In Hindsight, Kerry Says He'd Still Vote for War

Indeed, I forgot to mention that he lost quite a bit of respect from me as well because he caved, and I would no longer want him as my president - but I do think my main message made that point fairly clearly, hopefully anyways.

-m.

 

pkjohna, I've found a good article explaining how the "#1 liberal" thing was calculated, and by whom:

The 11th Most Liberal Senator

 

Yup, he's getting my vote this year as well. The Republicrats simply aren't worth the air they breathe, and the space they take up on this planet. ukeright:

 

Ditto, though he DID come out against that "Swift Boat whatevers for Truth" group when they hit Kerry.


As for this whole "most liberal Senator..." thing, I have several problems with how its being handled (on both sides). KMO's link was pretty useful, but it still leaves some questions to be answered. It ranks Kerry 11th over his career among those _still in the Senate_. So does that mean that there were some who were more liberal who have, within the past 6 years, retired or lost? Kerry is ranked as more liberal than Hillary; is that because he really is "more liberal" or because he's been around for 3 more terms, and thus has more votes under his belt.

Clearly, a stock phrase like "most liberal" is pretty meaningless. I could say that the Camry and Corolla are Toyota's hottest cars because of their volume of sales, or I could say that Prius is the hottest b/c of the 6 month wait list. There really isn't a right answer here.


Beyond that, Republicans have also made several other horribly misleading claims; specifically, about Kerry voting to raise taxes 300+ times, voting against the F-16, and voting to reduce the intelligence budget. What's never mentioned is that Cheney and many other Republican Senators voted the same way as Kerry on many of these bills, and that some of the "tax increases" were actually times he voted against a tax cut.

Can you imagine your boss telling you that he basically gave you 300+ salary increases over the past year since, every day at work, he thought about cutting your salary but didn't? That's how outrageous many of these Republican soundbites are.

Project Vote Smart seems like a great idea: putting everyone's record in an easy-to-access, easy-to-understand format. I think something like this, where we can see the details of someone's position, is more important than the GWB world of "you're either with us or against us", "left vs right", "liberal vs conservative", "good vs evil." I don't think anything is that clear cut. I have one very liberal friend who's in favor of school vouchers and medical malpractice caps. Another isn't too high on labor unions. And I'm not all that wild about affirmative action. You can pretty safely label all 3 of us "liberals," but there should be an astrick or footnote in each case.

 

At the moment I'm undecided; but Badnarik is definately in the running in my opinion.

I don't view third party candidates as a wasted vote; but rather a vote that someday will be the only way we can change the intrenched 2-party system that doesn't give us a choice.

Neither the Rupublicans and Bush nor the Democrats and Kerry have presented a platform or vision that I'm comfortable with.

 

http://www.spinsanity.org/ is a site my friend sent me. It claims to also be non-partisan, but whenever I visit, there seem to be 4 slapdowns of Bush for every knock against Kerry. I suppose there are several possible explanations:

a) they're actually liberal, but hit Kerry occasionally to appear non-partisan
B) they really are non-partisan, and the Bush administration is just full of crap
c) since they're in office, there's more "news" coming from the Bush camp to spin; higher volume of news = higher volume of lies

Still, they do a decent job of articulating my problem with the spin on both sides. Apparently one of the editors is on The Daily Show tonight. And yes, I get most of my news from a fake cable news show.

 

No, I think the former prime minister of Canada put it quite well to Ralph Nader on "Real Time with Bill Maher" as far as exactly how to involve the third party into the entrenched 2 party system:

CAMPBELL: A vote for a third party here does not translate into any seats, into any say. On the contrary, if you were to – you are a great man, Ralph Nader. I respect you. [applause] You changed the way people think about power. Not in this country, but in every developed country. I can’t tell you when I was a political science professor, how often – I mean, how Unsafe at Any Speed changed the way we think about power. You could be out there as the gadfly mobilizing the people who look to you for leadership and being like Sam Gompers and saying, “I’m going – let’s call it the ‘feet to the fire’ campaign.†And close to November 2nd, you do a report card where you say what you think people should vote for. But then you have leverage. And if you help somebody win, then you’re still a player. And the people who look to you get to be players.

NADER: Yeah, yeah. [applause] [cheers]

MAHER: All right, I have to—

DREIER: You’ve got another endorsement, Ralph!

MAHER: I’ve got to – stay here—

CAMPBELL: If you help – if you help the winner by taking away votes from the other guy, you’re not a player. George Bush is not going to thank you.

NADER: We’re going to help – we’re going to help defeat George W. Bush. He’s going to be a one-term president.

CAMPBELL: Not by running for election.

MAHER: [overlapping] Ralph, I have a final gift for you—

CAMPBELL: And I’d say the same thing to Pat Buchanan.


-m.

 

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just adding a "Me Too" comment.

And then went on bending over for Bush. This is the guy who screwed him over in the same exact way during the 2000 primaries and now he's all buddy-buddy with him. ukeright:

It depends on where you live. If you're in a non-critical state, nothing much will happen. If you're in a swing state, every vote counts and you could risk being governed by the same chimp that's there now.

 

This is the problem. People need to get out of the mindset that a third party vote is a throwaway. IMO, there are far too many unsatisfied voters out there, for this claim to hold water. It's high time to turn off the propaganda box, and research the real issues on ones own, and then vote the party that truly represents their ideology. If everybody would do this, I truly think that this years election would be the ultimate upset for the republicrats. Neither imbicle would ever see it coming.

 

I think you give the American public far too much credit. Its true that, if every person who didn't vote in 2000 got together and voted, they could elect Mickey Mouse. But the fact remains that over 50% of the population of this country can't be bothered to spend 30 minutes every 4 years to go vote (that's averages out to 7.5 minutes a year, or 1.23 seconds every day).

Ideally, we could get millions of these people to stop watching reality TV for one afternoon and go vote. But realistically, I don't think that's not going to happen anytime soon. In light of that, I'd like to see W out of office sooner, rather than later.


Beyond that, I don't think a vote for a 3rd party will really move Kerry at all. If he _does_ adjust his policies and platform to satisfy 3rd party voters, he risks alienating his current base. He would also be accused of "saying whatever it takes to get elected," even if what he said was sound policy. Its a no-win situation.

 

As mentioned in the previous post I had - this is the first election in a long time where the main third party candidate, Ralph Nader, can basically hand a win to either the Repubs or the Democrats.

It's unfortunate that Ralph Nader doesn't go to Kerry's camp, and say "look, if I drop out and endorse you, you're a shoe-in. However, you need to appoint me to such and such a cabinet post once you are elected." Once Ralph is in the system, he would have a real say on things - and allow a voice to the Green party on any and every issue.

Instead, he just seems to want to be in the headlines and actually not in a position of power.

Alas, I really think that unless the previous scenario mentioned happens, or something similar, americans will never elect a third party president (unless we deteriorate to the point of revolt, which don't get me wrong, does have it's pluses)

-m.

 

I agree with Wolfman. (Once again. I've lost track. How many times have we agreed on something now?)

A vote for a third party is not wasted. It is a conscious, intentional move to deny support to either big party. It is a message to both parties that if they want this vote they have to nominate someone who actually represents the voter. It's also a necessary step to building a new, viable party. It's taking the long-term, rather than the short-term view.

Of course, you have to consider whether the benefits of withholding support from the big parties, or of building a new viable party for the long term, outweighs the consequences of the likely outcome in the short term.

In other words, if one candidate is significantly worse than the other, that consideration may outweigh the long-term considerations. I'll probably vote for Kerry this time for that reason. For the first time in my adult life, one candidate (W) is so utterly vile that I'll be voting for the candidate who is less vile. But I respect people who see it differently and choose to vote for someone else. And I also respect people who make a conscious decision to withhold their support from the entire electoral system by not voting at all.

Some call those people lazy. I think many of those people regard the entire system as corrupt and rotten, and they, too, are making a statement of their beliefs when they choose not to dignify it with their participation.

 

I personally think that Nader should take a long term view, and strike a deal with Kerry that he will withdraw from this year's race if the Democrats commit themselves to reform of the presidential electoral system. I think "IRV" - Instant Runoff Voting is the scheme that's been discussed in the US. This would drag your electoral system into at least the 20th century, and give 3rd party candidates a chance in the future.

Of course, actually getting the Democrats to agree to that, and follow it up, will be hard. The Liberal Democrats (the UK's 3rd party) tried with little success to get the Labour party to agree to reforms - they did produce a report but never got round to actually acting on it. Although it looks like this is going to come back and bite the Labour party in a couple of elections' time. Even unreformed though, we're still better off than the US, because we have a parliamentary system, so have 3 significant national parties and at least 6 other minor (mainly regional) ones represented.

 

It's time to look at reality here folks. As much as you would wish it were so, a third party candidate is not going to be elected. The only thing that they can possibly do is drain off votes from either of the other two candidates. I voted for Nader last time but I won't do so again. This election is just to important to throw my vote away.

I don't care much for Kerry but I hate Bush so much that I'm willing to forget whatever misgivings I have for him.