Kerry Plans Effort to Show He Is a Centrist

[POA]

Published on Friday, April 16, 2004 by the New York Times
Kerry Plans Effort to Show He Is a Centrist
by Jodi Wilgoren


EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J., April 15 — Declaring that he is "not a redistribution Democrat," Senator John Kerry told a group of wealthy and well-connected supporters on Thursday that he would soon start an aggressive campaign to define himself as a centrist, in hopes of peeling moderate Republicans from President Bush.

Tacitly acknowledging his vulnerability to harsh portrayals in a barrage of Mr. Bush's advertisements over the past month, Mr. Kerry urged Democrats at a $25,000-a-plate breakfast at the "21" Club in Manhattan to help him paint his own portrait. He promised to begin "a positive affirmative advertising campaign" in "the next days," although his aides said there were no specific plans or timetables.

"A lot of people still don't really know who I am," Mr. Kerry, a four-term Massachusetts Democrat who has everything but the official title of presidential nominee, told the audience of 100 people. "The level of communication that we still need to undertake here is enormous."

Most reporters were barred from the event, which netted $2.5 million for the Democratic National Committee. A transcript of Mr. Kerry's remarks circulated by a journalist allowed in to represent reporters who travel with the campaign showed a candidate keenly aware of the need to define himself before his opponent beats him to it.

Mr. Kerry said he would cite his bipartisan credentials and pitch himself as a fiscal conservative to counter the Bush campaign's portrait of him as a waffling tax-and-spend liberal.

"We've got to reach out," Mr. Kerry said. "There are so many Republicans who have said to me: `You know, for the first time in my life, I'm going to vote for a Democrat. I'm ready to switch over.' "

He noted that Reagan Democrats were a critical faction in the 1980's but that Democrats like President Jimmy Carter had trouble attracting Republican votes.

"Fear not," Mr. Kerry said. "I am not somebody who wants to go back and make the mistakes of the Democratic Party of 20, 25 years ago. Nor am I somebody who believes that Washington has all the answers."

Calling the Bush administration "the most my-way-or-the-highway group of people I've ever met in my life," Mr. Kerry pointed to his relationship with Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and suggested that bipartisanship would be crucial to his appeal. Mr. Kerry promised he would not run a "mealy-mouthed" or "namby-pamby campaign."

"Their goal is to define me and make me unacceptable," he said. "Our goal has to be to keep that acceptability."

Asked about appealing to married women concerned about terrorism, Mr. Kerry expressed concern that Mr. Bush would make his antiterror effort the overwhelming theme of his quest for re-election and said, "We have to convince America of my ability to be able to manage that as effectively, or more effectively, if possible."

"Home base for George Bush in this race, as you saw to the nth degree in his press conference, is terror," Mr. Kerry said. "Ask him a question, and he's going to go to terror."

The chairman of Mr. Bush's campaign, Marc Racicot, said in a statement, "Today's reckless allegation by Senator Kerry that the president is overemphasizing the threat of terror demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the global war on terror and the threat facing America and the world."

The "21" Club breakfast, at 8 o'clock, began a day in which Mr. Kerry spent little time in public with voters. He flew from New York to Washington for a private meeting with Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick and tacked on a last-minute forum at Howard University, which drew 150 students for an hourlong exchange. Mr. Kerry took his private jet to New Jersey, for a fund-raiser here that aides expected to raise $1.5 million. The schedule called for him to fly to his wife's house in western Pennsylvania.

At Howard, Mr. Kerry received tepid applause, particularly on questions about race. The topics included reparations for slavery (Mr. Kerry is opposed, but said so only after meandering paragraphs about lynching, Jim Crow, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and affirmative action), Haiti ("to some degree Aristide became what he preached against") and how he would appeal to African-American voters (he said he thought blacks cared about the same issues as everyone else).

A spokesman for Mr. Kerry, David Wade, would not discuss Mr. Kerry's 45-minute meeting with Cardinal McCarrick, who leads a church panel force on whether there should be sanctions against Roman Catholic politicians like Mr. Kerry whose positions on issues like abortion go against church doctrine.

© Copyright 2004 Associated Press

[karpomrx]

"appealing to married women concerned about terrorism..."
Praise the Almighty! At last an issue of real substance!
The dems are shoo-ins with this sort of grass roots politicing, there is simply no way to top the brilliance that is offered to the electorate by this candidate!
My wife will sleep easier once Kerry is able to right the ship of state.

[Moses]

Yes. This shows how well-orchestrated with the Party and the media this move to the right and we are just like Israel putsch is.

Polls have shown that women are NOT concerned about "security" . It WAY down on their list of concerns. But the Democratic (Israeli operative) Pollsters, tried to promote the idea that this was the primary, vote-getting concern of the female demographic.

It is a lie.

And it demonstrates, again, that their interest is not in winning the election, but in consolidating their power over and transformation of, the Democratic Party to be a fiefdom of the Israel lobby.

I think their success is 100%.

[Moses]

This is horrifying:


At Howard, Mr. Kerry received tepid applause, particularly on questions about race. The topics included reparations for slavery (Mr. Kerry is opposed, but said so only after meandering paragraphs about lynching, Jim Crow, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and affirmative action), Haiti ("to some degree Aristide became what he preached against") and how he would appeal to African-American voters (he said he thought blacks cared about the same issues as everyone else).

[POA]

Moses said:

This is horrifying:


At Howard, Mr. Kerry received tepid applause, particularly on questions about race. The topics included reparations for slavery (Mr. Kerry is opposed, but said so only after meandering paragraphs about lynching, Jim Crow, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and affirmative action), Haiti ("to some degree Aristide became what he preached against") and how he would appeal to African-American voters (he said he thought blacks cared about the same issues as everyone else).

Assuming that there is an election this November, Kerry might be in for a nice big unpleasant surprise from black voters with comments like this.

I'm just waiting for Black Commentator to lambaste him specifically.

[Moses]

I don't think that anyone will feel compelled to vote for him. A sense of ambivalence doesn't help one make the effort to get to the polls and put up with what one has to put up with there these days.

[spikeb]

heh. kerry is going to end up just as bad as clinton was, if elected.

[Moses]

Oh no-- Kerry is much much worse. Clinton was brilliant and understood the issues and had fresh policy ideas.

Kerry is a privilidged brat who knows and understands little if anything. Sort of like Bush only not a psychopath. A Sociopath, perhaps.

I think anyone who has been in a vile Ivy League secret society like they have should be declared unfit for office.

[Ropegun]

Clinton was no better than the reeps for the average person, regardless of the few bones he threw them.

He's still the reason the corporations send jobs outside the U.S. He was just as complicit in Iran-Contra as Ollie North. He too allowed some people I knew to get their asses shot off in Somalia. He bombed the crap out of the Balkans. He laid the groundwork for the patriot act.

Clinton did little worth remembering as president to anyone other than his wife and his own corporate buddies.

This is why I keep saying dems and reeps are no different. When you get past the fluff, they all do the same things, and that is protect themselves and screw the little guy.

Kerry has proven he will be no different. And this is why the dems don't represent the left, regardless of the lip service they pay.


Peace.

[Moses]

That's true-- Clinton seems to have accomplished some things for Alan Greenspan, who has now shown his true colors and betrayed his country, as one economist said.

But I think Kerry is even worse.

[Ropegun]

I agree with you Moses. I believe the "Democratic" party is not representative of anybody but the wealthy, just like the reeps.
Kerry is not fit to lead. At least he's not fit to lead me. Silver Star he may have, but that does'nt make leadership. It just shows he was lucky, once upon a time.
Since then, he's jacked his constituency around, and has'nt been called on it. This is in no way saying monkeyboy Bush is any better. It's merely saying that they just use a different label to distinguish themselves. But change the label all you want, it's still the same product.
My question is what to do about it. We all know we are'nt being represented by those elected to represent us. Our voice, as a growing number of people who are learning that our government cannot be trusted, is ignored, both by our government, and those that put them there.
We need to find ways of changing the situation, as opposed to just ranting about it.
I like POA's Constitution, but we can't do anything about that with no real power. So how do we get that power? What actions can we take to make our voices heard? Boycotts? Strikes? Protests?
I think most of these ideas have been tossed around, and we've seen the results of many thousands protesting here and abroad. So maybe a change of tactics is in order?
Any suggestions?

[karpomrx]

The sense of futility that can come with being out of step with the majority opinion is nothing new to anyone here, I'm sure.
We must rely upon the facts, the facts will not change no matter what the fuhrer says. We must avoid any action that can be seen as violent. The fascists know that game too well, and will slaughter any who dare to raise a hand against them.
We can rely upon the growing failures of an archaic social organisation which is not able to keep up with the speed with which people can now exchange information, we can rely upon the brutal giant which is the old order to stomp blindly about as it's base is erroded by informed persons.
We can rely upon the decency which is part of all people , that decency which urges us to do the right thing, whether it is to help a crying child, or give aid at an accident. Most people are not monsters, most people want to be happy, most people want a better world for their children.
Violence is the final resource of the incompetent.

[POA]

This is kind of a tricky post to write because it's an attempt to respond to both previous posters simoultaneously. The reason why I'm writing it this way is because I think (as much of a contradiction as this might sound) that both of you are actually right.

With that being said:

karpomrx: You've said that we should avoid any action that can be seen as violent. At the same time, what if any action we take, no matter how well behaved we are, is seen as violent and reacted against violently?

I would also like to point out that if the Iraqis, in Iraq, weren't willing to be violent against the American occupation government there right now, the neoconservatives/Israel firsters probably would have moved on to Syria, Iran, et cetera, and also finished preparing for the 'transfer' (violent expulsion) of the remaining Palestinians to Jordan. That's what they've planned in writing years before they ever had the opportunity to do anything about it. If we can't get our own government to stop doing these things and we're American citizens through the political system, what chance do they have getting our government to listen through the political system when they're not American citizens?

I don't think that violence is the last resource of the incompetent, as much as it's the last resource. If all of us get killed, then that troubles American conservatives not a bit. In the minds of secular neoconservatives, it demonstrates our pseudo-Darwinian 'unfitness', and in the minds of religious neoconservatives, it demonstrates that we weren't chosen by god. They're never going to have a moment of conscience or regret about what they've done.

Look at their reactions to the revolution in Iraq. It isn't the suffering of Iraqis and Americans that they care about-it's that their plan didn't work.

ropegun:

I can't say (yet) that I have a strategy worked out. (Although believe me, I'm working on it). At the same time, I think that what needs to happen is that:

1) Boycotts need to be tied to the development of local alternatives. (ie, it's not enough to act against something, we have to act for a course of action as well).

2) Protests (as well as any other actions that might be taken) don't need to be aimed at changing the minds of politicians any more, because we know at this point that their minds can't be changed. They know what's happening but they don't give a d**n because their pockets have been lined by the crony capitalists. Instead, it might be more fruitful to try and change the minds of people who either don't know what's going on or are being ground down by a system that teaches them that nothing they do matters.

3) Part of the reason why the Iraqi revolution against the American occupation is (or at least seems to be so far) succeeding is because the actions of the people who are fighting against our government there are in a context that most Iraqis can understand. They know exactly what our government is doing to them because it's obvious.

The context has to be built first, otherwise the oppressors are going to fill it in for everyone.

[karpomrx]

Right on the money,POA.
I was carried away by a flight of fancy in which I allowed my wishes to over-ride my judgement.
There can be no dispute from me that conscientious behavior tends to be self eliminating in a society that is driven by desire for immediate gain.
Iwas active in the teach-ins against the war in "Nam and I remember having a sense that the people who were curious already had strong doubts about the truth that was being fed to them by the usual suspects.
The most effective way to reach those who may be persuaded to rock the boat is, as you pointed out, to give them options in which they can effect their own lives. Many types of options are all directed toward personal happiness and self determination. The energy systems, recycling, healthy food and many more. All of these lead people to control over their community, and from there to change the whole.
My fear of violence is learned, I cannot fault those who take up arms against invaders and by resisting, try to influence events. I am sceptical of any firebrand that wants to lead "the masses" in an armed revolt against the state. I have yet to be chastised by a would be dictator on this site. It's refreshing.

[Ropegun]

karpomrx said:

Right on the money,POA.
I was carried away by a flight of fancy in which I allowed my wishes to over-ride my judgement.
There can be no dispute from me that conscientious behavior tends to be self eliminating in a society that is driven by desire for immediate gain.
Iwas active in the teach-ins against the war in "Nam and I remember having a sense that the people who were curious already had strong doubts about the truth that was being fed to them by the usual suspects.
The most effective way to reach those who may be persuaded to rock the boat is, as you pointed out, to give them options in which they can effect their own lives. Many types of options are all directed toward personal happiness and self determination. The energy systems, recycling, healthy food and many more. All of these lead people to control over their community, and from there to change the whole.
My fear of violence is learned, I cannot fault those who take up arms against invaders and by resisting, try to influence events. I am sceptical of any firebrand that wants to lead "the masses" in an armed revolt against the state. I have yet to be chastised by a would be dictator on this site. It's refreshing.

Conscientious behavior is disregarded by the powers that be because it does'nt really pose them any kind of threat. At least peaceful protest does'nt. So peaceful, lawful protest goes unheeded and is merely marginalized by those in power, and those that support them.
For protest to be effective, it must challenge the policy makers on a more tangible level than just ideologically. It has to take something from them, and cause a disruption in their lives to an extent. This is why all the protests before and during the war (Iraq) have made no difference in the thinking of the neocons.
During the WTO protests here, the cops came down hard due to violence on the part of a certain element of those protesting. And those were the people who made the meeting fail, and move away from Seattle.
The law abiding protesters made little impact on those participating because they allowed the attendees of the conference to go about their business in normal fashion. It was'nt until elements of protesters started damaging property downtown that the conference stopped and the party moved on.
And thats when it became imperative for the police to become violent against the protesters.
The same happened when the war in Iraq started last year. Everything was cool until the marchers, myself included, took a different route than what was specified by the police through downtown. When we made it clear that we would'nt be intimidated by cops with grenade launchers and automatic weapons, and began to defy them by blocking streets, impeding the people who wanted to shop and what not, and therefore started ruining a days commerce, the police cracked down. It wasn't until it was clear that we wanted to disrupt the livelyhoods of the rich that anything was done on the part of the police. That was when they started the beatings and hog-tying.
My point with all this is that violence takes more than one form. And violence is a viable tool, and may be the only tool, that can be used to make a point against a government that only understands violence.
I'm not by any means saying people should go out and commit acts of violence against others.
I'm saying that you have to look at all options and use your tools judiciously. You would'nt use a sledge hammer to set a finish nail in your cabinets. Nor would you use a rubber mallet to break a concrete slab.
As far as convincing others as to the problems of our government, I think there are basically 3 kinds of people. Those that think everything is fine as is, and that the system is working, those who think the system is broken and must be fixed, and those that llie somewhere in between.
Identifying those in between is, I believe, the crux. And I believe they are far fewer than we realize. When you go to places like SC, where everyone claims to be a progressive lefty, and all they do is rant about Nader stealing Kerry's votes, and that Kerry is the key to fixing the broken system, you have to come to the conclusion that those people are not on your side. Thats the conclusion I came to, at any rate.
So something has to be offered to people that they can get behind, and it has to be presented in a way that shows them that it will have a positive impact on their lives. Anything else is just a vague idea to them and will be forgotten about five minutes after you tell them. They have to be shown that if they take Path A then this will be the result, and Path B gives this result. And it has to apply to their day to day existence. This goes both for those you want to join us, as well as those you oppose. They have to feel it in some tangible way.
The masses don't need to be lead into a revolution in this country. The masses won't follow. The masses are'nt even necessary. A handful can do it, if they are committed.

Anyway, enough pontificating.

Peace, my freinds.