[greyhound]

....he is a "progressive".


Yes, this article is from "bushcountry" and not exactly objective. But the thing is, why do liberals hate being called liberals? Has some poll been done that shows the American people think that's a negative? I seem to recall Teddy Kennedy going berzerk lately after being called a liberal, shouting that he was a progressive, not a liberal. Is it like "gun safety" vs "gun control"? What's the deal here?


Why Is John Kerry Angered At Being Called A Liberal?


bushcountry.org ^ | 02-11-04 | Paul Cappitelli


Posted on 02/11/2004 7:36:37 AM PST by PaulaB


With wins number six and seven in Washington and Michigan, John Kerry followed his promise to defend himself against the republican play book of attacking Democratic opponents as liberals. "I don't think they're mainstream at all. They're extreme. We're mainstream, and we're going to stand up and fight back." Kerry was quoted as saying following the twin victories. He began this crusade against the liberal tag back on October 20th during an interview with Chris Mathews on MSNBC's Hardball when he claimed. ".anybody who was part of the Dukakis campaign knows he didn't lose because he came from Massachusetts, or believed what he believed-he believed he didn't need to fight back, and he will tell you today that was a mistake."

This is not a fight John Kerry is putting up alone, everyone from Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe to scores of journalists and editorialists are decrying this form of label. One has to wonder, why self proclaimed liberals consider being called a liberal, as being defamed or smeared. One would be hard pressed to ever find an instance of a Republican complaining about being labeled a conservative, let alone complaining that it is a smear tactic of the left.

I now have to ask myself two questions, what exactly is a 'Liberal', or a 'Massachusetts Liberal' to extrapolate that question further, and why is John Kerry and his supporters so determined to fight back against this label?

I will start by giving the Webster's definition of a liberal. "Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States." Thus a Massachusetts liberal would be a politician representing principles of social and political liberalism serving in the state of Massachusetts.

This brings us to the second question raised; why do John Kerry and the Democratic Party want to 'fight back' against this label?

There may be several reasons for this in my estimation. Firstly the Democrats wish to distance themselves from the failures of past Presidential candidates that hailed from Massachusetts, which include Ted Kennedy's failed primary bid in 1980, Michael Dukakis general election loss to George H.W. Bush in 1988, and Paul Tsongas failed primary bid against eventual Democratic President William J. Clinton in 1992. Of course one need only go back to 1960 when another famous Massachusetts liberal was successful in his White house bid, that being John Fitzgerald Kennedy. So history and geography can be effectively ruled out as reasons for this 'fight back' mentality, leaving just one possible reason to ponder for the outcry.

Liberalism, Liberalism, Liberalism. Here is the crux of the problem. One has to wonder why the Democrats feel that being labeled a liberal is a liability in a general election. Do they feel that their policies, philosophies, and ideologies are too far left of the mainstream? As I mentioned earlier, John Kerry made a point to claim he was mainstream, and that Bush and his administration was extreme after winning Washington and Michigan, but is this truly the case? According to "Americans for Democratic Action" John Kerry receives a higher lifetime liberal rating than Paul Tsongas and Ted Kennedy. Now that we know how liberals rank one of their own rank and file members, let us compare that with where mainstream Americans lay. According to a Gallup poll conducted from October through November of 2003, 41 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservative, 39 percent as moderates, and only 19 percent as liberal. This means that a better than two to one margin of 'mainstream Americans' are conservative over liberal, and a greater than four to one margin are to the right of John Kerry. As you can see, fighting back against this label means that Kerry and the Democrats are well aware that their vision for American is not the vision that mainstream America has for itself. Being a liberal politician means you have relatively few markets for success, and in a national race, it can spell defeat for those who do not attempt to pander to the true 'Mainstream America" and distance themselves from their own record and political ideology.

[Langenator]

Greyhound-you're right, the article is a bit biased, coming from a site that is obviously pro-Bush.

Democrats have the liberal label, IMO, because of the 1988 election. The GHWB campaign, led by the late Lee Atwater, succeeded in applying the Big L Liberal label to Dukakis, and Dukakis lost. Big time. They know what happens when a candidate gets that label stuck to him. Note that Clinton ran as a 'moderate,' and successfully defined himself as such during the campaign. We know what happened then. Kerry will have a tougher time doing that, except for the fact that most of the major media is de-facto unpaid Kerry campaign staff, because he's spent two decades in the Senate compiling an impressively liberal record.

As to why Democrats define themselves as 'mainstream' even when polls show they're not: They really do believe that they're mainstream. For the simple reason that all of their friends, and everyone they associate with voluntarily, is liberal like them. The famous quote from a (liberal) journalist after the 1972 election, "How could Nixon have won? Everyone I know voted against him!" sums it up pretty well.

[Langenator]

Greyhound-you're right, the article is a bit biased, coming from a site that is obviously pro-Bush.

Democrats hate the liberal label, IMO, because of the 1988 election. The GHWB campaign, led by the late Lee Atwater, succeeded in applying the Big L Liberal label to Dukakis, and Dukakis lost. Big time. They know what happens when a candidate gets that label stuck to him. Note that Clinton ran as a 'moderate,' and successfully defined himself as such during the campaign. We know what happened then. Kerry will have a tougher time doing that, except for the fact that most of the major media is de-facto unpaid Kerry campaign staff, because he's spent two decades in the Senate compiling an impressively liberal record.

As to why Democrats define themselves as 'mainstream' even when polls show they're not: They really do believe that they're mainstream. For the simple reason that all of their friends, and everyone they associate with voluntarily, is liberal like them. The famous quote from a (liberal) journalist after the 1972 election, "How could Nixon have won? Everyone I know voted against him!" sums it up pretty well.

[Shooter 2.5]

Kerry just voted against the two vicitims Bill which would convict a killer for harming a fetus. He's for abortion.
He's against guns.

His voting record is to the left of Teddy Kennedy, the swimmer.
The facts are in. No gun owner should vote for any dem at any level or at any time.

[Drjones]

He's neither a liberal nor a progressive.

He and his fellow leftists are all communists.

BTW, unfortunately I have to attend a fundraiser for him on monday.

I'll get to actually meet the communist himself. Forunately, I do not think he's going to lecture. *sigh* :(

[HBK]

I concur, they are all communists. Why on Earth do you have to go to a fundraiser for the POS though? Kerry, if elected, would act more like a king than a president. He already acts like he thinks he's royalty, better than us common folk. I see absolutely no alternative to voting for Bush in this election.

edited for spelling :o

[Standing Wolf]

That despicable Kerry creature is just another socialist parasite. He's going to lose in November—and deservedly so.

[Unlucky]

BTW, unfortunately I have to attend a fundraiser for him on monday.

:confused:

Did someone threaten you with pain of death not to go?

Be sure to wear some NRA or pro-2nd clothing.

[Drjones]

The funniest part of all of this is that leftists actually think kerry has a chance at winning.

Sorry, I do not believe the American People are quite so stupid as to elect someone like kerry who would in effect end the war on terror and allow our troops to be directed by the UN.

That issue of his alone is reason enough to place him into the looney-bin.

[Hkmp5sd]

I think he's more a Stalinist. He can flip-flop on any give subject in the blink of an eye. Every policy and position he takes is to make him look good and his opponent look bad. Facts, previous opinions and senate votes don't matter. He has an excuse to defend his past which appeases any offended party. He "fought" in Vietnam, but protested the war. He voted to attack Iraq, but not really. He voted against the increased funding to acquire body armor for troops, but voted "for" the increase the first time around (which he seems to be very proud of). He isn't going to "raise" taxes, but is going to "decrease" the tax cuts made by Bush.

The funniest part of all of this is that leftists actually think kerry has a chance at winning.
The scary part is he just *might* win. I didn't think anyone in this country was stupid enough to vote for Clinton. I was wrong twice.

[Mastrogiacomo]

Being from Massachusetts -- I know exactly what type of man Kerry is and can't stand either him or his wife. They're both clueless about what this state needs, never mind the country. This resident from Kennedy land is voting for Bush in November....

[WonderNine]

That despicable Kerry creature is just another socialist parasite. He's going to lose in November—and deservedly so.

That wouldn't surprise me one bit. I'll tell you, the very second I saw the likes of that degenerate idiot, I almost puked. I've been paying attention to this guy since 2002, because for some reason I just knew he would wind up being the democrat challenger.

I also predicted he would buy the democrat nomination, which he did.

[MeekandMild]

Kerry is a ladies tea club Marxist. He titillates dry old biddies with talk of the coming revolution so they won't have to sit at home with just the maid, butler and gardener while their husbands are out yachting.

[jimpeel]

John Kerry is NOT a liberal....
....he is a "progressive".The Progressive Party is the Socialist Party. When you hear the word "Progressive" used to describe a person's politics, they are saying they are a Socialist.

Vis-a-vis, Kerry is a Socialist.

Of course there's nothing new in that we didn't already know.

[Destructo6]

The Progressive Party is the Socialist Party. When you hear the word "Progressive" used to describe a person's politics, they are saying they are a Socialist.
Aye. Progressive = moving toward, but moving toward what and how do you know when you get there? I suspect that if a "progressive" were asked, a deer caught in the headlights look would be the response. However, "progressive" legislation appears to be little more than a rewording of the Communist Manifesto.

[johnr]

Just a regular guy like everyone else:

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1106287/posts
Time to do some damage to Kerry's base...
freerepublic and drudgereport

[greyhound]

Sorry, I do not believe the American People are quite so stupid as to elect someone like kerry who would in effect end the war on terror and allow our troops to be directed by the UN.

If Kerry does win it will have nothing to do with anything he says or does.
It will be because enough people hate Bush that they don't care who takes his place.

The media is doing their part, too.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

A progressive is actually a communist. What are they progressing to? The end of the road: state ownership of the means of production; from each his ability to each his need.

First we must finish the socialist path, and we are progressing through that phase.

I do not believe that sKerry knows what progessive means, or he does and is an excellent liar, or he does and thinks Americans are bascially stooopid.

[JohnBT]

Liberals rating Liberals on their voting record...

www.adaction.org/lifetimesenmassachusetts.html

Kerry's Lifetime Average is higher than Kennedy's.

John

[M1911]

I live in Massachusetts. Anyone who thinks Kerry isn't a gun-grabbing liberal is either a liar or a fool.

[w4rma]

Labels are a great way to avoid talking about the issues. Democrats would rather talk about the issues rather than hide behind a label. Labels can mean different things to different people.

Imho, a progressive is trying to progress towards more democracy, more balance between public and private interestes, more scientific advancement with more accessability for that technology to more people, more education, knowledge and understanding and more power to more individuals.

[Destructo6]

Labels are a great way to avoid talking about the issues. Democrats would rather talk about the issues rather than hide behind a label.
Nonsense, hence the entire "liberal" vs "progressive" debate within the Democratic party.
progress towards more democracy
Concentration of power in the public interest = communism. Robespierre would be proud of the Democrats.

[w4rma]

Interesting that you believe that democracy = Communism, Destructo6. Like I said, labels can mean different things to different people. Personally, I think Communism is very totalitarian in practice.

[mountainclmbr]

Most of them. Zell Miller does not seem to be. That is less than 1% at the national level for Dems.

When the state really owns everything and determines how much it will cost you for the state to allow you to keep some of your stuff for another year......to redistribute your wealth to those who will vote for them is...SOCIALISM. The next "progress" for those who want totalitarian control.....COMMUNISM. The opposition keeps it from being more obvious.

To environmentalists...does communism work in nature....or is it survival of the fittest?

The park rangers in Yellowstone will cite you for feading the bears...because they won't learn to fend for themselves. But the same reasoning is thrown out the window when it is applied to homo sapiens.

Socialists and Communists are only power hungry control freaks. How is that in any way related to freedom?

[JohnBT]

"Democrats would rather talk about the issues rather than hide behind a label."

Unfortunately, they usually talk about the wrong issues. If it walks like a duck...

John

[jimpeel]

Labels are a great way to avoid talking about the issues. Democrats would rather talk about the issues rather than hide behind a label. Labels can mean different things to different people.You mean like this?"These guys are the most crooked, you know ... lying group I've ever seen."
-- John Kerry, March 11, 2004.

[w4rma]

The Republican leadership supports the Patriot Act I and II. The Patriot Act I and II = totalitarianism. The Republican leadership supports totalitarianism.

… Viet Dinh (http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/vietdinh.htm), the former assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department. He helped draft the Patriot Act …
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terr...triot_8-19.html

…
In May 2001, with the appointment of Assistant Attorney General Viet D. Dinh (http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/vietdinh.htm), Attorney General John Ashcroft restored the name of the office as the Office of Legal Policy and confirmed its principal policy role within the Department.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/history.htm

A Chilly Response to 'Patriot II'
Feb. 12, 2003

Unlike its hastily passed predecessor, the Justice Department's wide-ranging follow-up to the Patriot Act of 2001 is already facing intense scrutiny, just days after a civil rights group posted a leaked version of the legislation on its website.

The legislation, nicknamed Patriot II, would broadly expand the government's surveillance and detention powers. Among other measures, it calls for the creation of a terrorist DNA database and allows the attorney general to revoke citizenship of those who provide “material support” to terrorist groups.

Privacy advocates said the bill “gutted the Fourth Amendment,” while prominent Democratic senators, including Patrick Leahy, ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, immediately chastised the administration for its secrecy.
…
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,57636,00.html

Patriot Act II Resurrected?
Aug. 21, 2003

Congress may consider a bill that not only expands the government's wiretapping and investigative powers but also would link low-level drug dealing to terrorism and ban a traditional form of Middle Eastern banking.

The draft legislation -- titled the Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act of 2003, or Victory Act -- includes significant portions of the so-called Patriot Act II, which faced broad opposition from conservatives and liberals alike and embarrassed the Justice Department when it was leaked to the press in February.

The Victory Act also seems to be an attempt to merge the war on terrorism and the war on drugs into a single campaign. It includes a raft of provisions increasing the government's ability to investigate, wiretap, prosecute and incarcerate money launderers, fugitives, "narco-terrorists" and nonviolent drug dealers. The bill also outlaws hawalas, the informal and documentless money transferring systems widely used in the Middle East, India and parts of Asia.

A June 27 draft of the bill, authored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/) (R-Utah) and co-sponsored by four fellow Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, has been circulating in Washington, D.C.
…
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60129,00.html

… link to a draft of the Victory Act (http://www.libertythink.com/VICTORYAct.pdf) (89 pages, pdf) …
http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/003693.html

[grampster]

The trouble with most Democrats is that they tend
to "talk" about issues. Correct. They just never do anything
about them except to create another government subsidized
socialist program that drowns everything in red ink, fraud and generally
makes everyone worse off that before. Democratic programs depend on people
being beholden to the government. Democrats are truly the divisive
party because they need victims to support their powerbase. They are the party
of discrimination, race baiting, diversity as a means of grabbing and holding
power, and the whole spectrum of the "nanny state". Conservatives may not
be pure, but at least they stand more for individualism; which built our country
and made is great. It is easier for me to avoid the greedy robber baron. It
is difficult to avoid the long arm of the State. You are never penalized for
not shopping at Standard Oil. Try not paying your taxes and see what happens.

[fallingblock]

and then. pow!

A ten paragraph cut-and-paste.:(

[WonderNine]

Oh poo poo, you couldn't be bothered to read that. :(

Too bad.

Imho, a progressive is trying to progress towards more democracy, more balance between public and private interestes, more scientific advancement with more accessability for that technology to more people, more education, knowledge and understanding and more power to more individuals.

w4rma IMO a "progressive" is a communist in disguise. I do not believe in tyranny of the majority.

[patentnonsense]

"Liberal" comes from Latin "liber," i.e. "free (rather than enslaved)";
it originally meant "having the virtues of a free man," e.g. generosity, integrity, courage.
This label seems hilariously inapplicable to e.g. Teddy Kennedy.
Perhaps "totalitarian" would be a better label.

To "conserve," on the other hand, means to save old things.
In our country the label "Conservative" seems hilariously inapplicable to a party which has taken away so many of our Constitutional guarantees. Perhaps "totalitarian" would be a better label for them too.

But wait, we can't have two "Totalitarian" parties!!

I know, let's label them "TotaliDEE" and "TotaliDUM" - we can flip a coin to see which group gets which label!

[fallingblock]

************************************************************
"Oh poo poo, you couldn't be bothered to read that.

Too bad."
************************************************************


but then I still don't know what w4rma has to say.:eek:

We want to encourage w4rma to formulate original thoughts and discuss them, not just subject us to cut-and-pastes from every "progressive" publication out there. :)



************************************************************
"Imho, a progressive is trying to progress towards more democracy, more balance between public and private interestes, more scientific advancement with more accessability for that technology to more people, more education, knowledge and understanding and more power to more individuals."
************************************************************


Thank you, w4rma. We can discuss that with some level of interaction.

Your opinion' list of "progressive" goals reads like the left's vague shopping list for the 'good of humanity'.

"More democracy"?
Is this to be with or without protection for minority rights?

"More balance between public and private interests"?
Could this mean bringing private assets into 'public' domain?

"More scientific advancement"?
The better to control those who do not conform?

"More education"
Quality of education is important; quantity without it is redundancy.

"More power to more individuals."
It would be helpful to know if this refers to individual freedom, or merely more "progressive" bureaucrats.

The goals are subject to interpretation, but just HOW the "progressive" proposes to attain them is fairly predictable.

Dollars to donuts the "progressive" approach involves taking wealth from those who have and 'giving' it to those deemed to be without.
Including lots of "progressives" along the path.:)

History has not demonstrated much success with that approach, and often an awful lot of folks who don't agree with the "progressives" lose their wealth, and even their lives.

(Stalin considered himself a "progressive")

Co-opting a name is easy. Changing hard-wired ideology is not.

Today's "progressives" are suspiciously similar in character to the socialists of not so long ago.:scrutiny:

[Sean Smith]

The Republican leadership supports the Patriot Act I and II. The Patriot Act I and II = totalitarianism. The Republican leadership supports totalitarianism.

Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, too. ;)

[Langenator]

w4rma, you're saying basically that Democrats are above labels? So I guess that's why Republicans always seem to have the label "conservative" attached to them by the media, while Democrats never seem to get any descriptive label at all?

[WonderNine]

Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, too.

I'm so surprised. No I'm in shock really....












I hope some more brainwashed lemmings post about how democrats are good and republicans are evil and that will really sway my vote from Lib to Dem in short order. In fact if somebody posts another Newsmax story I'm gonna vote Bush no questions asked. It's all up to you out there. Come on............











make the difference!!!!

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Wondernine,

I would attempt to purchase your soul and vote with a pithy but partisan "news" article, but I am busy with World Domination ;)

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Imho, a progressive is trying to progress towards more democracy, more balance between public and private interestes, more scientific advancement with more accessability for that technology to more people, more education, knowledge and understanding and more power to more individuals.

And based on YOUR definition of a progressive, who do you think is more progressive of the potential Presidential candidates? As noted, John Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, he voted for to heavily restrict private firearms ownership, he supported Campaign Finance reform, which is an abortion of the First Amendment.

Based on your definition, it looks like there are no progressive candidates running and John Kerry is the least progressive of the them all.

[Destructo6]

Interesting that you believe that democracy = Communism, Destructo6. Like I said, labels can mean different things to different people. Personally, I think Communism is very totalitarian in practice.
No, communism is the concentration of power in the government in the public good. You misunderstood what I said.

Robespierre once said, and I paraphrase, "The will of the people cannot be denied. If you are against the will of the people, you are the enemy. (Doesn't sound too bad so far.) A committee may act in the interest of the people in lieu of a general vote. How can it be determined that the committe truly acts in the will of the people? Simple, there is no dissent against the actions of the committe."

So, you may see that the committee represents the will of the people, whose decisions cannot be opposed.

This is the kind of "Democratic" thinking that is the basis of the Terror, Soviet purges, the Killing Fields, etc.

[TheEgg]

IMHO

The goal of "progressives" = "That which is not mandatory is forbidden."

[Russ]

Kerry will not be a liberal when monkeys fly out of my B***. W4rma, have you ever shot a gun? You never post anywhere but legal and political. Methinks thou art a TROLL.

[greyhound]

hide behind a label

Sounds like they're hiding FROM a label.

Once again, has "liberal" been polled or something as negative (in addition to Dukakis and the 1988 election)?

Even given the "not wanting to hide behind a label" stuff, why do Democrats go ape when called "liberals" but not "progressives"? Aren't they both labels?

Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, too.

Yeah, but that was when the smart thing to do was vote for it. Now he opposes it.:rolleyes:

[Sean Smith]

Yeah, but that was when the smart thing to do was vote for it. Now he opposes it.

But that's the definitive Kerry move: vote for something so you can oppose it later. :rolleyes:

[M1911]

Kerry is a gun grabber. His canned upland bird "hunt" during the primary no more makes him our friend than Clinton's duck "hunt" when he was a presidential candidate.

Kerry has voted for any gun control legislation that came before him. As president, he would sign any gun control legislation that reaches his desk and would shill for it as well.

He's a gun grabber and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.

[w4rma]

Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, too.Every Senator voted for the Patriot Act except for Sen. Russ Feingold, a Democrat.

A better policy to examine to determine where police state policy is coming from is the Patriot Act II. The Patriot Act II is being pushed by the right-wingers and opposed by most Democrats. Judges are only being nominated by Bush if they will uphold the Republican leadership's Patriot Acts.

I think it's whacked that folks here complain that government is getting more and more totalitarian and blaming this on liberals while the Republican Party has majority control of all three branches of government.

[JohnBT]

The problem is that we think that it would be worse with the DEMOCRATS in power. Am I speaking slowly enough? The concept is quite simple.

John

[Sean Smith]

The Patriot Act II is being pushed by the right-wingers and opposed by most Democrats.

So does that mean Kerry will, or won't, vote for it? Considering that he voted for the war (but not funding it once shots were fired at US forces), and for the Patriot Act (but now says it is bad)...?

:rolleyes:

I'm sure rasing gas taxes by $0.50 like he wanted to & raising taxes will improve the economy, too. :barf: