting in the general election.

      by TealVeal on Sun May 09, 2004 at 03:12:07 PM PDT

      •  True, but you miss the point

        Where do you think those additional votes would come from?  

        Kerry's getting, what about 80-85% of Ds right now?  

        None of those other guys would be doing better, as evidenced by their inability to outperform Kerry in the primaries.

        So where does that leave us -- you are saying that that swing voters would be giving a higher percentage to a different candidate than they are now.  

        What evidence is there of that?  None.

        It's not like Kerry ran hard left in the primaries or did anything to hurt himself among the general electorate.  If the other guys couldn't assuage the doubts of Demcorats, what makes you think they'd be doing a better job of assuaging the doubts of swing voters?

        If you like I can go through specifically and tell you why I think none of those three guys mentioned would be doing better based on how they played in the primaries, but for now I think this answer is enough.
        

        by dcg on Sun May 09, 2004 at 03:34:57 PM PDT

        •  aoeu

          They'd come from events which are happening now. I think even Gephardt could win.

          by TealVeal on Sun May 09, 2004 at 03:37:11 PM PDT

          •  Of course

            But that doesn't mean that the electorate -- particularly the swing voters who aren't paying too much attention now -- would have already rallied around Gephardt as the best alternative.

            Remember, the question isn't whether Kerry or Gep or anyone else could win, it's whether they would be doing better right now.  Gep would be getting blasted as an opportunistic, left-wing flip-flopper by the Repubs and the media just like Kerry is.  He'd probably be a little lower among Democrats, particularly the free traders in the party, and swing voters would think of him as generic politician without even the interesting bio of Kerry right now.  My guess is the underlying numbers would be the same, but Gephardt would by down 2 or 3 points instead of essentially even (but that in the end, he would pull it out).

            by dcg on Sun May 09, 2004 at 03:55:51 PM PDT

•  I don't understand this whole

  'he's making the political decisions that a MA politician needs to make in order to get elected' stuff.

  Well, yeah, he is a politician from MA.  And he did get elected.  I guess the part where we differ is that you think that he would have been perfectly happy getting elected in Texas on a totally different platform.  Do you really?  Knowing even a tiny bit about his life, do you really think that Kerry isn't sincerely pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-health, pro-progressive tax system, and a Democrat?

  Can you honestly see Kerry holding the same positions as Tom Delay?  If you can, I really don't know what to say-- I mean we will never really know what's going on in somebody's head, but to a certain extent I trust politicians to belief in their platforms.  

  We all accept that Delay is a scumbag with no morals-- how do we know that he's not just a conservative because he lives in Texas, and if he lived in MA, he's be running as a liberal?

  It just seems like a kind of ludicrous argument-- it could be leveled at every politician.  Not to belabor the point, but how do we know that Paul Wellstone was really a progressive, and that he didn't just assume that aura in order to get elected?  

  by skiddie on Sun May 09, 2004 at 02:41:25 PM PDT

  •  believe

    go' durn it.  Believe.  I'm soo, so sorry.  

    by skiddie on Sun May 09, 2004 at 02:48:15 PM PDT

  •  What I find appalling

    Is that so many Democrats fall for the spin points crafted by Kerry's opponents to paint him as opportunisitc or not standing for anything.  He's no more so than any other successful Senator.
    I read this garbage from liberals and I wonder what I'm reading:

    1) Is it that they are unable to see through the RNC-spin, aided by the right-wing  media?

    2) Is it that they still remember what their candidate tried to spread about him in the primary and don't recognize that it was a strategy no different from what the RNC wants to do to win?

    3) Is it that they think they have a better idea of what it takes to get elected than someone who has an undefeated record and his risen to be the top Democrat in the country?

    4) Do they think they know better than the professionals about how to win a plurality of the votes cast? If so, why aren't they making a ton of money.

    Bottom line: I hate it when people second guess a candidate shortly after a primary.  This isn't the time.

    by dcg on Sun May 09, 2004 at 03:07:39 PM PDT

•  Moving from battleground state to deep blue

  I am so happy that I am moving from PA to CA.  I will now be able to vote my conscience.  I intended to hold my nose, puke, douche,  be drunk, you name it and vote for Pander Bear, but now I won't have to. YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

  by dugjxn on Sun May 09, 2004 at 03:22:35 PM PDT

•  read the speech

  matt, i've been having a hard time with kerry too.  but i must say that he appears to have finally come out swinging.  go read this speech from friday.  it might cause you to reasess your opinion.

  by anna on Sun May 09, 2004 at 03:38:28 PM PDT

•  Kerry

  I look at his voting record... I see the political votes of a man from Massachusetts. I think if he were from Texas or Idaho, he'd be as conservative as Jesse Helmes if I got him re-elected.

  This doesn't strike me as being too well grounded - basically, you just don't like the guy, and as such the motivations for everything he's done automatically become suspect.  You could think the same thing about any politician; it's hard to talk a person out of this mindset, given that it's not much based on empirical evidence in the first place.  First, I'd say that on one had, like everyone in Congress, Kerry had constituents to represent and in some ways his votes ought to reflect that.  And he's a lot more liberal than either Edwards or Dean who were not progressives on the policy front.  Second, some of his high-profile investigations (Iran-Contra, BCCI, MIAs in Vietnam) are really interesting stories and certainly made me appreciate Kerry as a candidate a lot more.  

  Furthermore, as far as looking at a problem and asking "what is the best political solution..." isn't that precisely what our elected officials are supposed to do?  I don't quite understand this as criticism, unless you generally think "politics" is a dirty word and prefer stubborn ideologues who aren't interested in making the necessary compromises to actually get things accomplished.

  I've never understood the frequent complaints on blogs that take the form of "Why don't I hear about X?"   Well, we're probably the most plugged-in and media-savvy contingent out there; if you know what X issue is, then do some research - check Google News, check CSPAN, search the blogosphere.  So if you complain that you haven't heard about Kerry attacking Bush lately -  why haven't you even looked for this information?  See, I am guessing that you haven't, given that he's called for Rumsfeld to resign, hammered the themes of accountability and responsibility, and given some important policy speeches.

  by daria g on Sun May 09, 2004 at 03:47:14 PM PDT

•  Sigh...

  Why the fuck would John Kerry be out there driving a hammer into this Iraqi Prison scandal?  That'd make the whole thing even more political than it already is.  Jumping Clowns in a blender!  That's the stupidest nonsense I ever heard.

  The news cycle is not helping Bush.  Everything is going to shit in a hand basket, and John Kerry knows it.

  We're playing a game of football here, it doesn't matter whether or not you are ahead in points in the First quarter.  It matters if you are ahead in points when the clock runs out in the Fourth.

  From what I've seen, starting right form last year, having had a chance to meet John Kerry while down in Iowa(campaigning for Draft Clark) and then this past week here in Minnesota.  This man is not just brilliant, he is one of the most competent campaigners I've ever seen.

  You go burn yourself in effigy, and whine a little bit more about how Dean(who is just a little bit to the left of Lieberman) was a better candidate for "progressive values" if you want.  I'm here, and I'm sticking to Kerry because our message is right for the times, and we're going to win.
  

  by Steve4Clark on Sun May 09, 2004 at 05:45:20 PM PDT