What Kerry Should Promise America

I'm interested in what people think of the following proposal for the Kerry campaign:

What Kerry Should Promise America
The Cafe Elaine blog makes the following proposal, a ten-point plan, for the John Kerry for President campaign.    

Kerry should promise the American people that, as President, he will:

-- Own up to his mistake in voting for the Patriot Act, saying that never in his wildest dreams did he believe it would be abused to the extent it has in John Ashcroft's hands.  He should promise a repeal of that Act except for the provisions that are essential to protecting the United States against terrorism, and those should remain only with appropriate checks on law enforcement power.

[See extended copy for the rest.]

Kerry should promise the American people that, as President, he will:

-- Own up to his mistake in voting for the Patriot Act, saying that never in his wildest dreams did he believe it would be abused to the extent it has in John Ashcroft's hands.  He should promise a repeal of that Act except for the provisions that are essential to protecting the United States against terrorism, and those should remain only with appropriate checks on law enforcement power.

-- Investigate abuses of the Patriot Act, with legal action against the perpetrators and expungement of records on citizens based on their political activity.

-- Reform No Child Left Behind so that it accomplishes the goals he had in mind when he voted for the law enacted in 2001.

-- In addition to his already stated intention of rolling back tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, mandate a comprehensive study of the tax code with the aim of restoring fairness in our entire federal tax system.

-- Make the government once again accountable to the people.

-- Reverse the current policy of making the facts fit the objectives and of ignoring valid science that doesn't support a political agenda.

-- Charge the Justice Department with a review of whether corporate ownership of the media violates anti-trust laws and, further, to reduce the percentage of ownership in a single market allowed by one corporation.

-- Find and prosecute Ken Lay.

-- Underscore his understanding that the President is a public servant, that when he speaks in cities across America, dissenters will not be herded off to "free speech zones" or banned from hearing him speak.

-- Give Americans a sense of real pride in our country by bringing out our finest qualities and reminding us and the world that we, as a people, are not properly reflected in the closed-minded arrogance that is the Bush administration.

http://home.earthlink.net/~silver-foot

•  Until Kerry owns up to his mistake

  of supporting the resolution which authorized this war, I am committed to doing everything humanly possible to see him defeated. He needs to acknowledge that simple reality- his vote was a mistake. No blaming it on Bush 'messing it up'- kerry needs to accept responsibility. I don't want to hear him say he was 'misled' or tricked. hundreds of thousands, even millions of Americans, many on this website, knew better than to back this war. he can't blame the lack of allies. he must admit his mistake.

  by Mike from NJ on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 10:35:16 PM PDT

  •  Really?

    The war in Iraq makes you so angry that you'd work to bolster its chief architect as long as you took down one people who voted to authorize it?

    I mean I want Kerry to apologize for that vote too.  But "do everything that's possible to defeat him"?  

    by ChicagoDem on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 11:00:50 PM PDT

    •  He's a freeper

      read his comments and don't feed the troll like I am right now.

      by Gearhead on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 11:38:14 PM PDT

      •  Yeah

        His sig also applies to Karl Rove.

        I supported Howard Dean, but even Dean would have invaded had the evidence and the international support been there.

        by Ptolemy on Sun Jun 13, 2004 at 12:03:17 AM PDT

  •  To what purpose?

    Kerry's vote was based on the idea that he was getting straight info and that Bush would go to the UN, as he promised.

    I still wish he hadn't voted as he did. More, I wish Dick Gephardt had allowed the House Dems (and some GOP allies) to fight the resolution. That, to me, is a bigger problem.

    But, even if we all accept that Kerry's vote was a horrible choice, what is the practical or moral value of seeing him defeated? 4 more years of Bush? What are you working towards?

    by Bill Rehm on Sun Jun 13, 2004 at 07:44:01 AM PDT

    •  My anger at Kerry is b/c he sold out

      He told democrats around the country that their opinion didn't matter. He sold out to Karl Rove, to Tom Delay, and George W. Bush. When it was time to confront the most important issues that face our  elected leaders, war and peace, there is no more important decision. Kerry decided to tell his constituents, and democrats around the country, that their voices were irrelevant. Let Kerry get demolished by Bush. I'm not going to back Kerry until he realizes his mistake. If he sold out democrats (many of which, on this site and outside of it) marched in the streets of this country in October of 2002, what in the world makes you think he won't do so again?

      by Mike from NJ on Sun Jun 13, 2004 at 12:14:25 PM PDT

      •  Sold out?

        Who, exactly, bought him? You're saying BushCo and DeLay did? Sure doesn't look like it now.

        Kerry didn't agree with those of us who protested the second Iraq War. We were right. He was (and is) wrong.

        But you only have 3 choices: back Kerry, sit it out, or back Bush. Which does the most damage to the country and the Constitution?

        by Bill Rehm on Mon Jun 14, 2004 at 07:52:28 AM PDT

  •  Dean and Kerry were virtual clones in Oct 2002

    ... when the Iraq War Powers Resolution vote went down.

    The "anti-war" Dean was a revisionist campaign thematic.

    Among other recap's, see the Howler, or Spinsanity ... or do your own research on "Howard Dean" and "Biden-Lugar".

    by RonK Seattle on Sun Jun 13, 2004 at 07:55:56 AM PDT

•  Kerry's votes....

  have been all over the map.

  What he needs to do is lay out some sort of coherent vision that envelopes all of his positions, if such a thing is possible.

  Also, look to the past two-term Presidents for guidance.

  Clinton and Reagan: Cheerful, Youthful (at least at heart), funny, optimistic.

  Eisenhower: used his biography, but didn't abuse it. Extremely intelligent, but not pedantic.

  FDR: bold vision, not afraid to say government intervention can help solve people's problems.

  Truman: Honest, direct, sincere, and bi-partisan.

  by Jonathan4Dean on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 10:56:53 PM PDT

•  No draft

  Pull out of Iraq and vow not to start up the draft.

  by Gearhead on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 11:36:48 PM PDT

•  Why would I want Kerry

  to make a bunch of empty or false promises?

  He chose not to disown his vote on the Iraq resolution in spite of Henry Waxman and John Dean pointing out it how to do it.  Unfortunately, admitting an error seems not to come any more easily to Kerry than it does to GWB.

  The problem I continue to have with Kerry is that he wants to be POTUS.  That's his goal.  All the policy/agenda stuff is so secondary to him that when he talks about it, it doesn't resonate because he's not committed to any of it.

  Even Clinton was wise enough to know that he needed a signature issue before entering the race.  Unfortunately he didn't have a clue as to how he was going to accomplish it and that's why twelve years later no progress has been made on national healthcare.  Lucky for him Perot defined the economy issue and Clinton added that and took full credit for doing nothing more than getting a tax increase passed.

  Any "vision thing" that Kerry adopts now may be worse than having none because it will be perceived as inauthentic, a campaign PR device.  (That was the problem I had with Edwards "Two Americas.")

  Give Americans a sense of real pride in our country...

  This is Kerry we're speaking of and if there is one thing he is not, it is inspiring.      

  by Marie on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 11:44:47 PM PDT

  •  Please

    Make smarter arguments. Generalizing from one (misinformed) point of information is pretty lame.

    Counter example. Kerry voted for NCLB. Although he harps on the fact that Bush failed to fund it (and he should), he also says it needs to be fixed. That it isn't working the way they hoped (they including him).

    by Bill Rehm on Sun Jun 13, 2004 at 07:46:51 AM PDT

    •  Was NCLB, Iraq resolution

      and Patriot Act merely poorly executed or bad legislation?

      Those who think the former should be satisfied with Kerry and there is nothing he "should" do now except what he's doing.

      Those who think otherwise are unlikely ever to be satisfied with Kerry.

      I don't even like Kerry's position on how to "fix" the tax structure.  The whole damn thing should be repealed -- this country went to war with the support of a majority, and it's high time average Americans appreciate that tacit approval for irrational acts that cost money are going to be paid for out of their pocketbooks.  Maybe then they will appreciate that their kneejerk patriotic impulses are free.

       

      by Marie on Sun Jun 13, 2004 at 09:02:15 AM PDT

      •  correction

        ...their kneejerk patriotic impulses are not free.

        by Marie on Sun Jun 13, 2004 at 09:23:50 AM PDT

      •  Er, sort of

        NCLB was, in fact, exactly that. NCLB was Ted Kennedy's baby for years. BushCo and the GOP-controlled Congress bent it, then failed to fund it.

        Although parts of the Patriot Act suck and assist Ashcroft's abuse of his office, all of the Act does not. And Ashcroft's abuses of power stem in large part from other areas of the law, not simply the bad parts of the Patriot Act.

        Can't really argue with you about the Iraq War resolution. As I indicated, I generally agree with you on that. Although Bush didn't live up to his promises, Dems in both houses should have been aware of that particular character flaw. I'm certain that vote was purely politically motivated on the part of most Dem yeas.

        Look, you said above that the problem you have with Kerry is that he wants to be POTUS. Can't you see that everybody who runs for this office wants it? They're all politicians, not saints. I wish Kerry had made different choices on some of these issues. He didn't.

        Our choices now: support Kerry, sit it out, or support Bush.

        I wish (man, how I wish) Dean were the Dem nominee. But he's not, which leaves me ABB. And Kerry will certainly be a better president and do less damage to the country and the Constitution than a term-limited Bush.

        by Bill Rehm on Mon Jun 14, 2004 at 07:49:55 AM PDT

        •  Guess I was making a

          distinction between someone whose goal is to be POTUS versus someone who has an agenda that can be advanced from the POTUS position.  The genius of the GWB campaign was that they took someone from the first group and made him look like someone from the second.  That's why people like you and I liked Dean -- it truly wasn't about Dean.  It is also beginning to appear that it wasn't about Gore either, only he either hadn't thought it all through by 2000 or couldn't articulate it at that time.  How an individual handles defeat gives a big clue as to which group they fall into -- Bradley, McCain, Lieberman compared with Dean and Gore.  From what I saw of Kerry's responses while Dean was on top last year, it's pretty clear how he would have behaved had he been defeated.

          by Marie on Mon Jun 14, 2004 at 09:14:41 AM PDT

          •  I don't know how to break this to you

            But my support for Howard Dean was at least 70-30 Dean the man vs. Dean the agenda.

            I wanted (still want) Howard Dean to be my president. He is a good man.

            Agenda is only part of what a president accomplishes. He (at least in 2004) has to respond on the national and world stage to events he has not control over, as well.

            I sure don't want somebody who thinks of POTUS exclusively as a position to push an agenda from. I want somebody who thinks they're the person for the job.

            I'd really like it if they were the kind of person that the right likes to paint Ronald Reagan as (or many on the left paint Jimmy Carter), but the reality is that you have to be a damn good politician to become POTUS, and there is a lot of bad to take with the good in that.

            by Bill Rehm on Mon Jun 14, 2004 at 12:24:08 PM PDT

            •  confusing parenthetical

              The "he (at least in 2004)" in the third paragraph was supposed to explain my choice of pronouns, not indicate that 2004 was the only time POTUS would have to respond on the national and world stage.

              by Bill Rehm on Mon Jun 14, 2004 at 12:27:16 PM PDT

            •  Probably should have

              used "theme" instead of agenda because that's broader.  When a candidate articulates the agenda that flows from his/her theme, they are not only telling us what they would like to accomplish as POTUS, but also supplying us with a window into their decisionmaking style/process and what they value.  When all of this is integrated in the individual, the electorate will generally not be surprised by the actions of the individual once in office.  Dean just makes all of this so much easier to read because he's one of the most honest of politicians, of course that's another quality that some of us respond to.

              Maybe the shorter version of what I've tried to say, and seem to have done poorly at, is that it's a question of "To Be" or "To Do" that is the primary driver for those who seek the Presidency.  And I suspect that the electorate responds more favorably to the candidate who is perceived to be more in the "To Do" column.  

              by Marie on Mon Jun 14, 2004 at 01:22:49 PM PDT

•  He already has

  He said it was a mistake to trust Bush to do what he said he would on Iraq - go watch the C-Span interview. He said it months ago to Rolling Stone ("I didn't think he'd f**k it up...")

  by daunte on Sun Jun 13, 2004 at 01:44:06 AM PDT