Kerry/Edwards: too liberal?

[Pike1483]

With Kerry being ranked # 1 Liberal and Edwards # 4 by the National Journal, many Americans are questioning whether this ticket is too liberal to win the office. Many are even saying this is a more liberal ticket than Mondale/Ferraro. Anyone that is more liberal than Hillary and Ted Kennedy is out in my book, though.
Thoughts about their liberal voting records? Thoughts about liberalism in general? Is liberal a bad word? Why don't Kerry and Edwards own up to their voting records and be proud liberals instead of trying to play it off that they're conservative in a desperate attempt to win votes from real conservatives.

[AGDee]

lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.


con·ser·va·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.


If you look at these definitions from dictionary.com, they present a basic philosophy difference. Personally, given those two definitions, I would say Liberal is a good thing, but I'm a liberal. They also said Gore was too liberal, but more people voted for him than for anybody else.

I am tired of the Republicans using the word liberal as though it were a bad thing. It is different from being conservative, that doesn't mean it's bad. I don't call conservatives "bad", I simply recognize that view life from a different spin than I do.

Clinton was pretty moderate and when he compromised on issues, he was accused of waffling.

I want to hear what the candidates think about the issues and make my decisions based on who most closely agrees with my own opinions. I am so sick of both parties dogging the others. Just be upfront about yourself and let the voters decide what they want to do.

Dee

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by AGDee

I am tired of the Republicans using the word liberal as though it were a bad thing. It is different from being conservative, that doesn't mean it's bad. I don't call conservatives "bad", I simply recognize that view life from a different spin than I do.
[/B]

Goes both ways - you have a lot of Liberals who use the word "conservative" like it's a bad thing.

You hit the point more towards the end of your post; people in each party respecting each other's views would be a nice change, as you said.

[AGDee]

I agree that it goes both ways and I cringe when I see smear ads from either side. The "too liberal" thing has been going on a lot this week due to the announcement of the VP candidate, so it has really grated on me this week.

Dee

[Sistermadly]

What grates me more than that is liberals who shy away from the label. So what if the ticket is a liberal one? Those of us on the left need to grow a pair and stand toe to toe with Conservatives and stop worrying about playing nice.

[Phasad1913]

free from bigotry.

If that is in the definition of liberal and Kerry/Edwards are being tossed in that category, then they get my vote (they had it anyway).

[Kevin]

AGDee, I object to dictionary.com's definition of "liberal".

What consitutes "progress" is entirely subjective. My personal view is that every liberal advance inches us closer to socialism. That is why someone like me finds the #1 and #4 most liberal people in the Senate fairly threatening of our way of life.

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

Originally posted by ktsnake
That is why someone like me finds the #1 and #4 most liberal people in the Senate fairly threatening of our way of life.

I find them far less threatening than the neo-conservative fundamentalist Christian ideology Bush, Cheney & Company are forcing on America.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
I find them far less threatening than the neo-conservative fundamentalist Christian ideology Bush, Cheney & Company are forcing on America.

I think the fundamentalist Christian things are easier for society to recover from. Once we pass entitlements and government programs, they never go away. And we inch closer to socialism.

[AGDee]

Originally posted by ktsnake
AGDee, I object to dictionary.com's definition of "liberal".

What consitutes "progress" is entirely subjective. My personal view is that every liberal advance inches us closer to socialism. That is why someone like me finds the #1 and #4 most liberal people in the Senate fairly threatening of our way of life.

I didn't write the definition, I just quoted it! But, I think you got my point.. liberal is defined as one thing but is interpreted in our society as something different.

My college government professor described liberal as someone who believes in a broad interpretation of the Constitution and conservative as believing in a strict interpretation of the Constitution (i.e. no interpretation, but taking it just as it is written).

I am liberal in that I think we should be able to do what we want with our private lives, if it doesn't harm or infringe on others' rights. Such as, gay marriage, etc. I also tend to take a compassionate stance for people who are not able to care for themselves, and believe we have a responsibility as humans to care for our sick. I don't think people who are fully capable of working should be sitting at home collecting welfare. I think those are the minority though (especially in Michigan because our only form of welfare, other than food stamps, is Aid for Dependent Children, so you have to have kids to get anything). Socialism is not the same as a compassionate democratic society though.

Dee

[Kevin]

Originally posted by AGDee

I am liberal in that I think we should be able to do what we want with our private lives, if it doesn't harm or infringe on others' rights. Such as, gay marriage, etc.

That's more libertarian than anything else. For what it's worth, I agree. The truth is that liberal policies are intrusive on our private lives in the same way that conservative policies are. The only philosophy that really has a strong hands off belief is libertarian.

I also tend to take a compassionate stance for people who are not able to care for themselves, and believe we have a responsibility as humans to care for our sick. I don't think people who are fully capable of working should be sitting at home collecting welfare. I think those are the minority though (especially in Michigan because our only form of welfare, other than food stamps, is Aid for Dependent Children, so you have to have kids to get anything). Socialism is not the same as a compassionate democratic society though.

Dee

I don't know about how Michigan's child welfare program is run, but here in Oklahoma, there are plenty of "Welfare Moms" that abuse the system. Social workers are too incompetant, apathetic and overworked for the most part to deal with this issue. Say what you want about welfare, but the program in many places and in many ways has become a black hole that we throw money into and see no improvement in the people that it serves.

I don't think you'll find many people that tend to call themselves conservative that believe that society doesn't have a duty to take care of those who are incapable of doing so for themselves. Where I think the views part ways is when we try to define who is incapable and who is not -- and what are they entitled to if they are not?

[swissmiss04]

Originally posted by ktsnake
I think the fundamentalist Christian things are easier for society to recover from.

Are they? See: Saudi Arabia See also: Afghanistan

Different religions, but same spirit.

I think both agendas are bad. Libertarianism is the way to go, but unfortunately the culture of entitlement here would open the system to rampant abuse. So we'll just continue to bang our collective heads against a brick wall.

[Munchkin03]

Arguing about politics ad nauseum is not the way of the cougar.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by swissmiss04
Are they? See: Saudi Arabia See also: Afghanistan

Different religions, but same spirit.

I think both agendas are bad. Libertarianism is the way to go, but unfortunately the culture of entitlement here would open the system to rampant abuse. So we'll just continue to bang our collective heads against a brick wall.

Yes. For one thing, the courts tend to counter balance conservative legislation. For example, Roe v. Wade or Texas v. Johnson. We really don't have that for things on the other side of the aisle. It's not because liberals adhere to the consitution, it's because the courts for the most part are no longer strict interpreters of constitutional law -- instead, they favor whatever is expedient at the time.

You should see the Supreme Court in my state and some of the crap they've handed down.