GOPers/conservatives....convince me NOT to vote for Bob Kerrey

[dead0man]

'cause that's how I'm leaning right now.  The guy is a Medal of Honor bestowed SEAL, banged Debrah Winger (in 1983 when she was still hot) and had anarchists and other spoiled rich young lefties protest against him when he was President of a university in NYC.  The chick he is running against married a rancher and lives in, quite literally, the middle of nowhere.  The only third party guy is an Air Force vet (a plus), but is a 9-11 conspiratard (super negative).

I hate voting Dem, but I've had to before and look to be again.

[後援会]

He wasn't a very good Senator. Even if he is a nice guy. And considering Obama's probably going to win, it'd be a good idea to give him more checks/balances. Since we remember what happened in the two years when he didn't have any.

And considering that large swaths of America (including Kerrey's now-native New York) considers your entire state "the middle of nowhere", voting against someone because they come from the "middle of nowhere" seems like it sets a bad precedent.

[dead0man]

He wasn't a very good Senator.

Most of them suck.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is important to me, certainly more important than his position on abortion or affirmative action.  He seems like a man of integrity, and that's even more important.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Kerrey isn't a lockstep Dem (AFAIK, I'm open to new evidence though)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can you list the highlights, in your opinion?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But she is from the middle of nowhere (the county she lives in has 1.02 people per square mile...and dropping), just because some idiot coasties don't know any better doesn't mean I don't.

[後援会]

That is important to me, certainly more important than his position on abortion or affirmative action.  He seems like a man of integrity, and that's even more important.

Well, if you're voting solely on integrity, wouldn't you have to presuppose his opponent has none? And I haven't seen any evidence of that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's not a far-left Bernie Sanders type, but he doesn't hold any views outside of the typical norm of his party. And he /is/ from NYC now, so he probably hasn't interacted with anyone but Democrats. So meh, you'll be getting a pretty generic Democrat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obamacare.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Doesn't really seem like a great reason to vote against someone. Plus, ten people, or even a hundred, per square mile still sounds like middle of nowhere to me. Plus, if you're voting simply on where people are from, Kerrey is from NYC...

[minionofmidas]

dead0man is from Omaha. That's by not anywhere near the middle of Nowhere - it's on the eastern border of Nowhere (aka Nebraska).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A good reason for anyone to vote against him is the fact that he's a war criminal, although I understand that your unique and special morality may cause you to view such things from a somewhat different angle.

[minionofmidas]

A good reason for anyone to vote against him is the fact that he's a war criminal, although I understand that your unique and special morality may cause you to view such things from a somewhat different angle.

It is, alas, not nearly as unique as it is special.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Because it's 2012 and everyone with a D next to their name, if elected, will vote the same way every other D votes. There's virtually no such thing as a 'Blue Dog' Democrat anymore. So which would you be more comfortable with: a Senator who votes in line with the GOP or the Democrats? Because that's what you're getting either way. If you don't like either of those options, write yourself in.

[dead0man]

That's what the wife said, buy my answer to her was "but I can't write a name in, nobody will know what the funk it says".

[後援会]

On the "war criminal" record, Bob Kerrey has a very interesting war history and one of his war citations is interesting because he doesn't actually want it.

I personally wouldn't hold it that against him (he shows remorse and all), but I still would suggest not voting for him due to all of the previous reasons. This country can't afford more Democrats.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Because it's 2012 and everyone with a D next to their name, if elected, will vote the same way every other D votes. There's virtually no such thing as a 'Blue Dog' Democrat anymore.

This is a preposterous and easily disproved statement simply by looking at anything the left-wing of the Democratic Party has pressed in the last 30 years and borders on projection, as it actually does apply in the reverse to the Republicans. But whatever.

I get it, I really do. You're trying to learn from your left-wing counterparts along with the new class of upstart forum right-wingers like Vosem and Koenkai in the "speaking authoritatively as if your opinions are self evidently true and thus require no explanation" school of posting. But it helps to actually be correct when you do so.

[SPC]

The only third party guy is an Air Force vet (a plus), but is a 9-11 conspiratard (super negative).

So having wacky personal beliefs on matters unrelated to public policy outweighs his desire to repeal the Patriot Act, NDAA, Dodd-Frank, PPACA, NCLB, income tax, ethanol subsidies, and war by executive fiat? I'll take the nutcase with whom I'm in ideological agreement over the two statists.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Because it's 2012 and everyone with a D next to their name, if elected, will vote the same way every other D votes. There's virtually no such thing as a 'Blue Dog' Democrat anymore.

This is a preposterous and easily disproved statement simply by looking at anything the left-wing of the Democratic Party has pressed in the last 30 years and borders on projection, as it actually does apply in the reverse to the Republicans. But whatever.

I get it, I really do. You're trying to learn from your left-wing counterparts along with the new class of upstart forum right-wingers like Vosem and Koenkai in the "speaking authoritatively as if your opinions are self evidently true and thus require no explanation" school of posting. But it helps to actually be correct when you do so.

The large majority of Democrats in the Senate vote with their party more than 90% of the time. The large majority of Republicans in the Senate vote with their party less than 90% of the time.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/senate/members/

[Antonio the Sixth]

Since we remember what happened in the two years when he didn't have any.

Oh yeah, we do... He still couldn't achieve anything because 41 GOP senators (occasionally helped by a few pseudo-centrist attention whores) blocked all his agenda.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Because it's 2012 and everyone with a D next to their name, if elected, will vote the same way every other D votes. There's virtually no such thing as a 'Blue Dog' Democrat anymore.

This is a preposterous and easily disproved statement simply by looking at anything the left-wing of the Democratic Party has pressed in the last 30 years and borders on projection, as it actually does apply in the reverse to the Republicans. But whatever.

I get it, I really do. You're trying to learn from your left-wing counterparts along with the new class of upstart forum right-wingers like Vosem and Koenkai in the "speaking authoritatively as if your opinions are self evidently true and thus require no explanation" school of posting. But it helps to actually be correct when you do so.

The large majority of Democrats in the Senate vote with their party more than 90% of the time. The large majority of Republicans in the Senate vote with their party less than 90% of the time.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/senate/members/

That's just crazy. Here are a few.
Mark Warner of Virginia
Mark Pryor of Arkansas
Joe Manchin of West Virginia
Bill Nelson of Florida
Kent Conrad of North Dakota
Tim Johnson of South Dakota
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
Now the GOP are the ones who hate cooperation. They primaried Dick Lugar and tried to do the same Orrin Hatch because they worked across the aisle. They tried to get rid of John McCain in 2010 too and are planning on doing the same to Lindsay Graham. Olympia Snowe couldn't stand her party anymore and refused re-election.  Lugar's would-be successor is running against a Blue Dog and says that bi-partisanship is Democrats coming over to the GOP side and doing what they want. Your claim is preposterous.

[fezzyfestoon]

Wow, I didn't realize he was President of the New School. That actually alters my opinion of him from being very mildly negative to being very mildly positive. His politically convenient and thus useless experience otherwise is irritating, so something mildly acceptable is enough for me to vote for a vote for him.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I think convincing yourself is your own job. Don't outsource it across the country.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Because it's 2012 and everyone with a D next to their name, if elected, will vote the same way every other D votes. There's virtually no such thing as a 'Blue Dog' Democrat anymore.

This is a preposterous and easily disproved statement simply by looking at anything the left-wing of the Democratic Party has pressed in the last 30 years and borders on projection, as it actually does apply in the reverse to the Republicans. But whatever.

I get it, I really do. You're trying to learn from your left-wing counterparts along with the new class of upstart forum right-wingers like Vosem and Koenkai in the "speaking authoritatively as if your opinions are self evidently true and thus require no explanation" school of posting. But it helps to actually be correct when you do so.

The large majority of Democrats in the Senate vote with their party more than 90% of the time. The large majority of Republicans in the Senate vote with their party less than 90% of the time.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/senate/members/

That's just crazy. Here are a few.
Mark Warner of Virginia
Mark Pryor of Arkansas
Joe Manchin of West Virginia
Bill Nelson of Florida
Kent Conrad of North Dakota
Tim Johnson of South Dakota
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
Now the GOP are the ones who hate cooperation. They primaried Dick Lugar and tried to do the same Orrin Hatch because they worked across the aisle. They tried to get rid of John McCain in 2010 too and are planning on doing the same to Lindsay Graham. Olympia Snowe couldn't stand her party anymore and refused re-election.  Lugar's would-be successor is running against a Blue Dog and says that bi-partisanship is Democrats coming over to the GOP side and doing what they want. Your claim is preposterous.

I was talking about partisan uniformity in voting, not bipartisan cooperation or lack thereof. Did you look at the link?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Yeah I wasn't referring at all to ideology. I was referring to the fact that nowadays, as Shua pointed out, most Democrats are hardline in their voting. Joe Manchin may be the only exception to that rule. At least with some Senate Republicans (see: Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Dick Lugar, Lisa Murkowski among many, many others. That article Shua posted will tell you so.)

[General White]

I support Kerry.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

If I were a Nebraskan- I'd vote for him