The fallacy of the 'anybody but Bush' movement

[IndianaGreen]

Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011 (additional information in WW website)

The fallacy of the 'anybody but Bush' movement
By Fred Goldstein

All those gripped by the "anybody but Bush" fever should pause to reflect on the actual situation, stripped of fraudulent hype and false hopes.

To be sure, the Bush administration is one of the most reactionary regimes in recent years. Under the false slogan of the "war against terrorism," Bush has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq; expanded U.S. military bases in Central Asia, sent troops to the Philippines, Yemen, Africa and now Haiti; and given the Sharon government the go-ahead to step up its aggression against the Palestinian national movement. Bush pushed passage of the Patriot Act and engaged in wide-ranging repression against peoples of the Middle East and south Asia. Bush has threatened Iran, Syria, North Korea and Cuba. This is only a partial list.

But wait a minute. Who is the leading candidate to take Bush's place? John Kerry. What is Kerry's actual record? He is trying to out do Bush in his promotion of the so-called "war against terrorism"--the ideological premise for all the international aggression and repression of the Bush administration--and it has been adopted whole by Kerry.

Kerry voted for the war against Afghanistan and fully supports the present occupation of that country. Kerry voted for and fully supported the war in Iraq. His homepage declares, "Whatever we thought of the Bush administration's decisions and mistakes--especially in Iraq--we now have a solemn obligation to complete the mission, in that country and in Afghanistan. Iraq is now a major magnet and center for terror ... we must stay in Iraq until the job is finished." Thus he is for the occupation of both countries--the crimes begun by George W. Bush are fully supported by Kerry.

Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. While he might trim a provision or two here or there, he has not denounced John Ashcroft's witch-hunt or demanded the release of thousands being held in detention or facing deportation for manufactured or petty charges simply because they have been caught in the massive "homeland security" dragnet. He has not denounced the arbitrary search, seizure and prosecution of Muslim organizations on trumped-up charges across the country.

Kerry is a staunch supporter of Israel--and for the same reason that he is a supporter of the "mission" in Iraq. That "mission" is to seize the second-largest oil reserves in the world, set up strategic bases in the center of the Arab world, and guard the oil-rich Persian Gulf for the oil companies, U.S. capitalist industry and the Pentagon. On this question there is not a ray of daylight between Kerry and Bush, style and rhetoric aside.

Bush, of course, is the darling of Wall Street, the oil industry and all the corporate benefactors who have thrown money at him for his campaign--$150 million and still rising.

However, it should be remembered that the U.S. Senate has long been known as the "millionaires' club" and Kerry is among the richest members of the club. Kerry and his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry have a combined fortune, according to the Center for Public Integrity, of anywhere between $200 million and $840 million, depending upon the valuation of their portfolio. And it is not all Heinz money. Kerry comes from a wealthy background.

Kerry is a trusted agent of the ruling class, having been in the Senate for 19 years. He serves on the prestigious Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Intelli gence Committee and Committee on Commerce, Science and Trans por ta tion. This latter committee regulates the auto industry and the communications industry. Kerry has been involved in the growing centralization of monopoly power in the media.

In these committees Kerry rubs shoulders day-in and day-out with many of the 50,000 corporate lobbyists who have a lock on Washington. He deals with representatives of finance and industry, with the CIA, the DIA, State Department officials and military officials, and in general has been groomed as a guardian of ruling-class interests.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, he has been the largest recipient of corporate donations in the Senate. In the last election cycle alone, he got large contributions from the health care, automobile and airlines industries, among others. His rhetoric against special corporate interests is pure demagogy.

Kerry to Wall Street: 'I'm pro business'

A Feb. 17 Wall Street Journal article entitled "Kerry Gets a Lifeline from Wall Street" described house meetings with financial big-wigs, including top executives from such firms as Blackstone Group, UBS bank, Citibank and others. Louis Susman, vice-chairperson of investment banking for Citigroup, is Kerry's national finance chair. Citigroup is one of the largest globalizing exploiters in the world and is the bank that helped finance the schemes of Enron, WorldCom and Parmalac, among others.

The article noted Kerry's problem of having to bash corporations in order to gain popular support at the same time that he seeks corporate money. "Kerry is using populist corporate-bashing rhetoric to woo the party's liberal base, even as a campaign adviser privately sends the reassuring message that the senator is really 'pro-business' and will be 'more nuanced going forward.'" Such is the cynicism of capitalist politics--and in particular Democratic Party politics, whose leadership is loyal to the imperialist ruling class but whose voting base is largely among the workers, the oppressed and progressive sections of the middle class.

What stands out clearly under a close examination of the politics, the finances and the history of Kerry is that the entire presidential election, as it is projected by the anybody-but-Bush ideology--as a race between progressivism, liberalism or whatever sanitized label is used to justify voting for Kerry and the Democratic Party--is dangerously false and misleading.

Are there differences between Bush and Kerry, between the Republican and Democratic Party leaderships? Of course there are differences. Is the Bush administration further to the right than a Kerry administration might be? Yes. But what does this mean for the workers and the oppressed and all genuine opponents of reaction?

The Kerry forces would like to point to the domestic arena to differentiate Kerry from Bush. While it is true that Kerry is not as far to the right on social issues, it must not be forgotten that he voted for the joint effort by Clinton and Newt Gingrich to destroy welfare--the so-called Welfare Reform Act, which plunged millions of women, children and single men into the deepest poverty. Nor should his support for Clinton's Effective Death Penalty Act be forgotten--which set up a vast acceleration of executions across the country. Of course, Kerry is also firmly against same-sex marriage.

Just because Bush is a reactionary, that does not make Kerry a progressive. In fact Kerry, or whoever might have been chosen by the Democratic Party as a candidate to take over the running of the capitalist state, would be a solid representative of U.S. imperialism whose goal would be to strengthen and expand its domination on the world arena.

Kerry's attitude towards the Pentagon, U.S. militarism and the domestic repressive apparatus of the state is firm and unyielding. In his major "anti-terrorism" speech in Los Angeles, reported in the Feb. 27 Washington Post, Kerry denounced Bush for "doing too little" in the "war on terrorism." He attacked the "doctrine of unilateral preemption" as having "driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations." He said Iraq is "in disarray," with U.S. troops "bogged down in a deadly guerrilla war with no exit in sight."

Kerry is not opposed to the Iraq War. He is opposed to the fact that the Bush group underestimated the Iraqi people's capacity for resistance and hatred of colonial occupation. Kerry has no intention of putting a stop to the drive towards world domination. Kerry and his faction in the ruling class feel that U.S. domination through multilateralism is preferable because it's more effective. He and his co-thinkers feel that the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz grouping, by breaking up the old alliances with the imperialist rivals in Germany and France--by refusing to share the loot with the other thieves and derisively calling them the "Old Europe"--and by their failures in Iraq and Afghanistan have actually demonstrated the weakness and dependence of U.S. imperialism, not its omnipotence.

The factions of the ruling class around Kerry feel that the U.S. military is overstretched; that the aggressive policies of the Bush administration have not been thought out; that the implications of trampling on alliances were disregarded, and that Washington had to humiliate itself when it sent its emissaries to try to raise funds for the occupation of Iraq and the Europeans sent them home empty-handed. They feel that vilifying the United Nations, such a historically and potentially useful tool for U.S. imperialism, was another blunder, because Bush now has to beg and cajole the UN Security Council to pull its irons out of the fire in Iraq.

Kerry to Spain: 'Don't pull out'

To show his dedication to the occupation of Iraq, Kerry criticized the newly elected Prime Minister of Spain, Luiz Rodriguez Zapatero, for declaring that he would pull Spanish troops out of Iraq. What Zapatero should have said, according to Kerry, is to declare "This increases our determination to stay until the job is done." So Kerry wants the Spanish imperialists to stay and help U.S. imperialism complete its "mission" of recolonizing the Iraqi people.

Kerry accused the Bush administration of stretching the military thin. Is his answer to pull the troops out? Not at all. He proposes adding 40,000 troops to the Army for "the remainder of the decade" so that he, Kerry, "would be prepared to use military force to protect out security, our people and our vital interests."

Kerry's criticism boils down to this: Bush's policies have weakened U.S. imperialism. And his program can be summed up in this: He will reverse Bush's mistakes and strengthen U.S. imperialism.

The ruling-class opposition to Bush has the view that alliances are essential to expanding Washington and Wall Street's global domination. Careful orchestration is necessary. The Bush experiment with openly declared "preemption" has failed. Better to follow the Clinton model in the war against Yugoslavia, or the Bush Sr. model in the first Gulf War of 1991. Round up the imperialist allies. Give them something for their efforts. Be dominant but not so openly arrogant that you engage in a policy of self-encirclement, self-isolation from your fellow bandits.

The masses of the world are too numerous and too formidable for U.S. imperialism to confront them all alone. Iraq and Afghanistan are early proof of that. Kerry proposes a renewed leadership which will return to the cunning of old.

The workers, the union movement, all the people who suffer from one or another form of oppression in U.S. capitalist society have absolutely no stake in rushing to prop up Kerry in the hope that this will somehow bring them salvation. Right now moves are afoot in the labor movement, women's movement, the lesbian, gay, bi and trans movement, and in many progressive circles to raise huge funds to pour into the Kerry campaign.

Kerry has reportedly already accumulated a $70-million fund, more than $40 million of it from the labor movement alone. The progressive, anti-Bush forces, instead of turning it over to a demagogic politician from the very establishment that is carrying out war, oppression and exploitation, could make use of even a small fraction of that money to mobilize the mass of the people into a militant fightback movement that could take to the streets, in Washington and cities across the country. That is the way to answer the Bush reaction.

This war drive has nothing to do with Bush versus Kerry. It has to do with the profit system that they both serve. The capitalist system is in a constant state of crisis worldwide. Every day the financial managers of Wall Street study the economic numbers, hoping they will bring them some news of job growth. They are confounded by their own system, which drives them more and more to exploit workers, expand production, increase productivity and lower wages to bolster profits. This contradiction drives them to every corner of the globe, and that requires war, intervention and occupation.

Only an independent, mass working-class struggle against the evils of the system and against the system itself can push back capitalist reaction and war.

Reprinted from the March 25, 2004, issue of Workers World newspaper

http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/war0325.php

[dkf]

1. Kerry is a complete disappointment to me

The more I learn the more turned off I get. I'm in a blue blue blue state so I've decided he doesn't need my vote anyway.

I'm hoping Nader stays in so I can vote for him. Otherwise, anybody have a third party candidate to suggest?

[orwell]

21. Common Good

Unfortunately it is not about you, it is about the common good. There is a time for idealism, and a time for practicality. When your back is against the wall, your options are sorely limited.

I hope you re-think your decision.

O

[mike_c]

29. wait and see what the Green Party does after their convention....

eom

[yorgatron]

2. i'm sorry,this is DEMOCRATICunderground

not COMMUNISTundergound or GREENunderground.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Since when do liberals fear the free exchange of ideas?

And it is the free exchange of ideas that seems to have gotten the shaft ever since Congress passed the PATRIOT Act.

[kalian]

46. Exactly!

[bpilgrim]

9. DON'T turn around!

peace

[NNadir]

3. Isn't that cute? A communist.

[mmm]

8. What is it you disagree with?

[NewHampshireDem]

11. Now wait ...

Aren't all democrats communists? ;)

I guess I've been lurking over at the Creeper's place too long.

[tom_paine]

67. Lurking at NaziStormtrooper.com is bad for your soul.

Cut it out! :evilgrin:

[EstimatedProphet]

5. This is a complete misrepresentation of Kerry's views

Kerry at the time stated that he supported the invasion of Iraq only if it were shown that Iraq was a threat. It was since shown that there was no threat, and he has said so and said that the invasion was wrong based on that. This is the source of the whining about flip-flopping, which is untrue, just like everything this administration of thugs and creeps says.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Please explain Kerry's views on Venezuela

and try to explain why Kerry has embraced the same views of the Bush Administration, not to mention their coup attempts against democratically elected President Chavez.

This article did not mention Venezuela, or Kerry's support of the CANF position on Cuba. Two major omissions by Fred Goldstein in his opinion piece, IMHO.

[kalian]

47. They can't.....

because Kerry is one and the same...

[paulk]

53. You engage in disinformation.

Kerry has explicitly criticized the Bush administration over it's handling of the coup attempt. But you already knew that, didn't you?

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/kerry.chavez.reut/

[IndianaGreen]

57. Why John Kerry Must Retract his Position on Venezuela

All Kerry is saying is that he will be a more efficient occupier of Iraq and a more sucessful coup plotter in Venezuela than Bush. Efficient imperialism is Kerry's main foreign policy goal.

Kerry has sided with the Venezuelan elites against the people!

Published on Friday, March 26, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Why John Kerry Must Retract his Position on Venezuela
by VenezuelAnalysis.com

Seeking for the Right's Vote

It is almost unexplainable that Kerry, as a Democrat, maintains almost the same positions as Bush and his ultra-conservative cabinet. Many in the progressive community had hoped that Kerry could bring a fundamental change to the foreign policies implemented by Bush towards Latin America. Statements such as this lead us to believe that there may be little change in the arrogant US government foreign policy, and unfortunately, mistrust and resentment towards the United States in Latin America would probably continue to grow as a result.

Without offering any evidence, Kerry, follows the line of the Venezuelan opposition, accusing Chavez of aiding the Colombian guerrilla forces, permitting narcotrafficking, undermining democratic institutions, attempting to impede a possible recall referendum on his mandate, and of implementing policies that are detrimental to US interests.

Chavez is a President who has been elected twice by clear majorities in democratic elections, and who, at this time, still enjoys one of the highest levels of popularity amongst Latin American leaders. Chavez's policies have earned him the support of millions of progressive and liberal voices throughout Latin America as well as in North America.

Kerry's recent statement makes it clear that he has taken the side of the Venezuelan opposition, an opposition which is unequivocally responsible for the political instability in Venezuela due to its failure and refusal to accept Chavez as the President of Venezuela, despite his clear support by a majority of Venezuelans proven through numerous electoral victories.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0326-01.htm

[anarchy1999]

63. In your support, IG.

Here's another on Venezuela, from a well respected journalist, very knowledgable in South American affairs.

Aristide, Bush, Chávez, Kerry: When Presidents Collide
U.S. Political Campaign Plays With Latin American Fire


By Al Giordano
Special to The Narco News Bulletin
April 2, 2004

Confronted with a mystery, the Authentic Journalist asks “who, what, when, where, why, and how?”

Often the answers lead to more questions.

The hunt for the whole truth begins: How did U.S. opposition presidential candidate John Kerry slide from a pro-democracy position on Haiti to an anti-democracy position on Venezuela in less than a month?

The rise and fall of John Kerry as a respected world leader was something akin to what Andy Warhol meant when he spoke of “fifteen minutes of fame.” For two or three weeks, through his public statements on the Haiti coup, Kerry had earned positive attention South of the Border, the beginnings of moral leadership, and the corresponding good faith of the most important Latin American political leaders, of the ones who represent the wave of the future from Mexico to Brazil.

http://www.narconews.com/Issue32/article937.html

[IndianaGreen]

69. "John Kerry pissed it all away"

Then, with a single statement, filled with vile untruths, charged with negative consequences on both sides of the border, John Kerry pissed it all away.

Pissed away as in "I am going to do what Otto Reich failed to do"!

[anarchy1999]

70. You read it!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[bpilgrim]

12. if he came out articulately for the U.N.

he wouldn't have so many problems from folks who are pay'n attention.

and there are a lot of us since 911.

peace

[dkf]

22. I would like to hear a condemnation of the war in Iraq please.

I would like Kerry to acknowledge that Clarke's approach was the right way and the Bush approach was WRONG.

The thing about people who say that Kerry didn't MEAN for us to go to war in Iraq is that they are ok with Kerry expressing no opinion on this very important debate on how to fight terrorism.

Clarke is making the argument that the war in Iraq hurt the war on terrorism. Does Kerry agree or disagree? I have no clue.

[EstimatedProphet]

30. So would I

I'm not all that hot for Kerry, however-
He really is, at this point, our best hope for getting the monster out of the WH.
For those who say that the 2 main parties are the same I say BULLSHIT!
These guys are much worse than anything we have ever had in history, including Reagan. We have never had such threats to our constitutional liberties before, we have never taken such an obvious fascist approach to world affairs before either. With this bunch this might very well be the last election ever. 4 more years with unchecked opposition and they will have found a way to subvert the constitutional process. They clearly want total full control at all costs. So I still say ABB because anyone truly is better than Bush.

[kalian]

48. You won't, because he voted IN FAVOR of it.....

and, he is promising 40,000 "fresh" troops to send there. How...?
:eyes: I'd rather not speculate.

[bpilgrim]

6. the cartoon world view of politics

even clinton mentioned it at the recent democratic 'unity' rally held recently where all the biggies turned out, cept he limmited the charge to his opponents when they are ALL forced to play in this theater of the absurb when you actually learn a bit about what is really going on.

my question is how do you break out of it?

i think it is by speaking softly but carrying lots of FACTS in your head or google - thanks to gore ;->

:hi:

peace

[Old and In the Way]

7. I used to be ABB.

Now I'm a 100% Kerry supporter! Go John!

[H2O Man]

13. The WWS is far closer to the bush administration

than the Kerry folks are. They have a history of lying, misrepresenting the truth, racism, and do not have any positive accomplishments in the past 25+ years. Their leadership exploits the fears and ignorance of an unsuspecting group of "supporters."
The Green party, on the other hand, has many good and sincere people in their grass-roots leadership.
"Anybody but bush" has created a powerful and united front of progressive forces in the past two years. We have the potential to change America, for the better. We welcome Greens and others to join with us in this effort. It is pathetic to think that this movement is going to consider seeking "leadership" from the WWS.

[IndianaGreen]

14. We were discussing the merits of Fred Goldstein's article

not the political history of the website that posted it.

On edit:

This is another form of "I won't believe the story unless it is on (fill-in the blank with the name of your favorite news organization).

[H2O Man]

24. I guess that depends on how one defines "we" .......

.... because I think that an objective reading of this thread indicates that many people are discussing the WWS. Thus I think that the "political history" of the WWS is open to discussion. The KKK or American Nazi Party may post articles with accurate information in them, yet they do not deserve serious attention. Thus said, you're attempt to assign the quote "I won't believe the story unless..." is without foundation, and totally incorrect.
My dream for America is far more radical than that of the WWS. I believe fully, in the words of MKL, that: "if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin to shift from a 'thing-oriented' society to a 'person-oriented' society. When machines and computers, profit-motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."
Knowing who delivers a message is vital. Years ago, the WWS was attributing a quote from MKL to Malcolm X. I told their leadership; in fact, I showed them where the quote was from. They laughed, because their goal was NOT to provide the public with the TRUTH.
Again, I am for radical change. But the truth is necessary for that radical change to be positive.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Some people are using a straw man in order not to discuss the issues

Some people are using a straw man in order not to discuss the issues raised by Fred Goldstein's article.

I find it somewhat amusing that a couple of weeks ago I caught some flak from some Marxist-Leninists for sending them another article from another a Trostkyite website. Rather than discuss the merits of the article in question, they proceeded to attack the website and the political party that it represented.

A straw man is a straw man whether it is erected by a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian, a Green, a Naderite, a Socialist, or even a Communist.

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[H2O Man]

33. For your "straw man" concept to have merit,

you would need to show where it has been "distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented." Make sense? Because you are listing it on a response to my response to yours to mine, I'm thinking you are refering to me. Again, my concern is that you are introducing information from a group that I believe to be snakes! And the source is important to many people .... George Bush can talk about Christian values, and even quote Jesus, but I don't think that means he would be a good source to quote for support on here for a sincere person.
It's not a "straw man" to point out that the WWS is a racist, dishonest group of snakes. It's telling, however, that you are not willing to talk frankly about the source of information that you are promoting on here.
The WWS has a habit of trying to take a leadership role in the political field. Look at the "anti-war" rallies last year. Their presence discredits the anti-war movement, and sharply reduces its ability to communicate with mainstream America.
I do not hesitate to talk about serious efforts to make radical changes in American society. Yet that discussion needs to be in terms of serious attempts to remedy the problems at hand. It needs to be in terms of what is likely to get positive results. And you will find that you will not get very far with a discredited group like WWS. Malcolm X used to say that you can't get a sick person to take medicine out of a bottle with a skull-and-cross-bones on it. No straw man, Malcolm! If you want to have a serious talk, let's go. I'm not trying to downplay your thoughts .... but I am saying that the bottle your offering is going to insure failure.

[meti57b]

15. looks like you're ABK ...... "anyone but Kerry".

[IndianaGreen]

16. I didn't write the article, Fred Goldstein did.

I also don't approve of censorship, or inquisitions, that are more typical of authoritarian regimes, i.e., the Pentagon's barring pictures of bodies of the fallen being flown to Dover AFB.

On edit:

Editorials and Other Articles

This forum is for editorials, opinion pieces, political cartoons, DU articles, and other published items.

[kalian]

49. Same tactics....differennt side of the political spectrum....

:eyes: Pisses me off.

[KC21304]

17. Bottom line, do you think it would be better if Bush is elected ?

[IndianaGreen]

18. Bush and Cheney should be impeached for lying to get us into Iraq

We should not even wait until November to get rid of those two, but as Howard Dean as said, Bush and Cheney should be impeached NOW!

[KC21304]

19. I agree, but I don't think that will happen.

My question was, do you think we would be better off with another 4 years of Bush than President Kerry ? I think that is a fair question.

[IndianaGreen]

23. There is nothing preventing Kerry from echoing Dean's call for impeachment

What is he waiting for? Everyone knows they lied about WMDs. Even Colin Powell is now saying that he misrepresented facts, not on purpose (according to him).

do you think we would be better of with another 4 years of Bush than President Kerry ?

Let's take that "we" down each individual issue, as Fred Goldstein has done in his article, and you will see that this issue is not as clear cut as some people advocate. From the point of view of the people of Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, there are no material differences between a Kerry Administration and the current occupant of the White House.

Now, if Kerry were to say that he will bring the troops home ASAP, and not try to get a "peace with honor" out of Iraq, he will put some daylight between his policies and Bush's. The same can be said if Kerry were to reverse his views on Venezuela, Cuba, Plan Colombia, NAFTA, and FTAA.

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that a Kerry Administration is the Second Coming of Christ. We won't continue to sink into the muck, as we would under Bush, but nothing short of a complete reversal of Bush's foreign and domestic policies will put our nation on the path to recovery. And that includes the outright repeal of PATRIOT Act, and full civil rights for GLBTs.

The defeat of Bush in November is not the end of things, but the beginning of a different phase of the struggle to create a just and fair society.

Remember Goldwater's 1964 slogan: A choice, not an echo?

[KC21304]

31. I don't think anyone thinks ANY administration would be

the second coming. I don't think you believe either Dean's or Kucinich's would have been. But we may have the end of civilization as we know it sooner than we think if Bush gets another 4 yrs.

My point is that if you believe Kerry would be better for us than Bush, then it would make sense to not contribute to Kerry's defeat. It is not a matter of free speech or trying to silence anyone. If you really don't see any difference, or believe it would be better for Bush to win, for any reason, than I would have no quarrel with your actions.

Those are the only options I see for someone who understands what is going on in the world today.

[IndianaGreen]

32. This is the Editorials Forum

Editorials and Other Articles

This forum is for editorials, opinion pieces, political cartoons, DU articles, and other published items.

I fear that you are applying the same standard that Paul Bremer used in Iraq when he closed down a major Shiite newspaper in Baghdad because it opposed the occupation.

You are blaming the messenger, not the message.

9/11 and PATRIOT Act seem to have poisoned the public square.

[KC21304]

34. You seem to have overlooked most of my post.

I do not question your right to post anything you want. I do not want to shut anything down.

I was trying to find out if you thought we would be better off with Bush or Kerry. I take it you do not want to answer that question and that also is fine with me.

Just trying to make some sense of your actions. If I thought it would be better that one candidate win over another, I would not be posting disparaging articles about the first candidate, but hey, that's just me.

[IndianaGreen]

35. Without breaking any federal laws...

but the world would be better off had Poppy Bush met the same fate as his crewmen during World War II.

[kalian]

51. That's not what IG meant....

the issue here is that Kerry, for all intents and practices, is
going to follow the course and will not change jack squat in Iraq
or any place else.
If you notice, IG stated that a viable THIRD-party candidate must be
found in order to have a REAL choice as a voting citizen.

What part do YOU not understand?

[KC21304]

54. I do not understand what YOU are doing telling me

what IG did nor did not mean in a post to me, when all I was asking her to do was answer a simple yes or no question. Butt out !

[H2O Man]

37. An old WWS tactic is to

say that ,"if you don't agree with me, then you must be saying...." The extreme right wing does this, too. Thus, Hannity will say if you don't support the bush policy, you don't care about our troops. Your statement on 9-11 and the Patriot Act is a wonderful example of this. You would agree, I hope, that this is the democratic underground? Thus, while people believe in free speech, it does not mean that republicans or other enemies of the democrats should be posting here. Now, in your case, it appears that quite a few people have read your post. No one has questioned your being on here. And the majority of people do not agree with the message you put on, for a variety of reasons. Rather than being upset and calling people Paul Bremer, maybe you could consider that on a forum of open-minded, progressive people, the WWS message falls flat and has very little support. This does not mean that every person on here is not just as commited to social justice and radical change as you. Just that we see things in a different manner.

[kalian]

52. And its happening right here on DU....

with all the so-called "kerryfans" that are questioning our political
beliefs because we don't BLINDLY support Kerry.

[KC21304]

55. If you are referring to me, I would ask you to

read exactly what I said to IG about her not supporting Kerry. You may actually see that I said if she thinks Bush would be better for us than Kerry that is fine with me.

Did I question the political beliefs of anyone who doesn't " BLINDLY" support Kerry ?

You are either not very good at reading comprehension or are delusional.

And if you are going to alert on me I suggest that you insinuated yourself into the back and forth between IG and me ( see above posts ) and then called out "Kerryfans".

[orwell]

20. The Titanic

It strikes me as juvenile that some Americans are so involved in their own political utopia that they never address the reality of putting together a real political movement. Instead they rail against the infidels who dare try to cloud the view from the mountaintop in order to deal with the grim realities on the ground below.

While energies on the far left or right are required to keep the debate refreshed with the waters of idealism, they must be tempered with the realities of a body politic that rightly or wrongly has been terrified into duct taped submission by a thoroughly corrupt Regime and an entrenched National Security State.

The political realities are:
If you don't support Israel you lose.
It you didn't support striking back against the terror cells in Afghanistan you lose.
If you don't appear hawkish on defense you lose.
If you don't mollify corporations you lose.

Now we can pretend these aren't the realities, but that is Fantasy Land. The key is to accept the facts as they are, and try to shape them into the facts as they can be. The question you have to ask yourself is which candidate, Kerry or Bush is closer to your political ideals. The rest is simply an exercise in self-indulgence over the common good.

It's great to have a robust political discourse. But in the process of this conversation there comes a point to engage the enemy or pick up your toys and go home. The "no difference" argument proffered by Nader is a canard. Even he knows it by his recent admissions that if you want Bush out of the White House, vote for Kerry. Also, his willingness to meet Kerry to discuss ways to beat Bush speaks volumes.

The US ship of state is like the Titanic. It takes massive amounts of force to make small course corrections. Those erstwhile sailors who think that they can radically shift course by throwing a few bombs in the engine room are woefully ignorant of the laws of political physics.

And in the end, if we don't make these admittedly minor corrections, we all end up on the bottom of the cold, dark, sea.

Kerry in 2004. There simply isn't any other choice.

O

[IrateCitizen]

65. I don't necessarily share that sentiment, Orwell...

Not the part about there not being a viable choice besides Kerry in 2004 -- that I agree with. But what I don't agree with is this:

The key is to accept the facts as they are, and try to shape them into the facts as they can be. The question you have to ask yourself is which candidate, Kerry or Bush is closer to your political ideals.

Now, I'm a cynic, but I don't see operating within our near-hopelessly corrupt electoral system as choosing the candidate "closer to your political ideals." Rather, I see it as choosing the candidate who represents the lesser impediment toward reforming the system.

In this case, the answer is easy. Between Bush and Kerry, Kerry represents the lesser impediment.

The following is from Noam Chomsky's 3/25 entry to his blog (http://blog.zmag.org/ttt/archives/000026.html#more). It is especially instructive here.

It's a matter of judgment, of course, but mine is that those who favor electing Bush are making a very serious error. The people around him are likely to cause very serious, perhaps irreparable, harm if given another mandate. Activist movements, if at all serious, pay virtually no attention to which faction of the business party is in office, but continue with their daily work, from which elections are a diversion -- which we cannot ignore, any more than we can ignore the sun rising; they exist.

There are also tactical questions. Those who prefer to ignore the real world are also undermining any hope of reaching any popular constituency. Few are likely to pay attention to someone who approaches them by saying, loud and clear: "I don't care whether you have a slightly better chance to receive health care or to support your elderly mother; or whether there will be a physical environment in which your children might have a decent life; or a world in which children may escape destruction as a result of the violence that is inspired by the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Cheney-etc. crowd, which could become extreme; and on, and on. Repeat: "slightly better." That matters to sensible people, surely the great mass of people who are the potential victims. So those who prefer to ignore the real world are also saying: "please ignore me." And they will achieve that result.

In short, the most important work in reform often takes place outside of the electoral system -- and most dedicated activists realize this, and in turn do not necessarily EXPECT the electoral system to generate reform. To them, elections are a distraction from the real work at hand -- but they STILL cannot be ignored, or even worse, miscalculated.

I see those who are spending most of their energies deconstructing Kerry rather than attacking Bush, who is the greater threat (the author of this article being a prime example) as consigning themselves to wander through the wilderness for the rest of their years. However, I just hope that they don't get all of us sent there with them through their misguided actions.

[Skittles]

26. there were far better candidates than Kerry

but like it or not we are stuck with him now. It pisses me off royally that he was picked before voting was anywhere NEAR where I live.

[IndianaGreen]

27. The Indiana primary is in May

and I will be voting for Dennis Kucinich.

Anything can happen between now and the convention. I don't think that Kerry's health is as excellent as the publicity photos make him appear.

I am also fearful that we might get a taste of what happened in Spain. We live in a violent world that we helped create.

[Skittles]

28. honestly, I voted for DK last month

I just could not see myself voting for someone who voted for IWR until it is absolutely necessary.

[Atman]

42. I voted for DK, too...last minute decision

Once it was a sure thing for Kerry, I knew my vote didn't matter in CT, so it freed me up to vote my conscience. DK is the candidate that came closest to my own views (and Kerry is about as opposite them of any of the original bunch).

[troublemaker]

36. Have fun in Dachau, you morons.

Do you know who was always running against Hitler? A bunch of lame ineffective politicians who couldn't do anything right and were corrupt and in bed with business and reactionary and.... who the fuck cares?

Anyone who cannot see today's Republicans as a singular threat deserves whatever they get.

[sampsonblk]

38. Kerry Isn't Running for Dictator

He is going to have to appoint strong Dems to top positions. That I can support, even if he himself isn't the best alternative to Bush.

[Martin Eden]

39. OK, what are the options?

Can we elect someone as president this November other than Bush or Kerry?

If there is no realistic chance of electing someone other than those two, which is the lesser evil?

Is there enough difference between the two to justify actively supporting the lesser evil?

IMHO, there is. A Kerry administration will not be the international pariah that Bush has become, and there are considerable differences in domestic and environmental policies.

Sure, we need to continue working for change if Kerry becomes president, but I think it would be a tremendous mistake to undermine his candidacy.

[IndianaGreen]

41. Because of the existence of the Electoral College, we have little choice

Bush is giving rightwing extremism a bad name.

A vote against Bush is not necessarily a vote endorsing Kerry's PPI agenda and corporatist policies. Let us recognize that putting Kerry in the White House is only the first step in a long series of steps to reverse course for this nation. A course that was set long before Justice Scalia put junior in the White House.

The issues that Dennis Kucinich is speaking about are our issues, and they represent the better angels in our nature.

[scottxyz]

40. The only reason we're stuck with Kerry.,..

...is because of this antiquated, unfair primary system we have.

Once the people of IA and NH had spoken, it was pretty much over for Dean and everyone else.

If we simply had Approval Voting (see http://www.accuratedemocracy.com) then all 9 Dems could stay in the race till the end, plus Nader, plus Bush, plus McCain or whoever.

On election day, we could pick MORE THAN ONE candidate we'd "approve" of. (For example, I might check Kerry, Dean, Nader.)

The candidate with the most votes wins.

This could be used with our existing equipment.

The sad mathematical fact of the matter is this: if there is more than one candidate for office, a system which forces you to CHOOSE JUST ONE CANDIDATE is NOT democratic.

The reason we keep getting the candidates we don't want is because WE DON'T HAVE A DEMOCRACY.

[NuttyFluffers]

43. you're right, we have a democratic republic ;)

anywho, agree that our primary/electoral college/non-mandatory voting/party system/private funding for media ads/fixed debate system is not inviting to real debate and options. yup, it's ok to get upset and rail against it.

but after all is said and done you have to come back and deal with reality. and even though it sucks, you have no sensible choice but to deal with the way these crooked things are.

serious *peaceful* change takes time. a journey of 1000 steps begin with the first, consider kerry the first step. otherwise we let a group of seriously nutty reactionaries finish their journey of 1000 steps and drag us into a fascist theocracy that is completely out of its gourd. it really is your choice, but think about it, who are you really showing your frustration to? people who desperately need you to start the journey of 1000 steps in a new direction? or your intended target who is finishing their journey?

to make a car go in reverse you first gotta stop the car. just slamming it in reverse just breaks the engine while momentum sends you careening forward. time to drop the idealism and face the reality. a pity, but it's the stage we're in.

[Jack Rabbit]

44. The Devil you know

People like Goldstein seem to be arguing that it's better to choose the Devil you know rather than the Devil you don't.

Not in this case.

No one can be sure that Kerry would undo all the damage Bush has done to American democratic institutions. That would be a hage task in itself. However, we do know that Bush will continue to actively undermine international law, the Bill of Rights, the constitutional system of checks and balances or any other cherished concept that stands between him and his loot.

Bush, simply put, is a tyrant whose ideas about government are incompatable with the principles of democracy. His ideas and values are alien to those of the founding fathers.

We are in the position of the French Resistance. Some, like Goldstein, don't seem to realize that. The French Resistance was mostly made up of socialists, Communists and anarchists. In order to rid their nation of Nazi occupation, they were willing to follow General de Gualle; whatever de Gualle was, he was not a socialist, Communist or anarchist. The Resistance didn't reject his leadership because he thought the world would be a better place in the long run if France continued to lord over Algeria.

The Left should not reject Kerry simply because Kerry is not a leftist. If we want Bush out, how else are we going to get him out but to vote for Kerry?

After the Nazis left France with their tails between their legs, the left and the sober oncservative de Gaulle went back to discussing their contradictory views about the world and France. After the Bushies leave Washington next winter, as hopefully they will, the American Left and Kerry can go on discussing what is a priority for America and exactly how America fits into the world. Whatever disagreements we have, they will not be discussed against a backdrop of no-fly lists and proposals to allow the President to strip an American of his rights as a citizen.

That makes Kerry worth supporting, even if nothing else does. This Lefty will vote for him in November.

[The Zanti Regent]

45. Same old blah blah blah from the same old farts who want Bush

Bush is the worst president ever, yet we still have some idiots here that want him re-selected.

As Harry Truman said, "How many times do you have to be hit in the head before some common sense gets knocked in there?"

Fred Goldstein can go back to sucking dead elephant dicks.

[kalian]

50. Explain to us how this article "wants" Bush to continue....

I'm ready to hear your explanation. Very curious actually.
The article is pointing out that Kerry would not bring effective
change to the situation and candidly points out the fact that Kerry
has been SUPPORTING shrub's actions... Care to explain that?

[Robbien]

56. Yes, the article points out that the only difference is nuance

And this is something I've been wrestling with since the Iowa caucuses. For the last three years ABB had me super glued to a seat in their camp.

But I've been since wondering.

[leftofthedial]

58. the "fallacy" is in the specious logic of this article

First, the bushgang is not "one of the most reactionary regimes in recent years," it is a full-on theocratic fascist regime bent on conquering and ruling the world.

It is a fallacy to believe that Kerry would not be an improvement in dozens of ways. Kerry is the only legitimate alternative to Bush.

Vote for Kerry or join the Bush movement. Your choice is simple.

[alarimer]

59. Two words

Supreme Court. They are the reason we need to elect Kerry this fall. We already know that Bush has been making ideological nominees to the Appeals courts (some of whom have never been judges anywhere) to repay his politcal cronies. It is possible that Bush would be able to nominate 3-4 Justices if he is reelected. Some are old, some are ill and some just want to retire. Can you imagine replacing moderates or liberals on the SC with someone like Pickering or Pryor? It is truly frightening and would ensure the destruction of the Bill of Rights for all time. Imagine Scalia as Chief Justice. It is enough to give me nightmares. So I am voting for Kerry. Whatever his faults, his nominees would almost certainly be more moderate than any of Bush's. We just might survive as a republic, whereas under Bush for four more years, I wonder if we will survive at all.

[Robbien]

60. Those are the two words the GOP are using for their malcontents also

So now we have both parties telling their base, yes we may be doing things you do not like, but do you really want the other guy to name the supremes?

If the candidates of both of the parties are thisclose in their thinking of globalization, privitization, foreign wars, patriot act and gay/lesbian issues, what would make one think they would pick their judges differently?

[alarimer]

61. so what

The fact remains (though many choose not to see it) that there is a great deal of difference between the two parties. I will not be able to persuade you or anyone else that this is true but it is.

[dryan]

62. Guess I'm not sophisticated like you city fellas!

Gee, I thought the title of this site was "Democratic Underground" where we discuss Democratic candidates, Democratic ideas, and Democratic issues. Sorry but I'm a Democrat, Kerry is going to be the nominee (I was support Clarke), and that's it folks. It's time to put all this navel-gazing aside, roll up our sleeves and defeat George Bush and Company. I like lively debate too (my uncle who is a member of the John Birch society is coming for Easter dinner and that's going to be very lively), but the fact is that John Kerry is better than George Bush. End of story.

[IrateCitizen]

64. It's "democratic" as an adjective, not as a party mouthpiece

While most members are Democrats, it is not a requirement to be a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party, so long as you support the achievement of progressive goals.

IOW, read the rules. End of story.

[dryan]

68. Oh, I' get it now

It's okay when someone gives an opinion that you agree with but not when someone gives an opinion contrary to yours. Thanks for straightening me out.

[IrateCitizen]

66. Slavish devotion to ideology to the exclusion of reality...

... will get you nowhere in the end.

For someone who acknowledges that there IS a difference between Kerry and Bush, Mr. Goldstein certainly seems to expend a lot of energy assailing the recent record of Sen. Kerry. Also, Mr. Goldstein fails to acknowledge the political realities in this country that one cannot directly confront the issues of which he speaks, during the middle of a presidential campaign, and maintain any hope of emerging victorious.

Furthermore, Mr. Goldstein shows the inflexibility of ideologues at the end of the piece:

This war drive has nothing to do with Bush versus Kerry. It has to do with the profit system that they both serve. The capitalist system is in a constant state of crisis worldwide. Every day the financial managers of Wall Street study the economic numbers, hoping they will bring them some news of job growth. They are confounded by their own system, which drives them more and more to exploit workers, expand production, increase productivity and lower wages to bolster profits. This contradiction drives them to every corner of the globe, and that requires war, intervention and occupation.

Only an independent, mass working-class struggle against the evils of the system and against the system itself can push back capitalist reaction and war.

The Rev. William Sloane Coffin, minister emiterus at Riverside Church in NYC, in a recent interview on Bill Moyers' NOW said, "We should continue to ask the socialist questions, but not continue to rely on the socialist answers." Mr. Goldstein, however, would instead direct us to the infallibility of the socialist answers, insisting like the academic capitalists of the International Monetary Fund that the reason his theories had not yet worked was because they had never been properly implemented.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the idea of socialism in many ways. But I'm also a person who recognizes the role that human nature plays in life, and that we never will have a "pure" system. I also think that Mr. Goldstein shoots himself in the foot when he says, "Only an independent, mass working-class struggle against the evils of the system and against the system itself can push back capitalist reaction and war." Why? Because in making dividing lines like this, he is alienating potential alliances that CAN form across class lines, alliances that ARE instrumental in reforming the system for the better.

The problems of which Mr. Goldstein speaks -- militarism, profit at the expense of people and the environment, erosion of privacy, etc. -- are not new ones. However, none of them will really be stopped directly through the electoral process, but rather through people exploring alternative means of interacting in society and business. Much of this IS happening, in fits and starts, across America. A lot of examples can be found in the book The Soul of Capitalism by William Greider. However, for Mr. Goldstein to accept any of the examples presented would require him to let go of his ideological underpinnings and instead continue to ask the socialist questions while not depending on the socialist answers.

[bluestateguy]

71. I don't make enough money to vote for Nader

I suppose I can understand it if Tim Robbins wants to vote for Nader: it's not him who will suffer the consequences of a second Bush term. I on the other hand can't afford it. Living in a state like Indiana, if you really feel you must vote for Nader I won't complain too much. My biggest vitriol is reserved for those people in places like Wisconsin and Florida who vote for Nader.