[lbo-talk] No, actually, I don't believe it.

Nathan Newman nathanne at nathannewman.org
Wed Nov 3 13:45:02 PST 2004


----- Original Message ----- From: "John Thornton" <jthorn65 at mchsi.com>
>Kerry had his weaknesses but he also had his strengths. He ran on a very
>progressive platform-- pro-union, anti-death penalty, pro-choice,
>pro-education-- with concrete goals to improve the lives of people we all
>care about. (Nathan Newman)

-"Very progressive"? Dude you made me blow iced tea out of my nose laughing -at this line. Give us a humor warning next time. Progressive next to Bush's -almost ultra reactionary platform sure but Kerry's platform was moderate -not "very progressive". (JT)

* Universal health care * Freedom to form unions, card check recognition * $5000 per student for college education in addition to Pell Grants * Ending workplace discrimination against gays and the disabled * Strong pro-environment record and policy

Folks repeat that Kerry isn't progressive, but his domestic policy was notably more progressive than what Clinton ran on and better than Gore's in many areas. And while history makes it hard to compare, it stacks up well with McGovern. Frankly, most of the left is as shallow as the voters they complain about. Because Kerry didn't have such a sterling presentation of self, they didn't bother to pay attention to what he was saying.

I guarantee that the DLC types will be mounting a campaign to say that the problem in 2004 was that Kerry was too liberal and the Dems should have nominated Lieberman or some more conservative governor or Senator.

Nathan Newman



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list