"DSK" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:
Fringe extremists in Congress are rare, Doug. But on the existing
Congressional scale, Kerry generally votes as left as anyone.

I disagree, this is a Bush/Cheney smear that has been repeated so many
times it is taken as true. Take a look at his actual voting record...
for example the times his voting on defense issues has been in
accordance with Dick Cheney's (a well known leftist).

I disagree that it's a rightist smear. His record on defense voting follows
a pattern: he consistently votes against defense packages unless they are
high-profile and visible. Then he votes for them. His record on military
spending is heavily skewed in the direction of against. I have his complete
Senate voting record before me as I write this.

.... I don't
give a **** what he preaches during an election cycle--they all lie like
used car dealers when the cameras are rolling

Agreed

Unfortunately, voters tend to go for the candidate with the largest
advertising budget, most of the time.


That's likely true of the primaries, but not necessarily the general
election. Media coverage plays an increasing role in the general
election,
and people tend to tune out the innundation of ads.


It's been well proven that
egregious falsehood and appeals to low prejudices will sway more voters
in less time than any other type of campaign.


Pop psych bull****. The swing voters can't be categorized as a group.
Their ultimate choices are made for reasons that run the gamut from wise
to
idiotic. What you claim above sounds like a gross oversimplification.


That's why we are in the
mess that we're in.


Perhaps you'd like to provide some of that "well proven" evidence.

Nixon's landslide in 1972 and Reagan's landslide in 1980 are the biggest
examples I can think of... both were based on loudly repeated falsehood
(for example, Nixon's record with the war in Viet Nam) and racist
innuendo (for example Reagan's speeches about the evils of welfare).

I've known you to claim to be a conservative, Doug, but this comment belies
that notion. Only a liberal could believe that opposing the enslavement of
welfare is a racist stance. Welfare as a concept is sound. In its
execution in this country it has been a disaster, holding millions hostage
to a system that they can't escape. Clinton saw the wisdom of welfare
reform, and he is certainly not branded as racist.



... Don't
bother, because you can't--it's your opinion.

An opinion based on observation of facts.


...Kerry's going to have a hard time
selling himself as a centrist with his voting record, regardless of how
you
attempt to portray it.

I'm not trying to portray anything. In fact I am not particularly a fan
of Kerry's. He is certainly more liberal than many, but the attempt to
paint him as a far left winger is pure propaganda... and it appears to
be working.

If you re-read my comments above, you'd recall that I stated that true
fringe politicians seldom exist in Congress (less even in the Senate).
Kerry is not a far left-winger. He is, however, two or three standard
deviations left of center, and well within the leftmost of the democrat
party.

The reason I'm bitching about him is that I really dislike Bush/Cheney and
wanted another ticket for whom to vote. Kerry is a disappointment and Nader
is unelectable. John McCain could have been promising, but his party's
nomination is locked up. I'd have supported Lieberman or perhaps even
Gephardt, but Kerry is simply too far left and inconsistent to warrant my
vote. My 2 cents worth.

Max