Two Kerry posts at Liberal Values

[Dr Ron]

Kerry speaking on his religious views:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=337


Kerry showing leadership while Warner pandering on tax cuts:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=335

[wisteria]

1. Thanks for these posts. Positive Kerry posts are always appreciated. n/t

[Dr Ron]

2. They'll be posted intermittently

I'm trying to keep Liberal Values from being all Kerry all the time. I figure that the long time Kerry supporters already get his emails and don't need the blog for that. For the readers building up who aren't from Kerry supporters, I figure that it has more impact when I periodically have a post defending Kerry when attacked, or a post on him when he is in the news. Little by little I'm hitting all the areas he is commonly attacked for in the blogoshere as well as the reasons to support him in 2008.

[beachmom]

3. I like your blog a lot, Dr. Ron

I notice you sneakily using words that you think will garner more hits to your site. Clever, clever.

I understand your feelings about not liking Kerry giving that religious speech, but if he HAD to give that speech, he couldn't have done a better job. But true, if he were vying for the job on Downing Street in Great Britain, no way in hell he would have, could have, or wanted to give that speech. THAT I will acknowledge.

[kerrygoddess]

4. What drives people to the polls

is vastly changing in this country. Sad but true. The fact is that the "values" of Christians, the "teachings" of Jesus and other spiritual masters are more liberal than conservative.

We are missing a big section of voters and the republicans have the edge. They shouldn't - more Dems belong to evangelical churches than republicans. This is a fact.

I am reading Applebee's America. I suggest everyone read it - I know that at least one or two members of JK's staff are.

Bush utilized "target marketing" in '04. We missed the boat. We can't afford to do that again.

[Dr Ron]

6. Definately not conservative

"The fact is that the "values" of Christians, the "teachings" of Jesus and other spiritual masters are more liberal than conservative."

Very true. It is a shame that if religion has been dragged into politics, it is the right wingers who have benefited.

[Dr Ron]

5. No problem with Kerry's speech

My objection is purely to the political climate which forced Kerry (and other Democrats) to give such a speech. I don't blame Kerry at all for doing what is needed to survive politically. It's not like he's changing any actual positions to please the so called "values voters."

As you say, a politician in Great Britain would not have given such a speech. Not only that, but John Kerry in 2003 would not have given such a speech.

As for garnering hits, it often works quite well. Sometimes better than expected, such as a couple of times when I had 3 or 4 of the top spots in the entertainment secion at Technorati. (They don't have a politcal section for listing top blog posts). This opens it up to a new audience beyond the general liberal blogoshere readers.

While many search engine hits are for political topics, it seems like the most common remains Caroline being fired from The Apprentice. There's also plenty for the Academy Awards nipple slip and for Gilmore Girls. Back at Democratic Daily, poodle balling was a top search engine hit for a few months after I posted on the Britney Spears appearance on Will and Grace. I do get an ocassional hit on that after cross posting it to Liberal Values.

[Dr Ron]

7. More favorable links

Did it again. My post defending Kerry from Warner's criticism is currently the number one Entertainment story on Technorati under What Everyone is Blogging About.

Their system is obviously screwed up, but I'm not going to complain if my pro-Kerry and other posts often wind up there. I quickly added a link from that story to the follow up story on Warner admitting Kerry was right:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=341

[TayTay]

8. I really liked that speech and I am glad the Senator gave it.

I understand that you are not criticizing the views contained within the speech, but the idea that Kerry had to speak to this subject at all in modern America. I understand that.

Still, I am glad Senator Kerry gave that speech. I have been watching him, off and on, for a long time now and there have always been these odd and revelatory moments with Kerry that just happen sometimes. Some people have private and then they have public sides to them. In New England, those sides are allowed to be very separate. We all know that one side informs the other, but you don't talk about it and you don't reveal that part of you. There have been times in the past, guarded moments when the wall between sides came down, just for a little bit, and you saw the other side on the good Senator. (I think that seeing that side won him elections in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the past. They gave substance to what was behind those eyes that are so interesting and that seem to have seen much and held much back as well.)

People who survive and endure through difficult events usually do so because they have some sort of hidden reserves that they can access at times of struggle. It is no bad thing to once in a while name those reserves and tell 'what got you through the night' when the night seemed long and full of bad dreams.

You are right, John Kerry in 2003 would not have given that speech. Then again, John Kerry in 2006 has learned more lessons and has been specifically told that part of the reason he lost was because people would like to see that part of him and would like to know a bit more about the man and not just the idears he had. Americans are not wrong to want this, and it is not incorrect to ask that a person who wants the votes of the electorate to share some of their inner motivations with the public. (The bad part is taking religion and using it as a club to declare your enemies to be morally inferior because they do not share your doctrines and possibly your faith. That is a different critter all together.)

The words to Amazing Grace, which is probably one of the most popular hymns in America and is widely played at everything from the funerals of the firefighters who died on 9/11 to Church picnics and so forth. I think one of the reasons this is so popular is that line that talks how grace 'saved a wretch like me.' There is something quintessentially American about that, about singing how there must have been a time when someone was low and casting about for something and found it in a cause greater than any one person. I don't see the harm in naming what the wretched moment was and what the moment of grace and of a rebirth of hope was like. It seems very American to me and to be a 'leveling' moment when speaker and audience can see eye to eye on something that we have all experienced. (And that moment can come and be resolved without a specifically religious ending, but to a lot of people it is religious. And it is very real.)

Amazing grace! (how sweet the sound)
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now I'm found,
Was blind, but now I see.

'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears relieved;
How precious did that grace appear,
The hour I first believed!

Through many dangers, toils and snares,
We have already come;
'Tis grace has brought me safe thus far,
And grace will lead me home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace

I am not sad to see this side of Sen. Kerry, although I am sad that I don't think he could deliver this speech at this time on 'home turf.' Maybe the 49% of Catholics in his home state who had never seen this side of him and who voted against him in '04 might have changed their minds. They might have even found, gasp, more common ground.