Boston Globe Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff | May 4, 2005
The Massachusetts Democratic Party is poised next week to add an endorsement of gay marriage to its platform, despite a nationwide backlash against same-sex marriage that led voters to approve bans in 11 states last fall.
Philip W. Johnston, the state Democratic Party chairman, said yesterday that the party’s 3,000 delegates will consider the platform change May 14, three days before the first anniversary of legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. State Democratic parties in Iowa and Colorado added endorsements of same-sex marriage to their platforms last year.
If approved by the party delegates, the new addition to the Democratic Party’s platform will read: ”We affirm our commitment to the Massachusetts constitutional guarantee to same-sex marriage, and all of its rights, privileges, and obligations, and reject any attempt to weaken or revoke those rights.”
“Democrats’ platform shouldn’t back gay marriage, Kerry says”. The Boston Globe, May 6, 2005
BATON ROUGE, La. — US Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that he believes it’s a mistake for the Massachusetts Democratic Party to include a plank in its official platform in support of same-sex marriage, saying that such a statement does not conform with the broad views of party members.
Kerry, who opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions, said in an interview with the Globe that he would prefer that the party not mention gay marriage in its platform, because Democrats continue to disagree on how to handle the issue.
”I’m opposed to it being in a platform. I think it’s a mistake,” Kerry said shortly after hosting a forum on his universal children’s healthcare bill in Baton Rouge. ”I think it’s the wrong thing, and I’m not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state.”
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/05/06/democrats_platform_shouldnt_back_gay_marriage_kerry_says?mode=PF
Most Democrats do not agree with the Massuchessetts Democratic Party on this issue, including their favorite son, John Kerry.
Ah, Kerry exhibits his rare brand of moral leadership
Unabashedly opportunistic waffler and dissembler. Kerry. He’s my guy. I am signing up early to support Kerry for the Democratic nomiation in 2008. Whoo-hooo!! This will be fun.
So Kerry is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. How convenient!
Dean,
Kerry is a moron. The winning ticket in American politics is fiscally liberal, socially conservative a la FDR. FDR was a conventional Episcopalian at a time in which the Episcopal Church was known as the Republican Party at prayer. It was a highly socially conservative organization.
Look at the Bush record. ‘No Child Left Behind’ authored by Teddy Kennedy. His ‘any sacrifice in the name of freedom’ foreign policy which harkens back to Woodrow Wilson and LBJ. His bloated budgets laden to the hilt with pork. Look at the ban on offshore drilling in the state of Florida. Bush is talking right on social issues, all the while governing farther left on most fiscal issues than did Bill Clinton (for whom I have a sudden pang of nastalgia in some ways.)
And Bush has won. Twice. The Democratic party could combine social conservatism with fiscal liberalism as do many Christian Democrat parties in European and completely STOMP the life out of the Republican Party. Only the social issues keep the true-blue base locked in to the Republican tent. If you took gay marriage and abortion off the table, the Republican base would split into a million fragments.
Kerry is a loser, not because he lost but because he is completely clueless. If you care about your vision of economic justice, then the most important issue would be to ditch the social leftism and embrace traditional morality, while campaigning for additional environmental protections, etc. That is a ticket that wins.
Truly, I had thought I’d seen it all.
I haven’t.
While perusing the Ratzinger Fan Club site, I came upon this blog by an Australian (and Catholic) gay man whose political and religious ideals seem so severe and uncompromising (to the right) that they make a book by Pat Buchanan read like “Little Women”.
I appreciated his more sensitive comments on Catholic aesthetics and on redemptive suffering.
Nevertheless, be warned: he is sometimes coarse in his presentation even while eloquent in others. While fascinating reading, this isn’t for those of delicate sensibilities or who are easily offended (in language … he has nothing that could be deemed visually inapproprate from what I could see).
I have to say I was moved by this person’s honesty about his personal failings, his crosses and his faith. Very edifying.
Kerry, Kerry, Kerry…. Where to Start… Where to Start.. So Pompous .. So inarticular.. So Shallow… So lacking in self-awareness WORST CANDIDATE EVER
Initial post:
Kerry, who opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions, said in an interview with the Globe that he would prefer that the party not mention gay marriage in its platform, because Democrats continue to disagree on how to handle the issue.
Dean’s Defense:
So Kerry is damned if he does and damned if he doesn?t. How convenient!
Missourian replies:
We can look at Kerry from at least two vantage points. First, we can take a totally amoral, realpolitik look at his skills as a politician. He stinks. He is one of the WORST public speakers I have every heard. As an aside, he would flop miserably in a courtroom. He is so thoroughly steeped in condescension for the little guy that he isn’t even conscious of it. He can’t control it as much as he may fitfully try. He has a tin ear for public relations. The idiotic idea of trying to charm the Bubba vote with the duck hunting picture. It screamed phoniness and therefore, condescension. Tereza’s disastrous acceptance speech at the Democratic convention.She carried herself as if she had been nominated for her wisdom. Thanks heavens we have been spared her as First Lady, although she is a bit player at best. As a private citizen, she seems to have a daffy charm of her own I must admit.
Secondly, we can look at his “principles.” The only consistent principle I have been able to discern in this man’s career is a willingness to betray his country for political advantage. I am his contemporary and I know ALL ABOUT his group, the Viet Nam Veterans against the War. They spent a great deal of time at my campus and I read their literature when they handed out on campus. I read the articles they got printed in the student newspaper and I heard their stump speeches. They were working directly and unabashedly for the defeat of their country and the victory of the Communists. They were active agent provocateurs for the enemy. Aside from that, there is nothing principled about opposing gay marriage but supporting civil unions. This is a distinction without a difference. It is very typical of him, spineless and shallow, he flaps in the liberal breeze.
Run John, please run. I need the diversion.
Missourian writes: “I am his contemporary and I know ALL ABOUT his group, the Viet Nam Veterans against the War…They were working directly and unabashedly for the defeat of their country and the victory of the Communists. They were active agent provocateurs for the enemy.”
As early as 1968 the U.S. starts to look for a way out of Vietnam. Richard Nixon develops the concept of “Vietnamization,” and the first 25,000 troops are withdrawn by around mid-1969, a couple of months after Kerry left Vietnam. Kerry continues to serve stateside, and leaves the Navy in 1970. By 1970 Vietnamization policy had reduced U.S. troop levels down to 140,000 fewer than in 1969. In 1971 troops levels were reduced by 50 percent compared to 1970.
So if I have this right, your view is that when John Kerry advocated bringing the troops home, that was a betrayal of the country. But when Richard Nixon *actually* brought troops home, and had been advocating that since 1968, when Kerry was still in Vietnam, that was — what — patriotism? Smart policy?
Missourian: “Kerry, Kerry, Kerry?. Where to Start? Where to Start.. So Pompous .. So inarticular.. So Shallow? So lacking in self-awareness WORST CANDIDATE EVER”
Yeah, how much better to have a Yale-Harvard man from a rich family pretending to be a man of the people. How much better to have guy whose family connections get him to the top of the ANG list, gets him a million dollars of flight training, and that he then skips out on so he can “work” on the political campaign of a family friend while he’s getting drunk at night and pissing in parking lots. So much better to have a fellow who has a string of failed business ventures but is then rescued by family friends. How much more attractive a candidate who makes millions scamming tax money in order to fund a baseball stadium. How far superior a candidate who can barely string together a ten-word sentence. How lucky we are to have a president who alienated allies around the world even as he promoted a war based on false information. How fortunate to have a fellow who has engineered record setting deficits, while making sure that his wealthy contributors are cared for. So deep, so profound, the very fount of wisdom, a pillar of courage is our president.
Missourian writes: “were working directly and unabashedly for the defeat of their country and the victory of the Communists.”
Here’s another traitor, now dead thank God, who ended up opposing the war in Vietnam. From the Army Times:
——————————-
David Hackworth, decorated Vietnam War veteran, dies
By Joseph R. Chenelly
Times staff writer
Retired Col. David H. Hackworth, a highly decorated soldier and self-described champion of the infantryman, died May 4 in Mexico of cancer.
He was 74.
At 14, as World War II was coming to a close, Hackworth lied about his age to join the Merchant Marine, and at 15 he enlisted in the Army. Over the next 26 years he spent seven in combat. He was nominated for the Medal of Honor three times; the last application is currently under review at the Pentagon, the family said.
He was twice awarded the Army’s second highest honor for valor, the Distinguished Service Cross, along with 10 Silver Stars and eight Bronze Stars.
He won his first Silver Star and Purple Heart in Korea, but he repeatedly said he was proudest of his Combat Infantryman’s Badge and eight Purple Hearts.
In 1971, he appeared in the field on ABC’s Issue and Answers to say Vietnam “is a bad war…it can’t be won. We need to get out.”
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-830184.php
———————————-
RE: No. 4: Glen, I think Kerry is trying to do what you suggest, albeit a year too late. Otherwise I agree with your analysis. The winning combination is a consistent ethic of life, and neither party has that.
It is an indication of the insularity of Washington that politicians like Kerry truly don’t understand how they are perceived in the heartland. They are off snow-boarding in Vail or sailing the Nantucket coast or doing the rubber chicken circuit, when they ought to be sitting at the counter at Joe’s Diner in Peoria talking to the locals.
I’m sure John Kerry regards himslef as a good Christian man who fought for his country and goes to Church and takes communion when they would offer it to him. I really think Kerry had no idea how stereotyped and demonized he was, had no appreciation of the the power of the conservative media to distort and caricaturize someone they have marked as an enemy. My mom met a lot of Catholics on her vacation last summer who had totally been brain-washed into thinking that Kerry was the anti-Christ and devil incarnate. I believe Kerry was truly (and belatedly) shocked that people saw him as a pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage extremist, and that is responsible for his recent comments, such as the one referenced in my earlier post.
Jim, Legitimate and Illegitimate Opposition to the War in Viet Nam
There were many thoughtful people who opposed the Viet Nam war. A thoughtful person could have decided that Viet Nam was not the right place to fight a shooting war against Communism. A thoughtful person could have decided that 1963 was not the best time to fight a shooting war against Communists. These are called “prudential” objections and they had some merit. Among the persuasive prudential objections to the Viet Nam war as fought was that America should never send men to die unless America fully intended to win.
Kerry’s opposition was not legitimate. Kerry’s opposition consisted of a campaign to discredit the ENTIRE UNITED STATES MILITARY as war criminals. He was very explicit about this in his famous 1971 testimony in front of Congress. He sought to discredit the United States military and by extension the United States.
Kerry was a traitor to his country, he met with enemies of his country and consciously decided to further their cause. He will have to answer for his conduct as will the rest of us, sometime.
Hackworth, never worked to discredit the United States military or his country.