Point taken, Minty. My point was that my encounter with Salon.com was like my supermarket encounters with the National Enquirer: a flashy headline and lead-in, then ‘you either have to buy the magazine or jump through our hoops to get the rest.’
I’m sure you didn’t take it as a personal insult. I was stupid enough to respond to those who did.
Out of the mainstream?
Well, he wants to continue to allow partial birth abortions ( cite), which a majority of the American populace opposes ( (cite). He generally opposes the death penalty (cite), which most people support (cite). So on a couple of hot-button issues, he can fairly be described as “out of the mainstream”.
He tends to flip-flop a bit, which makes it difficult to characterize him as a consistent liberal. He supported SSI benefits for drug addicts in 1994, opposed “learnfare” and “workfare”, and opposed drug testing for welfare recipients (cite). On the other hand, he did vote in favor of the 1996 Republican welfare reform bill, as it was an election year for him and he realized how popular the bill was. Same for his votes to authorize the invasion of Iraq, in favor of the Patriot Act, and so forth.
He tends to run with the Democratic herd. If you want to call that being “in the mainstream”, then he is in the mainstream.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not sure I agree that “mainstream” is defined in this context as “always with the majority.” I would characterize both support for and opposition to the death penalty as being “mainstream” positions, even though supporters of the death penalty are more numerous than its opponents, because the numbers are not overwhelming on either side.
Interestingly, the cite you provide has two statistics, which I find both telling and disturbing: the May 2004 poll suggests that 71% of respondents favored the death penalty, even though a mere 55% believed that the penalty is administered “fairly” and 39% said they believed it was adminsitered “unfairly” today.
Based on this apparent equivocation, I’d hesitate to call opposition to the death penalty a position out of the mainstream.
Then pretty much any non-tinfoil hat position would be “mainstream”. I was interpreting “mainstream” as meaning “in accordance with a fairly substantial majority” because pretty much any other definition is unmeasurable.
Mainstream = defensible? I suppose, but then this does not distinguish him from Bush (or anyone else). Mainstream = correct? Not particularly useful except as a partisan exercise. Mainstream = not shielded by extreme wealth from the consequences of one’s positions? Also not useful, as it also applies to Hollywood limousine liberals, Charlton Heston, and George Bush himself. And therefore it is just as incorrect to accuse Kerry of being out of the mainstream based on his wives’ wealth as it is for Democrats to do the same to Bush based on his family’s money.
If the question of the OP is “are any of Kerry’s position completely insane?”, then no. He isn’t Lyndon LaRouche. Does he disagree with the majority in some instances? Yes, he does. This doesn’t automatically make him wrong, but it is a factor to be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to vote for him.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, so do Republicans. They explicitly kept out the “with the exception of the health of the mother” clause knowing that it would be struck down by the courts and that Democrats would be forced to vote against it without that clause. They could have had a real ban on elective late-term abortions. Instead they chose politics… in order that people like you could slam Kerry in election year.
Cherry-picking a few issues with no balance is nonsense: it would be easy to show Bush as well outside the mainstream using the exact same tactic. What about his policies on jobs, healthcare, security, etc: all the other major issues? If people voted on abortion and the death penalty alone, then Congress would be overwhelmingly Republican. But they clearly don’t: which means you didn’t even pick issues representative of what people consider important.
Shouldn’t the President of the United States be our leader and not simply the embodiment of the lowest common denominator?
And what’s all this about “elites”? Much of the time the term refers to the children of wealth and privledge who are used to getting everything they want, but increasingly the term refers to someone who has expertise in a particular area, so therefore somehow they are wrong.
Well, that’s a pretty silly statement.
I have trouble with the notion that Republicans “really” want to continue to allow PBAs by passing laws against it.
Democrats are only “forced” to vote to continue PBAs because one of their most reliable constituent groups - feminists - treat abortion as the eighth sacrament. Democrats could easily vote to outlaw PBAs, but for radical feminists, this is a make-or-break issue.
Oh, I slam people who support PBAs all the time, not just elections.
But no ban that includes the stuff about protecting the “health” of the mother is going to be a real ban. For a lot of doctors, “health” in this context is essentially the same as “desire”. So Republicans tried to actually get legislation passed which would achieve what they want. Democrats voted against it, because it didn’t do what they want. It ain’t just the Republicans who are playing politics. It is kind of dumb to blame Republicans for “forcing” Democrats to vote against their measures.
Perhaps you noticed that the House, Senate, and White House are all in Republican hands?
There is certainly a bloc of people who vote on one issue alone - some pro-lifers, and some radical feminists among them. But not everyone, certainly.
I don’t recall saying that these were the only issues, or that Kerry is out of the mainstream on everything. Is that what you thought I said?
Regards,
Shodan
Perhaps that just means Republicans are better at stealing elections?
Shodan, the two pictures of Kerry as hardcore liberal and flip-flopping populist / opportunist are pretty contradictory, aren’t they? I mean, if he’s out to impose dramatically liberal policies, why are you ragging him for changing his mind? Or conversely, if he’s changing his mind so often to fit popular opinion, how can he keep up the “most liberal in the Senate” position?
How can you use both the images of Kerry at once?
Well, as far as I’m concerned, being the presidential candidate for one of the two major parties pretty much does make you “mainstream”. It guarantees that you wil not be taking unpopular or unusual positions, and that you have policies that appeal to a good 40% or more of voters. So Kerry is mainstream, Bush is mainstream, and most candidates for the last couple of decades have been.
Except for Jimmy Carter. He’s history’s greatest monster.
Not sure what your implication is here. Can you clarify?
Are you saying that the president **should ** be “outside of the mainstream”? If so, how could he ever be elected? Are people supposed to vote for someone with whom the disagree on the majority of issues?
They sure don’t seem in any rush to actually do anything. They make quite a lot of noise about it, but can you really claim that they have been all that interested in passing what legislation they can that will actually stop abortions? Why not allow the simple exception that would have allowed it to avoid a strikedown on the basis of RvW and Casey? Maybe because, as Republicans that aren’t you often freely admit, it would mobilize scary “radical feminists” so much that this surely fringe minority would somehow have an affect on their re-elections?
The reality is, even if you want to avoid it, is that if they had gone after trimester instead of a particular proceedure, and made the exception for the life of the mother, the bill really would have had much broader support. The radical feminists were up in arms because the bill was so deliberately vauge as to potentially affect all abortions. You can call them radical all you want, but this was certainly a fair concern, and if one was concerned about taking steps to actually prevent abortions, instead of just LOOK concerned about it, you might simply be simple and clear and targeted.
Amusing. Just like the people who rush to the polls to elect Republicans whenever a female pop star kisses another female pop star, and those Republicans promptly lower the tax rates on pop stars. Keeps the merry-go-round rolling!
This is the law we’re talking about, not the doctor’s discretion. Elective vs. health related abortions aren’t generally hard to distinguish. And if the issue is so important, why not start by banning elective abortions and then if that doesn’t work, just expand things next week? As you say, they have a majority in both Houses and the White House. Yet, curiously, no ban on even late term abortions has materialized, even one that is partially effective would still save countless lives.
Perhaps you forgot this when you were claiming that Republicans are big heroes who get things done for the mainstream on abortion?
Luckily, I don’t have “remember” anything.
Shodan: “Out of the mainstream? Well…”
some purported examples, presumably addressing the question. Some discussion of how it’s hard to say exactly whether he is or isn’t because --talking point error-- and then a general conclusion: “He tends to run with the Democratic herd. If you want to call that being “in the mainstream”, then he is in the mainstream.”
If you weren’t discussing whether Kerry was or wasn’t out of the mainstream, you sure did a pretty darn good imitation of it.
To be fair, I don’t see that that cite addresses the obvious counter-argument: that Republicans may have had superior Get out the Vote programs, which are perfectly legal but increase turnout rather than percentage (which is what pre-election polls generally measure). A more reliable measure of stolen elections would be a difference between counted votes and well-conducted exit polls.
A more relevant question would be, how is Kerry politically positioned relative to, say, Bill Clinton? Who spent his whole administration trying to be a centrist, pro-business Democrat, and who gave us NAFTA, welfare “reform,” etc. How would Kerry be a similar president, and how would he be different?
Have you all read the latest study on the American mainstream?
I think we’re having our ideas stolen…
Well, in his early ads Kerry was swaggering around with a shotgun, telling us what a great dove hunter he was, and telling us that although he’s not looking to be the NRA’s candidate, he sure would be protecting the Second amendment.
However, his voting record over the past 16 years or so shows him voting against second-amendment issues (i.e., that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”), including trying to ban ammo for deer hunting (while the State of Virginia is currently overrun with wild deer; more deer are killed by cars than by hunters, and the deer are killing people in accidents, too.)
But of course this just addresses lambchops’ questions of contradictory behavior, and of John Kerry having two images at once. Seems like JK’s got that wired.
However, is this ‘out of the mainstream?’ Not so far as politics is involved. Politicians have been talking out of both sides of their mouth while keeping a straight face for time immemorial, or some such. Puts him right in the political mainstream.
S¬
Just for the record, how about a citation? Just ordinary old rifle bullets or shotgun slugs or something that might be just a little bit different? Deer a public menace in Virginia? Holding up convenience stores, are they?
I love it when gun nuts try to portray deer as some sort of cataclysmic menace to society.
Well, you know what? I didn’t happen to archive all the news articles I read lately. If you’re not too lazy you can go to Google and enter “deer” overpopulation and come up with hundreds of references, like this one and there’s tons more where they come from.
As for John kerry’s voting record, that’s a matter of public record. Don’t tell me youi’re pro-kerry and don’t know his voting record!
Gun nuts?
Do we have another ASSumption without basis here?
I am not a gun nut.
I do not believe in killing animals.
I do not own a single firearm.
Try to portray deer as a cataclysmic menace? What? Are you NUTS?!?
I said deer are overpopulated, and that more deer are killed by cars than by guns.
That’s a matter of verifyable fact.
Your portrayal of me is a knee-jerk reaction of emotional content and political bias. It has no basis in reality and no place in Great Debates.
Get a grip.
Dude, I apologize, chill out. You did say deer were “killing people.” I thought sounded a little over the top. You also complained about alleged 2nd amendment infringements so I jumped to a conclusion. You sounded like my brother-in-law, (a real gun nut) for a second. Mea culpa, man. I didn’t mean to hit a nerve.