thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jul 6, 2004 16:49:07 GMT -5
The National Journal is an highly respected organization of a non-partisan nature that acts as a sort of political bible within the beltway for pols and journalists alike. Its voting analysis has John Kerry as the single most left wing member of the Senate, and the trial lawyer, political-rookie Edwards as #4 on the left end of its spectrum, with Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer bewteen them. Now that is by objective standards an extremist ticket. (Of course extremist by American political standards- which are of course the only ones that count for this discussion.) The Dems can't hide Kerry from the public forever although they sure have done a good job so far this summer. I know it looks so close now. I really don't think it will come the end of August.
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Jul 6, 2004 19:10:04 GMT -5
i agree. the dems will be comfortably ahead by then.
glad to see that kerry has finally been exposed as a waffling, unprincipled, flip flopping political opportunist who is simultaneously a strident liberal ideologue.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jul 6, 2004 19:58:30 GMT -5
Its really not all that complicated Z. In his heart of hearts, Kerry's long voting record is uncontestably a left wing one as far as the American political spectrum is concerned, but candidate Kerry has had some extrarordinary changes of heart since running for president.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 6, 2004 20:26:12 GMT -5
You have merely thrown names out there. You say Kerry and Edwards are both liberals. If this were true, so what? What are the implications of this? Unfortunately, your posts do little by way of explaining why this is so allegedly bad for America and resort to knee-jerk name-calling that one is ready to engage in upon command.
Now, let's talk about the assertions made by the National Journal. The National Journal is a well-respected publication, but let's hold their methodology up to some scrutiny.
First, in calculating this political spectrum, they used several Senate votes, some of which Kerry was not able to make due to scheduling conflicts or simply effective scheduling by Republicans to ensure that Kerry could not vote due to other matters. In some of these cases, the National Journal took it upon themselves to decide how Kerry would have voted, and they inputted that accordingly. So, by no action of Kerry's own, in some cases, he is subject to this assertion.
Next, you have to look at the context of the votes. In some cases, the "conservative" norm involved voting for fiscal policies that would continue to baloon the national debt and so forth. A vote against the conservative norm per the National Journal, therefore, would be a vote in favor of a balanced budget. What is wrong with that?
Unfortunately, the National Journal, so far as I can tell, has not released their methodology to the general, non-subscription public, so I am relying on reports in making these claims, just as you would be in parroting the RNC headline coming off of this National Journal report. Instead of doing so, why don't we exercise some decent scholarship and examine what the heck all of it means because, in fairness, the truth lies somewhere in between the right and the left on this matter.
I also find it fascinating that you felt it necessary to characterize Edwards in a post about the National Journal. What worries you so that you had to question his background and his status politically?
Let's examine the first assertion that Edwards is a trial lawyer, which, on its face, is true. Let's take a brief poll here: Who would you prefer: a trial lawyer or Halliburton's former CEO? I know what I prefer on the matter, but I would suggest that the trial lawyer argument can and will be neutralized if Cheney allows his performance as VP to be subject to some modicum of transparency.
Next, the rookie argument... Sure, Edwards is in his first term. So what? Let's just remember Harry Truman. Was he experienced when it came to foreign policy when he was nominated? No. He was even nominated after the worst attack on US soil at the time. What did he accomplish as President in terms of foreign policy? Well, he brought about Allied victory in Japan and ushered in a new strategy to fight the Cold War that served as a basis for Eisenhower's foreign policy and whose basic posture vis-a-vis the Soviet Union was in tune with what you saw in Reagan's first term in office.
Incidentally, has Bush's foreign policy and performance as President in terms of national security been that shaky that even Republicans are now demanding a higher standard and want tickets for national office to have two experienced foreign policy practitioners? Why is that a necessity when you look at Bush in 2000 who did not have much by way of foreign policy experience? I would call that an extraordinary change of heart...
Bin, you have explained nothing and have provided no supporting evidence other than the National Journal, who you only quote for reasons of parroting their conclusions. So, it really isn't all that complicated because there is not much of an argument that is being presented. Even if you consider it an argument, it does nothing to explain what its implications are for America.
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Jul 6, 2004 22:58:38 GMT -5
a few scattered thoughts:
1) over the last few decades, conservatives have done a masterful job in co-opting the "liberal" label and turning it into a dirty word. until the democrats manage to reclaim it as their own--in this election, by positioning it as a meaningful alternative to the current administration--it will continue to be a liability for them. i am hopefully that the infectious, optimistic personality of john edwards will help in that regard.
2) as to the voting record grades, etc.
first of all, what good is a "non partisan" voting record grade? these things only have political efficacy when more partisan groups use them to drum up cash from their constituents. take a look at the americans for democratic action record, for example, and you see quite a contrast. while the national journal may be a valuable resource for the ruling class, i dont see how their voting grades are of any real import.
besides the absentee votes, these report cards also completely ignore the political reality that a majority, if not an overwhelming majority, of all senate votes cast are done so either for political backscratching purposes or to channel some pork to the folks in your home state. look, im not trying to discount the relevance of voting records in considering one's ideology, but trying to put a cute "ranking" on it is an inherently subjective enterprise and is by no means conclusive.
i have a hard time accepting the idea that kerry, who voted for iraq II, welfare reform, various veteran entitlement programs, and is on the record for 2nd amendment rights, is the MOST liberal senator in the country.
3) i find it telling the republican punditocracy, which has spent the last year whining about the emptiness of the democrats' "boot bush" de facto platform, are now basically forging a re-election campaign based on discrediting a moviemaker and calling their opponent a boring flip flopper. perhaps because this administration doesn't have a whole lot of affirmative achievements of its own to trumpet.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 15, 2004 19:42:41 GMT -5
Its really not all that complicated Z. In his heart of hearts, Kerry's long voting record is uncontestably a left wing one as far as the American political spectrum is concerned, but candidate Kerry has had some extrarordinary changes of heart since running for president. This is the pot calling the kettle black as far as I am concerned. George Bush has had some extraordinary changes of heart himself. Here is one of them: "KING: So if you have gays working for you, that's fine. And you don't have a problem. You'd appoint gays in the Cabinet, et cetera. BUSH: Well, I'm not going to ask what their sexual orientation is. KING: Oh, so you wouldn't know. BUSH: I'm going to appoint conservative people in the Cabinet. It's none of my business what somebody's -- now when somebody makes it my business, like on gay marriage, I'm going to stand up and say I don't support gay marriage. I support marriage between men and women. KING: So if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it? BUSH: The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/15/lkl.00.htmlWho could also forget his flip-flops on the Dept. of Homeland Security, nation-building, campaign finance reform, balanced budget, and so forth?
|
|