When did John Kerry leave the DLC?

[LSK]

How much of a member was he at one point?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

4. Horsehockey

He was still a member as of 2004 according to their directory, which they no longer provide on line. And I would further dispute that he's the poll-whore you make him out to be. Considering he was more hawkish in 2002 and 2003, you're conclusion doesn't even make sense.

I watched him evolved to his current attitude toward the war. You could see it coming months in advance by how he was talking in speeches and such. When he called for withdrawl, I wasn't surprised, as he'd said that Iraq had about a six month window to get a government together. Six months later, he was calling for withdrawl. Hence, he is not poll-driven. He is situation-driven. All that one needs to do is actually pay attention to the man to see that, as opposed to thinking one already knows him and jumping to false conclusions based on a pre-judging.

[karynnj]

14. That is a RW slur that is less true of Kerry than most other Senators

Was it popular in the Reagan years to insist the administration follow the law on not arming the Contras? (Note: both Gore and Clinton were pro-Contras at that point). Kerry's position was a minority opinion. Beyond that, he was the only Senator who was willing to investigate the Contra's gun and drug running.

Was it self serving politics to pursue BCCI after it turned up they had bought key Democratic money men? It made Kerry a pariah in the leadership of the party.

Kerry's Senate record is pretty consistent - he is mostly a liberal (esp. on civil rights and the environment), but is more fiscally conservative than many liberals. On foreign policy, he has always been for the US engaging in diplomacy and folowing international laws.

He joined the New Democrats that at one point joined with the DLC - at any rate, he was always the leftmost of the ND and DLC. He may have thought that having some liberal representation would pull the organization to the left - even slightly. His voting record has always deviated from the DLC norm. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were far more central to the DLC and both were DLC candidates - Bill in 1992 and 1996 and Gore as their first DLC candidate in 1988 and again in 2000.

[billbradley]

40. john kerry

Kerry is more liberal than Al gore and Bill Clinton COMBINED !!!!!!! (a good thing)

[karynnj]

50. I agree, Hi Bill - I voted for you for Senate and wanted you

to win the 2000 primaries. :)

[blm]

32. Kerry never acted because of a poll before, so why would he do so then?

In fact - if you have ever actually READ the congressional record, you would know that Kerry took on more UNPOPULAR issues than any lawmaker in modern history.

So - who was it who planted that meme that Kerry is poll-driven? The same ones who said Gore only did what the polls tell him to?

[LittleClarkie]

2. Hard to tell when they're not putting up their directory anymore

and they don't answer my emails when I ask why not.

Some have said that he was a member because he was using their organization to help with his campaign. I also think that he's hawkish on the subject of terrorism, and so their outlook somewhat matched up with his own, at least a couple of years ago. But I believe he's moved away from them, and in a sense, outgrown them. He's still more hawkish on the subject of terrorism than some people would like, still wants to see groups like Hezzbollah gone, but he no longer hawkish on the subject of Iraq. I'm sure the DLC is embarrassed that he was EVER a member.

Al From sure doesn't act like Kerry is a member (or treats him as a red-headed step-child if he is) and for my money the DLC wasn't much help in 2004 either. I think Kerry also found this to be true, as there have been some reports that people who were supposed to be on his side in Ohio turned out not to be. Sometimes I think they sabotaged him on purpose, though I have little proof. Just a feeling.

[saracat]

3. Absolutely right LC!

[babylonsister]

5. Thank you, LittleClarkie! I just

googled and couldn't stand the swill. I'm glad you set me/us straight.

[LSK]

7. thanks

I have noticed his voting record since 04 has been stellar.

[JI7]

6. i don't think it matters

i don't know why people debate this more than people's actual positions and record. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are not dlc members but they are pretty conservative. Kerry is one of the most liberal, far more than non dlcers like Reid and Schumer.

Eliot Spitzer is also a dlc member.

[Totally Committed]

11. Here's why it is a topic of discussion:

There are some (I am one) who will never again cast a vote for a member of the DLC. Never again (as in, not ever...) And, I don't give a rat's petoot what anyone thinks of that stance. The last list I saw (I have it in a file) of DLC included Sen. Kerry.

The DLC must GO!

TC

[blm]

15. I would hope MORE lefties JOIN the DLC to pull left against those pulling

rightward.

[paulk]

25. the DLC isn't going anywhere

I am glad that there are people like John Kerry and Elliot Spitzer in the DLC - they will help add balance.

I am glad that the DLC has a few members who don't look at the world through the blinkers of an acronym.

[billbradley]

41. well then................

Hillary Clinton is a proud member of the DLC. Does that mean you wont support her,or any other DLC presidential candidate in 2008?? You would then hand victory to the GOPigs

[JI7]

61. so you would support Chuck Schumer over Eliot Spitzer ?

[Mass]

64. Joe Biden over Dorgan (one of the least corporatist senators).\nt

[wyldwolf]

8. the question is, why do you think he has?

He's been a members since at least 1998 (that is the earliest mention of him on their website) but the book "Reinventing Democrats" by Ken Baer mentions him several times, including his speeches at several DLC conventions in the 90s.

He signed the DLC manefesto in 2000.

A couple of sources - one rightwing hit piece on Kerry and one leftwing hit piece on Kerry - both say he aligned himself with the DLC in the mid 90s. I'll post those links if people want to see them.

In regards to their membership list, they didn't keep one on their website until 2000. Why they took it down, I don't know.

[LSK]

9. someone suggested it on another board n/t

[Greyhound]

18. I think they took it down because they found out that there are a lot

of people that feel the same as TotallyCommitted, and so they want to hide their association.

[blm]

10. I think it doesn't matter IF you belong, just whether or not you work to

influence the group from within to keep a balance of left-right ideas, or if you accept the centrist approach wholecloth.

Kerry's record proves he sticks to his liberal ideals while listening to other approaches.

That said - Those who comment for the DLC seem to push their favorite centrists over the liberal members, and I'm not even sure they would list Kerry as a member.

[wyldwolf]

12. I list Kerry as a member

The third-way philosophy is very broad. One can be very liberal in some respects, like Kerry, yet still believe in the New Democrat mantra.

The Nation described him this way:

So a simple question: Is he a liberal? "Not really, no," he says. He pegs himself a "moderate," adding, "labels are too simple, particularly if you try to be thoughtful." He notes that he co-sponsored the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced-budget legislation of the 1980s, voted for welfare reform and has been an ardent free-trader. That is, Kerry portrays himself as a so-called New Democrat, without using the term. But then he says he has fought for public housing. He favors abortion rights, legislation banning the replacement of striking workers and public financing of political campaigns. He does not accept PAC money; he opposes the death penalty. Environmentalists hail him as a stalwart ally. And Kerry points out: "I've taken on the Establishment--to some degree--on things like Iran/contra, drugs and the CIA, and BCCI," a crooked, politically wired bank. "Many people," he observes, "may want to characterize" him as a liberal. "And that's fine.... I don't run away from anything." Kerry quotes French writer André Gide: "Don't try to understand me too quickly." The line reflects a passion of his: not fitting into a box. Kerry can switch from crusading, reformist liberal to New Democrat and back again...

... Do Kerry's ideological diversions stem from conviction or calculation? A desire not to be typecast as a Massachusetts Democrat? (Remember Michael Dukakis?) His pollster Tom Kiley says, "He's always a little suspicious of liberal nostrums and is looking for other solutions." Another Massachusetts political consultant remarks, "He feels a desire to differentiate himself from Teddy Kennedy. That's been his struggle. He regards himself as a New Democrat, but he is seen as being a definer of the liberal wing of the party.


The American Prospect defined him like this:

Kerry is a real Democrat in his commitment to significant new expenditures on priorities like health care, education, energy independence, child care, and additional tax breaks for the middle class and working poor. However, he is also a New Democrat in his belief that the overall context must be anti-deficit for the sake of long-term economic growth.

[blm]

13. I don't believe being fiscally responsible and for cutting the FAT out of

programs is a conservative or moderate ideal - I think it's just smart and practical to side with cost-effectiveness in any program.

Kerry has long been a deficit hawk even before there was a DLC. I imagine alot more liberals are with him on this now after seeing what the GOPs have done.

When I say THEY - I refer to the spokespeople of the DLC who seem to manage to forget Kerry when THEY list their favored members in interviews.

Point being, he's not a particularly favored member and I'd guess it's because they DON'T persuade him as often as they'd like.

Hopefully, he has acted as a balance for them and keeps pulling them back, like he did on his Iraq withdrawal > > > he got some DLC members to start, at least, THINKING about withdrawal.

[Totally Committed]

17. I have absolutely no problem with fiscal reponsibility...

as long as it does not come along with the corporate allegience and influence the DLC demands.

I don't see how anyone can be a member of an organization which so openly disrespects the little guy, the grassroots, and the "Left" this way, and still consider himself a "Liberal" in the Democratic sense of the word.

Kerry needs to publicly, unequivocatedly, and VOCALLY disavow this organization, and his membership in it. Until he does, he is a member in my book, and I've already said that is an automatic no-go for me in any circumstance.

TC

[TayTay]

19. Well, Al From sued him for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences

Not sure if there was a pre-nup, but I think Kerry gets custody of Michael Whouley, from what I understand. And Kerry was not invited to the DLC convention this year. (It's so hard when the split involves mutual friends. Awwwkwaaard!)

This gets tricky. (It's not my fault. These organizations are like hydras, they have a lot of heads.) Kerry went to the DLC convention in the late '90's. Al From never really liked him though but let him into the Senate New Democratic Network in 1999. (What a guy. Senator: go hang out in the green room. We'll let you know if the membership votes you in. Have a danish.)

Ahm, sort of. I had this quote about that from Roll Call from Kerry in a story on the DLC and it's children groups.

"I have worked with the DLC for more than a year and a half now on issues like education," he (Kerry) said. "But I have not taken an official (New Democrat) oath. There is no official New Democrat oath, but I plan to remain active with them this year."

New Democrat sources confirmed that Kerry had not officially joined the group, but remained an ally on trade issues. Nevertheless, the confusion over his New Democrat status continued when his office issued a statement unequivocally confirming he is a member of the SNDC." -- Roll Call 1/8/01

Or not. See, it was one of those strange relationships that started out kind of exciting, but then both sides found out that living together was impossible because they really don't have a lot in common. (Okay, there was some trade stuff, which is now gone and the education stuff, which went away, perhaps to return when someone in Washington decides that education matters once more. Not likely anytime soon.) But Iraq has caused endless arguments and much throwing of metaphors and From had a hissy fit when Kerry wanted to filibuster Alito and then push for a withdrawal from Iraq. (There is just no going back from some arguments. Sigh! Not even among grown-ups.) So, IMHO, this is a necessary divorce. It's better for both sides. Now they can move on.

The very nasty part of the divorce started after Nov 03 when From decided that he didn't want any of the loss in the Presidential race to stick to him and he started bad-mouthing Kerry as too liberal and not 'our kind' of guy. Now, they don't eat lunch together anymore. And that's where it stands. The divorce is a done deal. It can't be undone.

BTW, the SNDN branch I believe has also left From and became 'The Third Way' group, but I could be wrong.

EDIt: I kan't spel

[Totally Committed]

20. That quote was from '01...

If it were closer to this date (like after the last election), I'd feel a lot better about believing it.

Look, I'm only one person. Kerry will never need my one vote to win or lose an election.

TC

[TayTay]

I'm not ragging on you.

It is seriously not clear when and if Kerry joined and when he left. (And if he left or was divorced for lack of support by Al From.) What is clear is that Al From doesn't want Kerry near him and is seriously pissed at Kerry for rocking the boat this year on Alito and Iraq.

I looked back through the archives. That was the most 'he joined the DLC' thing I could find. It's a bit murky.

In all honesty, I meant what I wrote. I think there was a brief romance, a whirlwind courtship, then both sides woke up one day, rolled over, got a good look at what was lying next to them and plotted an escape. I do think it ended in divorce. (It's okay, Al From has been on the rebound with a certain Sen. from NY. He seems happy.)

[wyldwolf]

28. yet Kerry gave the keynote address to the DLC's convention in 2004

[blm]

31. As I recall, Clinton interceded and talked From into getting behind Kerry

when From preferred Lieberman and Edwards for 2004.

[wyldwolf]

34. Interesting. I don't recall that at all

[blm]

44. I do - From wanted Lieberman and Reed wanted Edwards. When neither were

getting any traction, Clinton advised DLC they will have to eventually support Kerry.

[wyldwolf]

46. we're talking about Kerry being the keynote speaker at the 2004 DLC...

...National conversation.

I don't claim to be a DLC insider, but I keep up, and I don't recall any public disagreement over who the speaker would be. Perhaps you recall the source for your information?

[blm]

49. This happened in 2003 - And

who else would you expect the DLC to ask to speak in 2004? I imagine they would have even had Gephardt speak if he were the nominee, even though he wasn't a member.

[wyldwolf]

51. but, blm, you just said there was some conflict within the DLC as to who..

... the speaker would be. Again, we're not discussing who various members of the DLC wanted to and did endorse, but who would be the speaker at their meeting.

Either there was a conflict, or there wasn't. And if there was, I missed it and would enjoy reading the account.

who else would you expect the DLC to ask to speak in 2004? I imagine they would have even had Gephardt speak if he were the nominee, even though he wasn't a member.

Yes, but Gephardt was a former chairman of the DLC. I highly doubt they would have asked Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton had one of them been the nominee.

[blm]

53. I didn't say there was a conflict about the speaker - I said they wanted

their guy to be the NOMINEE for president.

[wyldwolf]

55. we weren't talking about the nominee, we were talking about the speaker...

... here is a transrcript of our exchange:

wyldwolf: yet Kerry gave the keynote address to the DLC's convention in 2004...

blm: As I recall, Clinton interceded and talked From into getting behind Kerry when From preferred Lieberman and Edwards for 2004.

wyldwolf: Interesting. I don't recall that at all.

blm: I do - From wanted Lieberman and Reed wanted Edwards. When neither were getting any traction, Clinton advised DLC they will have to eventually support Kerry.

wyldwolf: we're talking about Kerry being the keynote speaker at the 2004 DLC National Conversation. I don't claim to be a DLC insider, but I keep up, and I don't recall any public disagreement over who the speaker would be. Perhaps you recall the source for your information?

blm: This happened in 2003 - And who else would you expect the DLC to ask to speak in 2004? I imagine they would have even had Gephardt speak if he were the nominee, even though he wasn't a member.

wyldwolf: but, blm, you just said there was some conflict within the DLC as to who the speaker would be. Again, we're not discussing who various members of the DLC wanted to and did endorse, but who would be the speaker at their meeting. Either there was a conflict, or there wasn't. And if there was, I missed it and would enjoy reading the account.

blm: I didn't say there was a conflict about the speaker - I said they wanted their guy to be the NOMINEE for president.

[blm]

56. My point stands - From wanted Lieberman and Reed wanted Edwards

for Dem nominee for president. It was Clinton who told From that he would have to eventually support Kerry if he were the nominee - this was in 2003. The DLC did end up throwing support behind Kerry and he was their speaker in 2004. just as ANY Dem running for president would have been.

I understand it perfectly. I don't understand why you think there's a contradiction in any of that.

[wyldwolf]

57. why make that point?

IF the point of the thread is whether Kerry is in the DLC or not, and I point to the fact that he was the speaker at their National Conversation in 2004 as an indicator that he was, at least, a member then, why introduce an off topic like who various members of the DLC supported for the nomination in 2003?

The DLC would have supported ANY Dem who got the nom in 2004, true. But not any Dem would have been their keynote speaker in 2004. There is the contradiction. But that aside, the point was the speaker in 2004, a point you seemed to be unaware of until your third response in the subthread.

But it really doesn't matter at this point. Sometimes conversations like this start going down so many other avenues that the original point it lost.

Kerry is officially part of the DLC's Senate New Democrat coalition. Those close to him have described him as a New Democrat. He, himself, prefers the label "moderate" over "liberal." Until Kerry states he is no longer a member of the DLC, the correct assuption will be that he still is.

[blm]

58. Kerry said that "labels" just don't fit. And judging by his actual record

on so many issues. he is right.

My label: A pragmatic liberal who employs a moderate tone to bring progress to the actual debating of the issues, especially in a divided country.

[karynnj]

42. This made sense for both

The DLC at that point wanted him as a likely nominee or even President. Kerry spoke because it was a large forum and he wanted as musvh support as he could get. Anyone in his position would.

[wyldwolf]

47. interesting you should say that

...because variour DUers claim the DLC wanted Lieberman, Edwards, Clark, etc. It seems to change daily.

So, yes, by being the keynote speaker at their national convention in 2004, shows Kerry was a member up until at least that point. Only members speak at these events. Which is my point.

[karynnj]

48. My point was that Kerry was already the nominee

Googling, I find 2 Kerry speeches to the DLC that year - one in May and one in July. The DLC did nothing in 2003 to help Kerry - note he loaned himself money in December.

[wyldwolf]

52. that wasn't the point of the thread

the point is John Kerry being a member of the DLC. His speaking at their meeting in 2004 drives the point home (they don't ask non-DLC members to be keynote speakers at their annual meeting.)

The DLC did nothing in 2003 to help Kerry - note he loaned himself money in December.

That's because FEC laws prevent organizations like the DLC from contributing money to candidates in federal elections.

[sandnsea]

54. Bashing is the point of the thread n/t

[LittleClarkie]

63. In defense of LSK, the question seemed sincerely asked.

And that's how I answered it. Snarky subthreads are another matter.

[sandnsea]

65. They always are

sincerely asked. Over and over and over and over...

[LittleClarkie]

62. oops, misread

nevermind

[TayTay]

67. And he spoke to them in 2002

What did he say? What parts of what he said do you agree with and where do you find him to be inline with the DLC wing of the Party? Here is the text of the speech from 2004, which is freely available and that I googled based on the info given: http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=252591

This was, pretty much, Kerry's standard stump speech, pre-DNC, in 2004.

This would be a better and sharper conversation if we knew what we were talking about. So, what parts of this speech offend you? Where does Kerry 'go off the reservation' for you in here? (In other words, what about this speech, apart from the fact that it happened in front of the DLC, strikes you as someone pursuing an agenda that is not progressive?)

Ahm, my list of who I would vote for and who I wouldn't is pretty much based on the Bankruptcy Bill that passed last year. (Votes recorded here: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00029) We all have our litmus tests. Mine is in the action of the people who we elect. Kerry voted against cloture on this bill and against the bill as a whole. He voted against that awful bill to take away access to the courts for Americans with greivances against big business. He voted against Alberto Gonzales and Condileezza Rice. And so forth and so on. He did undertake the filibuster this year on Alito and the DLC was furious with that action. He did push to have an Amendment on withdrawal from Iraq taken to the Senate floor and that pissed off a lot of people in the moderate middle.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. The proof for Kerry is in the actual votes. He has been a very good Democrat and a very good progressive, whether the DLC liked it or not.

What other litmus test besides the votes are there? Kerry has strongly repudiated his IWR vote, I don't think the DLC people, or most of them anyway, have. Again, how many times do you have to reject the DLC advice before you can be said to not be following their agenda. Even on trade, which Kerry was closer to the moderates on before Bush, he has moved away and rejected CAFTA. Ahm, how many DLC positions has he backed?

[blm]

24. I think it's a shame you don't use ACTUAL RECORDS to advise your beliefs

on this particular issue, and instead cling to what you PREFER to believe even after the evidence of those records point to the truth.

How you can not trust that Kerry is for public financing when he is the ONLY senator who ever submitted legislation for it, is a mystery. It's not a he said, she said thing - it's a FACT.

[karynnj]

38. But that was the time period he was closest

So if it is in question - you can imagine the situation now. Your a constituent - call his office and ask now.

[karynnj]

39. This is fantastic !!!!!!!

[blm]

21. You don't find it interesting that Kerry refused corporate pac money

throughout his senate races? Or that it was Kerry who crafted and submitted the Clean Money, Clean Elections bill in 1997 as a LONGTIME ADVOCATE for public campaign financing?

The craven attacks on the left are more recent developments, and usually from Al From, someone I loathe, and it is his certainty in centrism that Kerry pulls against.

[Totally Committed]

22. Yes, I do.

I think it's admirable if that's really the case. I'm just not sure I can trust that to REALLY be the case as long as he's on the rolls with the Corporate whores at the DLC.

TC

[blm]

23. You're saying that a 21 YEAR advocate of public financing is not allowed

to work within a group of Dems who disagree with him? Kerry has kept pushing public financing even though he KNEW almost the entire Senate disagreed with him.

I don't get how you think anyone can maintain a leftward pull on ANY organization or group of lawmakers if they don't even bother to try.

I guess Kerry should have not filibustered Alito or submitted Iraq withdrawal plans, either, since he would have to be pulling THAT group, too.

And I do think it odd that you don't even KNOW the facts about senators' public financing positions, you said "if that's the case" implying you don't know, yet you think it's responsible to claim that ALL DLC members are tainted by corporate money, even if they work AGAINST corporate pac interests.

Sorry, but it's hard to take the anger seriously when you are unfamiliar with the actual records of various senators on an issue you claim is important to you.

Anyone who is seriously angered about corporations financing campaigns and political organizations has long known that Kerry has been a leading advocate for public financing that gets corporate money OUT of our elections.

[Totally Committed]

26. No, I'm not saying he's not allowed to work with them at all!

I'm just saying he loses my vote if he does.

(And, that's across-the-board for EVERY CANDIDATE... not just Kerry. Anyone who is on the DLC roster in 2006, 2008, or any time in the future does not get my vote. That is non-negotiable and completely regardless of their "politics" otherwise.)

I will never again vote for a DLC-er. Period. End of story.

TC

[blm]

27. I will not vote for any senator who is FOR public financing of campaigns

as that issue is very important to me.

I will not vote for any senator who has worked to get corporate money OUT of politics because that issue is very important to me.

I will not vote for any senator on the left who works with any moderate or centrist Democrat because the approach to all issues should ONLY be debated by the left.

[Totally Committed]

29. I always did, too... and supported Kerry for years.

I just can't support the DLC any longer... so I have to be fair and make that ALL of the DLC or I would be a hypocrite in my own eyes.

Can we just agree to disagree on this? It's not a personal issue against Kerry... it goes for every candidate. And, I mean no disrespect to you or any other poster in this thread. Honestly.

Peace to you, my friend...

TC

[blm]

30. I'm glad that Kerry pulls left against those who pull right. You want

no one there to pull left at all. I just don't see any sense to that approach. In fact, I wish MORE left politicians would work their influence into the DLC. If you believe in your principles then DEBATE them and support them against those who see it differently.

It's like those columnists who want to tell lawmakers what to do but never have the conviction or backbone to actually put themselves into the arena and HAVE the debate. Certain pols always stick to those who agree with them and do not even consider working towards progress on any issue if it isn't done THEIR way. That's not what this country is about and never has been. That's why BushInc is turning into such a failed government - they do not bend towards or bother to work with OTHERS.

[Totally Committed]

33. I want the DLC gone....

not pulled left. G O N E. Demolished, abolished, stomped into non-existence.

TC

[blm]

37. And you want all lawmakers who believe in their third way approach gone

to form a new party outside the Dem party?

This lefty hopes Dems will never stop listening to one another and debating various ways to approach issues.

[PassingFair]

66. I don't want them "purged"

... I want them to stop choosing our candidates.

I want them to stop deciding who gets backing and
who doesn't.

I want them to know that Howard Dean runs the
Democratic National Committee, NOT Terry McAuliffe,
and that they CANNOT touch the people's money.

I do NOT want them to continue to be the "voice"
of the Democratic Party ala Joe Lieberman on FAUX,
or From and Reed cozying up to the AEI and the
Heritage Foundation.

:puke:

[Totally Committed]

69. I DO want them purged... at this point, it's them or me.

I'm giving it a couple of years.... Come 2008, if they manage to get one of their candidates nominated again, or are allowed in any way interfere with the camapign, or whatever..... I am gone. Period. This Party cannot contain me and my beliefs and theirs. I die a little every time I think about it, actually.

TC

[karynnj]

45. Let's say Kerry runs for the Senate instead of the Presidency

He will be the Democratic nominee. Is it likely that there will be a candidate who you agree with more or who you think is as good a person?

[Totally Committed]

68. No, probably not.

But, in that case, Kerry will have no problem winning Massachusetts without my vote. If he resigns from the DLC, it's possible he might win it with my vote.

I don't know how much clearer I can be about it. I cannot and will not vote for DLC candidate ever again. I don't care who it is.

TC

[karynnj]

43. When is he rolling with them?

Seriously - I do read the JK group and he is out working for 2006 candidates and making some excellent policy speeches at Faneuil Hall. The DLC did not seem to be very happy with him on Alito and Iraq and were likely sources to the no one in the Senate likes Kerry gossip.

[karynnj]

35. One question

You are - from other posts - a MA resident who has carefully followed politics for years, could you say that Kerry "openly disrespects the little guy, the grassroots, and the "Left"? (Note: I know TC said the DLC does, not that Kerry does.

It seems to me that Kerry speaks very very often about grassroots and activism as being essential to get us out of this mess. In fact, Kerry seems more at home with activism than any other current politician I can think of - maybe because that is part of his roots. He has never taken PAC money and his speech when he and Wellstone reintroduced the Clean Election bill is as anti-corporate money influencing government as you will find in the Senate. (at least till Bernie Saunders gets there.)

I seriously doubt he (or ANY Senator) will disavow the DLC - you can't write off half the party. His absense from their events for 3 years and his absense from every DLC list of who in the DLC is running (when he clearly is) says that he is clearly NOT all that involved.

[karynnj]

16. An alternative reading is:

each of the writers want to categorize everyone and fit them into boxes. Another way to look at "The line reflects a passion of his: not fitting into a box. Kerry can switch from crusading, reformist liberal to New Democrat and back again..." is that Kerry thoughtfully considers each issue and votes according to what he thinks is the right thing to do.

His use of the quote, "Don't try to understand me too quickly." , makes enormous sense. When I first looked at Kerry in 2002-2003, the main view I had of him was of his 1971 testimony. As a college student, I was blown away by his intellect, commitment, bravery and eloquence. But even in 1971, Kerry had taken great pains to define himself as exactly who he was. He was not a radical counter cultural anti-war person. He did not become a tool for the radical anti-war extremist.

That was Kerry as a charismatic, passionate activist seeking to change - through the system - something that was wrong. His testimony demonstrated his intelligence, passion and compassion. Especially the question and answer part showed a young man demanding the Senate work to get the veterans what they needed. Not just in hospitals, but he spoke of how they needed help getting back into society. This wasn't for him - he was healthy, well connected and he and his wife could have simply lived the lives they were born to. He really cared and it is clear he still does.

But, there is also Kerry, the prosecutor - he very seriously believes in the law and acountability. This is the same whether he was convicting criminals in Middlesex, exposing the government's breaking the law to aid the Contras, stopping global crime and terrorism (BCCI and his book, the NEW WAR) and a person advocating the US comply with its own laws (FISA etc) and international law (Geneva accords). In away, his Clean Elections bill is motivated by wanting the law to reflect the values of the country - and elections should be determined by people not money.

There is Kerry the environmentalist, with one of the best records in the Senate and significant work from the time he was Lt Governor. Kerry has also had a very clear stand on civil rights. He can always be counted on to be there.

On economic issues, Kerry has said repeatedly that our values are seen in the budget. As the articles said he has pushed for things that help people, but he also sees the value of having an honest budget.

I think Kerry has very clear ideas on the right thing to do on most things and he does what he thinks is right. He seems to care less than many how the positioned is categorized. I agree with him on most things, which makes it easy to support him. Beyond that I trust him more than other politicians because he more clearly than most has values that do inform what he does.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zann725]

59. I don't think he ever was TRULY one...except in 'name only.' He likes to

look like he belongs...to hear the inner scoops,me thinks. But he stays 'at the edge'of it all, most of the time...EXCEPT when taking action.

[Mass]

60. When did Gore, Edwards, Dean leave the DLC?

We actually do not know any more than Kerry because there is no official list of DLC members.

All there was until last year was a list of Senators who belonged to the New Democrat caucus. You were dropped of the list because you stopped being Senators or governors, whether you still liked the DLC or not. The list disappeared in 2005.

So, nobody can honestly answer your question for anybody.

What is clear is that neither From of Vilsack consider them as part of the DLC. When they talk about DLC potential candidates for 08, they ignore them systematically.

So I guess we should not be more royalist than the king.

[globalvillage]

70. This doesn't answer both of your questions

but it does address one. When the same question came up a while back, I compared key votes of Sen Kerry and other Senate 'DLC' members.
This is what I found.

[Yellowcake]

71. DLC..

One does not "leave" the DLC anymore than you leave the AARP. Important political figures can give speeches to the DLC's National Conversation, or show up at their events (like Rep. Diana DeGette of CO at this year's National Conversation), but there is no "official" way to join/not join or quit/not quit.