Anyone have a Dean/Clark/Kerry response to DK's campaign themes

[papau]

The one's that come to mind (because they were listed in the ABCNote today) are:

1. Oposition to the Iraq war w/insistence on bringing the troops home immediately and w/ a 3-point plan to get U.S. troops out of Iraq that includes handing over all oil contracts to the UN, relinquishing any say over privatization, and handing over the cause of governance to the UN.

2.Universal single payer health care now as introduced in his legislation HR 676.

3. His desire to cancel NAFTA, and withdraw from WTO.

4. His universal pre-kindergarten for ages 3, 4, and 5, paid for by a 15 percent cut in the what he calls "the Pentagon's bloated budget."

5. His plan to provide free public college tuition, paid for with the money gained by repealing the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket.

6. His introduction of legislation to flat out repeal the Patriot Act.

7. His plans to rejoin the world community by signing the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, the Land Mine Treaty, the Small Arms Treaty, to sign the Kyoto climate treaty, to join the International Criminal Court, etc.

8. His rejection of gay civil unions in favor of gay marriage.

9. His plan to create a WPA-type program to ensure a full-employment economy.

10. His rejection of Nationalism in favor of a "holistic" world view which envisions "the world as one, with everything interconnected and interdependent" and with America rejoined with the world community, building up the UN's standing.

[eyesroll]

1. This is top of my head, not documented, so take it for what it's worth

Dean only, since I'm not as versed in the other candidates.

1. Dean would like to see more UN control, but believes we can't pull out now, lest we create a power vacuum. We broke it, we fix it.
2. He said he'd sign single-payer health care if it came in reasonable form to his desk, but doesn't expect to be able to get it through Congress (and probably, he personally doesn't like single-payer. Not everyone does.) He believes his plan is a decent compromise.
3. NAFTA and WTO need labor and environmental standards. If others won't renegotiate, he might also pull out.
4. Dean doesn't want to cut the Pentagon budget, but would reallocate some of the waste to better programs. As for universal pre-K, I don't know.
5. No idea. I know he's not advocating universal pre-K through BA for free, though.
6.He would repeal the parts of the Patriot Act that are unconstitutional or bad. It's a 1,400 -page document, with some good parts.
7. Dean likes lots of these treaties. He proposes stricter standards for developing countries than are already covered in Kyoto. He'd want to go back to the Kyoto table and work out an agreement.
8. Dean believes "Marriage" is too religiously/culturally loaded a term at this point. I suspect he's also uncomfortable with it himself -- as, let's face it, many, many good people in the US are. He believes in giving rights, including immigration, survivorship, etc. to civilly united couples. He also says the term "marriage" has always been a state issue; human rights is a universal issue, and that's what he's concerned with.
9. No idea.
10. Dean is pro-UN. I can't speak to those exact words, But Dean does want to reclaim our place as being an important part of the world community, not its bullies.

[papau]

2. Thanks!

My memory is not as good as it once was -

so trying to compare and contrast is a bit more difficult!

again, Thanks

:-)

[maxr4clark]

3. Can't speak for Clark...

Only for myself as a Clark supporter. Clark/Kucinich discussions I've been involved in have turned unpleasant before, I'm not looking for that. I don't disagree with (at least most of) Kucinich's goals, and I don't think Clark does either; what I have a hard time agreeing with is his optimism that he can get there in a single step. American politics proceeds by baby steps, or it doesn't proceed at all. I'll take the baby steps and work on the rest, which you'll see is the theme of my responses.

I'm really just trying to be helpful in clarifying the distinctions, and that only because you asked.

1. UN/NATO can't handle the security of Iraq until it is able to defend itself without substantial US troop committment. We made this mess, we should bear the dangerous part of the mission.

2. Couldn't agree more, BUT American policy changes by baby steps. It won't pass; need to take smaller steps that direction to convince the public.

3. Too complex for me to figure out. In general I'm for international cooperation on trade, but I'm not sure NAFTA/WTO qualify as cooperation.

4. Other countries have better education systems that don't start that early. Kids need proper attention from their parents more than they need pre-Kindergarten.

5. At some point, people need to earn their way in the world and invest in their own future; 16-18 is a good age to start. College shouldn't be prohibitively expensive, but it should cost something.

6. Doesn't every Dem candidate agree with this? IMO Lieberman doesn't count.

7. Rejoin the world community, yes; the details are more complex. The Kyoto treaty is fair to all countries, including the US. Unfortunately the US is too far gone on environmental issues to be capable of meeting its environmental responsibilities fairly, immediately. We need to make a MAJOR commitment, we needed to make it two decades ago. We need the money being put into tax cuts and military buildup to address this issue, and energy independence at the same time, it is related. All the rest, to the extent that I understand them, yes.

8. Politics is about compromises. Equal rights is the issue we can solve now without difficulty. Let's take the victory we can get, and start working on getting the rest. Baby steps.

9. USSR tried to ensure a full-employment economy; couldn't do it. Clark has an initiative (under the New American Patriotism monniker) to inspire people to contribute to their community and nation in a variety of ways, some paid, some volunteer. The good will toward others would be a welcome change, and would improve the lot of the least fortunate without necessarily doing it through employment.

10. Nationalism is evil, and unfortunately on the rise in the US; international cooperation is good. "Holistic" isn't a term I support, in my experience it is sometimes associated with an anti-science, anti-Enlightenment sentiment. So long as you mean holistic in the sense of inclusive, not anti-x, I have no complaint. Due to the potential connotations, I'd rather the US government not use the term.

[sandnsea]

4. Kerry #10

That is one of the main reasons I support Kerry. It starts with #10 and his view of people and the world and builds from there.

If you start there, then you see why he is more supportive of NAFTA and the WTO, although not the way they're working now. He has consistently introduced legislation to add environmental, labor and other requirements to trade agreements. They were added to the recent Jordan agreement. If we are all connected, then it is imperative that we create an economic environment that will lift other countries out of poverty for a variety of reasons, including our own security. We aren't there yet, but engagement is a better way to start working towards the desired results.

On #7, he is 100% right there as well. He introduced alot of the legislation to stop selling arms around the world and address alot of these problems.

On the other items, you're kind of describing socialism. Kerry is not a socialist. He wants his programs to accomplish the exact same things, but presents them in a way that will appeal to the capitalist nature of our country.

Big difference, the idea that there is ALWAYS a way to negotiate with someone just isn't true. I believe that is where Kerry and Kucinich split on the IWR. They both supported the same basic goals, but Kerry recognized that some dictators only respond to force. The dictators, not the people of the country or region.

I also think their approach to Iraq now is closer than some might think. I think they would approach the region in the same respectful, connected way. The only difference is that there are NO UN TROOPS. Countries commit the troops. Kerry would like to have countries commit troops so we could bring some of our troops home. But it's just not realistic that we're going to find 130,000 troops to go to Iraq. Therefore, it's not realistic that we can bring all our troops home in 30 days.

I have always thought the basic difference between Kerry and Kucinich was Kerry's willingness to deal with the reality he's faced with and tell the exact truth about that reality, whether we like to hear it or not.

[OhioStateProgressive]

5. you bring up a good point in your last sentence

I think it is true, I think Dennis actually embraces that truth, and readily admits he is pushing for magnitudal change, he isn't naive, he's brash

I think most of us that are Kucinich supportres think that way too, we know it can work to take "baby steps"...but we can change the world, if we speak loud enough, open enough

[no name no slogan]

6. We've been taking "baby steps" for YEARS....

...even decades, and we're still not nearly as far as we SHOULD be regarding major issues, like healthcare, for example.

I don't think that most people expect change to happen overnight; however, we have voted for/supported candidates in the past who promised "incremental" changes "over time", and have been screwed in the end.

Clinton promised to end the ban on gays in the military-- instead we got "don't ask, don't tell".

He also promised "universal" healthcare, which morphed into a corporate-friendly "managed competition" scenario that didn't cover everyone (not "universal") but still funneled our tax money to big for-profit healthcare corporations.

If people truly WANTED "incremental change", then Clinton would have won both his elections with a MAJORITY of the vote both times, and Gore would have trounced Shrub in 2000.

People are sick and tired of candidates who are all too ready with a compromise even before the fight has begun. What they truly want (AND respect, IMHO) is somebody who is strong enough to stand up for what he believes in, and is NOT afraid to stick to his guns before giving in.

After all, what would this country have been like if our Founding Fathers had "compromised"? What if MLK had "compromised" and only fought for civil rights in the states where he KNEW he could get them? What if the women suffragists of the late 1800s/early 1900s had "settled" for a fraction of a vote, instead of one whole vote?

Compromise is fine after you've exhausted all your options. But you shouldn't throw in the towel even before the fight has started.

[diamondsoul]

7. You nailed it so well! n/t

[sandnsea]

9. I want the truth

I think I have it with Kerry who isn't promising the world, but has a specific plan that you can like or not and know what it is. Since I know I'm not going to get Kucinich's plan anyway, I have to go on the next best thing. It isn't a matter of giving up before you start, it's a matter of knowing some of these things are just not going to happen in capitalist America. So if I have someone who's got a plan that will appeal to those working capialists, buy in to the same plan Congress has, I'm going to go for it. There's alot more to that health plan that will help lower income people, but "buy in" keeps that "self respect" righties want to have. That's why I like Kerry. He knows how to get us what we need with words that won't piss people off. He could really frame the debate next year if he had a chance.

[maxr4clark]

10. universal healthcare

I would love a single-payer universal health care system.

A big change in policy requires a lot of effort sustained for a long time to overcome the inertia inherent in a large government. The inertia comes from the promises politicians make to their constituents and their financial backers. Trying to eliminate that inertia from our government is like walking into a gale. You see recognition of this fact as compromising from the start, I see it as accepting reality. These are honest differences of perspective, and we shouldn't expect to convince each other on them.

When Clinton became the object of a Rovian witch hunt, his ability to make big changes in policy was eliminated. He had no weight to throw behind his effort against inertia. Blame Clinton if you want, but I blame the Repubs. Same thing happened to Carter. Carter was the finest man who ever became President, and he accomplished very little during his four years because the Repubs wouldn't let him. Dennis Kucinich is a fine man, but I seriously doubt the Republicans would let him accomplish any of his goals as President, either.

Right now, this election, the weight of America has to go toward getting out of Iraq, repairing our relationships with the rest of the world, and restoring balance to the national economy/budget. There isn't enough weight left over to get universal health care done this term. I'm sad about it, but I'm not going to sacrifice everything we might accomplish in a vain attempt to get universal health care now.

[papau]

8. Thanks Folks - you have made this a great useful, non-flame thread!

That may be a first in DU recent history!

:-)

[Mairead]

11. I think all you 'baby steppers' should remember that

the amount of right-wing resistance is not a function of the amount of change being sought. Right-wing resistance is always 100%. Which is why they mounted an all-out attack on Clinton, 'Mr "Business-Friendly" Sell-out' himself.

So, given that any proposed change for the better, no matter how slight, is guaranteed to be resisted at the 100% level, with slavering lunatics claiming that it will inevitably result in The End Of Civilisation As We Know It plus the personal appearance on the steps of the Capitol by the cloven-footed Demon himself...what's the point in trying to duck under their radar? It won't work, so why try?

This Danziger cartoon illuminates the issue completely:

[redqueen]

12. You so rock

Thanks for the apropos cartoon.

If you know you'll have to compromise -- LEAD, DAMMIT, LEAD! :)