Kerry is plenty liberal enough

Steve Gilliard hits in on the head again with a solid argument on why you should vote for Kerry because of ABB but also because Kerry's likely to do a good job.

I agree with him whole-heartedly that nothing is more alienating than those who are well-off and into liberalism because it's a cause and therefore don't see how they might be sacrificing the people that they see themselves fighting for in order to achieve some sort of long-term gain.

While I too would like to see a more liberal Democratic party, I will be happy just to stop Bush's plan to drain our economy of all its lifeblood in order to hand some quarterly profit gains to his corporate overlords. We are in an emergency situation in this country and this is not time to sit around wishing for a more perfect candidate. I understand that people thought the third party vote was going to be effective last election before we all understood how conservative Bush really is, but there is no time to wield that tool again.

Gilliard addresses the number of people whose lives are on the line if Bush is allowed his way with this economy. I'm optimistic and I think that a vote for Kerry is also a vote for solider lives. Kerry will prioritize getting troops out of Iraq in the safest way possible, I imagine. He clearly was deeply affected by his experience in Vietnam and I think that will influence his troop deployment decisions in every way. One thing I know for certain is that Kerry won't treat the military like they are his own personal toy army to be wielded at will for military adventures. If Bush suddenly pulls all the troops out of Iraq, however, you can bet it's because Syria or Iran is next on his list.

But Gilliard addressed saving lives and I'm going to address saving dreams, specifically the middle class dreams that Jim Hightower describes so accurately. I have a job and a mortgage payment and a retirement plan, and in truth, I don't really want for more than that. Oh sure, I'd like to be rich, but I know that's not going to happen. Mostly I want to be happy and happiness can't be found in material goods. But in order to be happy, you do have to have a certain comfort level and security. I want just enough to make my bills and have a little left over for savings and fun, so that I don't stress out or fight with my boyfriend or anything like that. And I think that most Americans are pretty much like me--we want a stable middle class existence, the kind that history proves is completely possible to achieve for the majority of Americans.

BushCo and Buddies are completely and utterly opposed to the idea of a stable middle class. In order for there to be a stable middle class, history shows that the upper classes are going to hit a wealth ceiling of sorts. Oh sure, they will have enough money to buy anything a man could desire. But they won't be kings ruling over a continent of peasants and that really takes the fun out of being immensely wealthy. To have a stable middle class, there has to be high taxes on the wealthy and a commitment to profit-sharing with workers. There has to be a high minimum wage and high employment, because, as common sense will tell you, high unemployment drives down wages and creates short-term quarterly profits for CEO's looking to rake in huge bonuses. For a chicken in every pot to be a reality, some people just can't be allowed to hoarde all the chickens--common sense.

If Bush wins, those of us who have just entered the middle class life will be on the chopping block. And if we lose out, we may never get a chance to re-enter the middle class again. I'm not prepared to lose my job and lose my house due to Bush's assault on the middle class because some petulant "liberals" didn't think that Kerry was liberal enough and either voted for Nader or stayed home, pretending that there wasn't a difference between the candidates.