Firstly, I voted for Kucinich last night. After a review of his politics, I seemed to agree with him on a lot. Chuck had sent along an interesting link to a graph of the political compass of each candidate based on statements and voting record. A look at that graph makes clear what can also be seen in the statements of these candidates. They are nearly all pretty authoritative, which irks the hell out of me. Also, they’re right-leaning on the fiscal issues as well. (Look - Edwards shows up as to the right and above Joe Lieberman!)
There doesn’t seem to be much balance there, so I represented my views with a vote for Kucinich in the primary. Be that as it may, Kerry is the clear winner now.
Time to support the nominee, folks. Send money if you can. If you really disagree with the direction Bush is taking the country (Do you need reasons? We got reasons) now is the time to start making yourself heard.
Expect lots of attacks on Kerry which paint him as contradicting himself. It’s clear the early Bush surrogate efforts think they have a winner in plastering Kerry with an image of hypocrisy.
Steve (no Bush supporter, he) posts a bit about Kerry taking campaign money from companies like the ones he complains about. (Steve is a conservative, so we’ll disagree a lot down the road. But we bother agree it’s time to boot Bush)
I’d like to address the issue of Kerry taking money for his campaign. A Democratic candidate is at a huge disadvantage monetarily when up against this incumbent Republican president. The president has the power to focus the news to himself any day he likes. He’s got an immense campaign war chest (I’ve seen figures from 100 to 175 million dollars).
Does this put Kerry above criticism? No, it doesn’t. However, the story I refer to above talks about $370,000 coming from companies that have shipped jobs overseas, a practice Kerry has hammered on the campaign trail.
Bush railed against steroids in his State of the Union address. Is it time to hunt down all of the money he’s getting from people who benefit from the use of steroids (individuals, athletes, teams, media conglomerates)? Should he give all that money back?
If someone can come up with a way to do that, let’s go for it. But I think it’s a waste of time. It reminds me of a previous criticism of Kerry that didn’t fly—his acceptance of special interest money. In one context, he’s the greatest recipient of special interest money among the Democratic candidates. In another context he’s the lest recipient among his peers—the Senate. In my mind, he gets credit for criticizing an entrenched system he doesn’t like and trying to minimize its impact on his candidacy.
You’ll probably hear a good deal of criticism of Kerry from me (especially once he gets into office). But these criticisms make me think that “Massachusetts Liberal” is actually going to be an elevation of the debate.
It’s a long, bumpy road to November, folks.Posted by James at March 3, 2004 6:59 PM