Antiwar Dems: Are the PNAC regrouping and recalibrating in the Kerry camp?

[Classical_Liberal]

Consider Andrew Sullivan's recent endorsement of Kerry.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

Consider PNAC Will Marshall is a Kerry speech writer.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-031903.htm

Consider Kerry's support of Bush giving Sharon the settlements. The settlements are the main root cause of terrorism and the war, and if they don't stop the clash with the Muslims won't stop.


Consider Kerry's statements bashing Hugo Chavez and Zapataro.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/80819/1/.html

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


Basically if we believe Kerry own statements we get the same foreign policy, but he will talk nicer to the UN. Here is an example of what I am talking about from an article entitled.

Bush mishandled Iraq, misled many, Kerry says

In another issue important to Florida's large Jewish population, Kerry voiced support for Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on Israel's decision to retain some Jewish settlements in the West Bank in concert with an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Gaza Strip. Israel captured both areas in the 1967 Mideast war.

But Kerry accused the Bush administration of mishandling the announcement of its support for Sharon's plan.

"There were Arab leaders who were taken by surprise by this announcement," he said. "I don't think that surprise evidences the groundwork of diplomacy necessary."

In other words, Sharon's policy is not wrong or inflammitory. Bush was just too blunt, and didn't say it nice.

If this is the case what constructive action can those of us dems who are trying to stop the war and the clash of civilizations(pnac)take to make either Kerry or Bush give up this malignant foreign policy advisers from the pnac. It isn't just the Iraq war that is misguided. It is our entire policy in the middle east particularly the settlements on the West Bank.

Nader won't win and I want results.

Is there anyway we can put pressure on our foreign allies to be uncooperative with President Kerry if he doesn't take concrete steps to get Sharon and the settlers out of the west bank? We don't just want more tact from my President. We want a substantive change in our foreign policy.

[rooboy]

1. Mike Ruppert might be right...

when he said on Mike Webb's show the other day that Kerry's foreign policy agenda will be much the same as Bush's but with "better background music".

[Classical_Liberal]

3. He does appear to be right on this though

I tend to move away from LIHOP or MIHOP. I believe in innocent till proven guilty on those issues.

[nodictators]

16. Ruppert is wrong!

That kind of talk only helps Bush. Kerry's instincts are completely different than Bu$h's.

Sure, Kerry is an establishment type. So too are Carter, Mondale, Gore and both of the Clintons.

Kerry doesn't believe in preemptive invasions, low-yield nuclear weapons for "bunker-busting," massive off-shoring of jobs, huge tax cuts for the wealthy, etc., etc.

The differences between Kerry and Bu$h
are a hell of a lot more than "background music."

[Classical_Liberal]

19. Kerry is to the right of Clinton and Carter on settlements

.

Letting him triangulate the party to the right hurts dems too.

[mouse7]

24. Chief Justice Charles Pickering

Do you like the sound of that?

No difference between Kerry and Bush, huh?

[Classical_Liberal]

25. That's nice. You obviously don't read anything I say.

. I admit there is a difference between Bush and Kerry on abortion, and don't think Nader voting is an option.

However he is selling us out to the PNAC on foreign policy and I ain't going to take it. Neither should anyone else that wants to stop the clash of civilizations.

[mouse7]

32. No. Kerry is just playing to the center for the General Election

You need to pay attention to the calendar. The primaries are done. Kerry now has a general election to win. Kerry is doing what he has to do to win.

[Classical_Liberal]

33. Clinton campaigned right and stayed there after the election

. Kerry is farther to the right than Clinton.

[mouse7]

36. Clinton governed as a centrist his whole career

Clinton governing as a centrist was no surprise to anyone who paid attention. It's why Clinton was my next to last choice from the slate of candidates running in 1992.

Kerry has not been a centrist his whole career like Clinton was. Kerry has supported practical progressive solutions his whole career.

If Kerry has a weakness, it's overly complex solutions that are hard to explain to average voters. Kerry leans complex, not centrist.

(On edit... a typo that significantly changed the meaning of my post)

[Classical_Liberal]

38. He endorsed Sharon

It is a sellout of Clinton, and me.

I am getting my protest signs ready, based on what he says and I don't expect any changes in foreign policy.

[mouse7]

41. It's impossible for Kerry to challenge Israeli lobby and beat Bush

Impossible.

It's not Kerry that's the sellout. It's the American people that don't give a flying fuck how many people that Israel butchers. Israeli support is running like 80%.

It's a fight that can't be won until Kerry has the pulpit to change the terms of the discussion.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mouse7]

47. 80% of American people support Israeli policy of butchery

The American people know exactly what Isreal is doing. The American people support Israeli assassinantions and butchery.

Americans know what's going on and DO NOT give a damn.

The issue cannot be fought in the general election, so there's no point trying to fight it.

[Classical_Liberal]

50. Cite your source for that stat. I don't believe you

all the polls I have seen show americans believe in the two state solution including the majority of jews.

[mouse7]

53. Bogus Question

Americans support a two state solution, but consider support of Israel far more important than any individual part of Isreali policy. The American people will not support anything threatening US support of Israel.

[Classical_Liberal]

55. Bogus answer and still not cited.

In fact 3/4 of the American people not only support the two state solution but they are opposed to the occupation as well. They don't consider it part of the war against terrorisma and they think Sharon's actions are counterproductive.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13116

According to the poll – which posed more than 50 detailed questions to 801 respondents – two-thirds of Americans want Washington to be strictly even-handed in its approach to the conflict. But 58 percent say President Bush has taken Israel's side in the ongoing conflict.

But the poll also shows that Americans strongly condemn Palestinian suicide bombings and feel greater sympathy for Israel than before 9/11. A strong majority, however, objects to Sharon's military actions last month and his refusal to accede to Bush's appeals to withdraw from reoccupied towns. An overwhelming 76 percent say Israel should allow the United Nations to investigate its military operation in Jenin. Moreover, almost two-thirds of the respondents see Israel's recent military attacks on towns on the West Bank as counter-productive. Sixty-two percent say the likelihood of future bombings has been increased by the attacks; while only 15 percent say the likelihood of such attacks has diminished.

Most Americans also do not perceive the Israeli invasion as a struggle against terrorism. In contrast to a CBS poll taken in mid-April – cited in Monday's New York Times – the PIPA survey conducted during the first week of May found that an overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with Congress's view of the conflict.

This month both houses passed resolutions – which might as well have been written by the right-wing lobbying group American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – expressing strong support for the Israeli offensive, linking it to the broader war on terrorism. When respondents were asked to describe the war, 46 percent agreed with the statement that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was one "between two national groups fighting over the same piece of land." Only a small minority of Americans (17 percent) described it as a part of the war on terrorism, "similar to the U.S. struggle with al-Qaeda."

[mouse7]

61. Buried in there is the real answer I cited

It still shows what I pointed to. Americans show greater support for Israel since 9/11.

Overall American support for Isreal has greatly increased since 9/11 even though they oppose a lot of what Isreal is doing. In other words, American support Israel no matter what it does, and trying to fight that overall support for Isreal would doom Kerry if he tried to fight against that support.

[Classical_Liberal]

67. Do you know what a citation is?

It means providing a source to back up you statement. You said people support the slaughter of Palestinians in margins of 80%. Provide the link that shows this. You haven't done that. I have provided sources. My poll was taken in 2002 when Bush support was still strong. I doubt attitudes toward Sharon have improved since then.

[mouse7]

70. I quoted your source

Your source says that Israel has far greater overall support since 9/11. American overall support has increased at the same time it's opinions on individual issues has decreased.

Your source proves my point. Americans have increased their overall support for Israel while Israel has acted as a butcher.

[Classical_Liberal]

73. How did my poll show 80% of the American people support slaughter of Pales

tinians? Here is the link again.

But the poll also shows that Americans strongly condemn Palestinian suicide bombings and feel greater sympathy for Israel than before 9/11. A strong majority, however, objects to Sharon's military actions last month and his refusal to accede to Bush's appeals to withdraw from reoccupied towns. An overwhelming 76 percent say Israel should allow the United Nations to investigate its military operation in Jenin. Moreover, almost two-thirds of the respondents see Israel's recent military attacks on towns on the West Bank as counter-productive. Sixty-two percent say the likelihood of future bombings has been increased by the attacks; while only 15 percent say the likelihood of such attacks has diminished.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13116

[mouse7]

75. Poll shows that Americans support Israel increased in spite of slaugher

Americans overall support of Israel has incresed in the same period of time that the poll shows Americans disagree with Isreal on many issues.

That means that Americans consider overall support of Israel far more important than disagreement on any of these particular issues.

[Classical_Liberal]

78. Where did the 80% come from

and how does general support for Israel mean these other issues aren't important? Afterall it is much better for Israel's future if they abandon the settlements on the west bank. IT is also better for our future if we don't let Sharon have them. We will become targets of Palestinaian anger just like the Israelis if we don't look fair. Americans should care about that, and indeed they appear to care about his very much no matter how you spin it. Also how does support for Israel translate to "supporting israeli slaughter of Palestinians"?

[mouse7]

79. You don't seem to know much about polling

When overall support increases while disagreement on individual issues increases, it means the respondent don't really care too much about the individual issues while they consider support in general much more important.

Americans aren't technically supporting "slaughter." They are saying they consider the slaughter a far less important factor than their overall support of Israel.

[Classical_Liberal]

80. No it means that Americans don't see support for settlements

as the same as supporting Israel. Besides it is pretty obvious your 80% was pulled out you ass just admit it.

Also American's should care about this issue, just like they should have cared along time ago whether the WMD claims were true.

You have pretty much conceded that someone who favors peace like myself gets nothing from Kerry because of his support of Sharon.

So you are doing more damage to your Kerry than I am.

[mouse7]

81. You need to admit nobody gives a shit about stopping settlements

Nobody is going to vote for a candidate based on a position against Isreali settlements. LOTS of people would turn over heavens and earth if Kerry stated he was against them.

There is no point in fighting upstream against this.

[Classical_Liberal]

83. Polls indicate that Americans are against settlements

so that is simply a bogus claim. furthermore if the people who know better don't care about this they are irresponsible fucks, since lives depend on it.

[mouse7]

82. Turned into a Israel/Palestinian thread. Needs to be moved to I/P forum.

It didn't take long for this to devolve into a I/P thread. It needs to be moved to the I/P forum.

[Classical_Liberal]

84. It's a democratic party thread and our policies should

be front and center of all of our concernes.

[mouse7]

85. No, it's become an I/P flame war

Democratic party policies on I/P issues go in the I/P forum. You know that.

[Classical_Liberal]

86. This isn't just about I/P. It is about the PNAC

. I don't see where this is a flame war.

[corporatewhore]

87. it doesnt belong according to rules

[tinanator]

48. he doesnt believe in all the things that went down while he was a Senator?

some record.

[hang a left]

66. Is this what he believes in?

'It's Time to Get Over It'
John Kerry Tells Antiwar Movement to Move On
by Mark Hand
Press Action, 9 Feb 2004
www.globalresearch.ca 19 March 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HAN403A.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Researchers and investigative reporters are fascinated with the neoconservatives, that group of American empire peddlers who turned George W. Bush into a junkie war criminal. A similar group, the New Democrats, has been pushing its own dangerous brand of U.S. hegemony but with much less fanfare.

The leading mouthpiece for the New Democrats' radical interventionist program could be our next president. John Kerry, the frontrunner in the quest for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, has been promoting a foreign policy perspective called "progressive internationalism." It's a concept concocted by establishment Democrats seeking to convince potential backers in the corporate and political world that, if installed in the White House, they would preserve U.S. power and influence around the world, but in a kinder, gentler fashion than the current administration.

In the domestic battle to captain the American empire, the neocons have in their corner the Project for a New American Century while the New Democrats have the Progressive Policy Institute. Come November, who will get your vote? Coke or Pepsi?

In fall 2000, PNAC released Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. It's a blueprint for "maintaining global U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests."

In fall 2003, members of PPI joined with other tough-minded Democrats to unveil Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy, a 19-page manifesto that calls for "the bold exercise of American power, not to dominate but to shape alliances and international institutions that share a common commitment to liberal values."

The New Democrats don't begrudge the Bush administration for invading Iraq. They take issue with the Bush administration's strategy of refusing to invite key members of the international community to the invasion until it was too late. The neocons' unilateralist approach, the New Democrats believe, will ultimately harm U.S. political and economic dominance around the world.

"We are confident that a new Democratic strategy, grounded in the party’s tradition of muscular internationalism, can keep Americans safer than the Republicans’ go-it-alone policy, which has alienated our natural allies and overstretched our resources," the New Democrats say in their foreign policy manifesto. "We aim to rebuild the moral foundation of U.S. global leadership by harnessing America’s awesome power to universal values of liberal democracy. A new progressive internationalism can point the way."

Proponents of "progressive internationalism" are a lock to control leadership positions at the State Department and key civilian posts at the Pentagon in a John Kerry administration. How do we know this? Because these New Democrats obviously ghostwrote Kerry's campaign book, A Call to Service: My Vision for A Better America. Place the Progressive Internationalism manifesto and Kerry's chapter on foreign policy side by side and you'll immediately notice the similarities.

On page 40 of In A Call to Service, Kerry writes: "The time has come to renew that tradition and revive a bold vision of progressive internationalism." What is this tradition to which Kerry refers? As he describes it, Democrats need to honor "the tough-minded strategy of international engagement and leadership forged by Wilson and Roosevelt in the two world wars and championed by Truman and Kennedy in the cold war."

Now, turn to page 3 of the New Democrats' manifesto. It reads:

"As Democrats, we are proud of our party’s tradition of tough-minded internationalism and strong record in defending America. Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman led the United States to victory in two world wars and designed the post-war international institutions that have been a cornerstone of global security and prosperity ever since. President Truman forged democratic alliances such as NATO that eventually triumphed in the Cold War. President Kennedy epitomized America’s commitment to “the survival and success of liberty.” Like the neocons, Kerry was not impressed by France's stance against the U.S. invasion of Iraq. On page 51 of his book, he writes:

"I hope by the time you read this book that the UN has been usefully employed as a partner in the reconstruction of Iraq and that Jacque Chirac has ceased his foolish rebellion against the very idea of the Atlantic Alliance. America, which has always shown magnanimity in victory, should in turn meet repentant Europeans halfway, not ratchet up the badgering unilateralism that fed European fears in the first place." There's much to digest in this paragraph. Perhaps the most interesting nugget is Kerry's statement that the United States should "meet repentant Europeans halfway." Hmmm, John, could you elaborate on what sins the Europeans committed for which they must repent?

On page 50, Kerry details his beef with Old Europe:

"The Bush administration is by no means the only culprit in the breakdown in U.S.-UN relations over Iraq. France, Germany and Russia never supported or offered a feasible policy to verify that UN resolutions on Iraq were actually being carried out. … Our British, Spanish and Eastern European coalition allies are eager to rebuild European unity." Throughout the foreign policy sections of the book, Kerry does his best to convince the reader that he would not run from his role as war criminal in chief if elected president.

Perhaps the most repulsive section of the book is where Kerry discusses the Vietnam War and the antiwar movement. On page 42, Kerry writes:

"I could never agree with those in the antiwar movement who dismissed our troops as war criminals or our country as the villain in the drama. That's one reason, in fact, that I eventually parted ways with the VVAW organizations and instead helped found the Vietnam Veterans of America." If the United States was not a villain in the "drama" of the Vietnam war, then who is to blame for the million-plus Vietnamese who were killed during the 20-year period of naked U.S. aggression that ended in 1975? Surely, John, you don't wish to blame certain communist dead-enders in Vietnam for the carnage?

On the next page, Kerry informs his reader that it's time we stop questioning U.S. foreign policy intentions:

"As a veteran of both the Vietnam War and the Vietnam protest movement, I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's time to get over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example, of the U.S. military engagements of the twentieth century. If those of us who carried the physical and emotional burdens of that conflict can regain perspective and move on, so can those whose involvement was vicarious or who knew nothing of the war other than ideology and legend." This last passage is probably the most unsettling part of Kerry's book and one that every advocate of the Anyone-But-Bush 2004 election strategy should read before heading to the polling station in November.

In this one passage, Kerry seeks to justify the millions of people slaughtered by the U.S. military and its surrogates during the twentieth century, suggests that concern about U.S. war crimes in Vietnam is no longer necessary, and dismisses the antiwar movement as the work of know-nothings.

Kerry and his comrades in the progressive internationalist movement are as gung-ho about U.S. military action as their counterparts in the White House. The only noteworthy difference between the two groups battling for power in Washington is that the neocons are willing to pursue their imperial ambitions in full view of the international community, while the progressive internationalists prefer to keep their imperial agenda hidden behind the cloak of multilateralism.

[soothsayer]

2. I've said all along PNAC will throw * under a bus if his ratings fall

They will stick with the winner. This is the prob with our skull and bones election. Both are in the pockets of the powers that be. BUT I'd still rather have Kerry than dumbass, cuz at least he will do some good environmental things, etc., while still furthering PNAC's and Israel's plans.

[Classical_Liberal]

4. This clash of civilizations doesn't help the environment either.

.

[mouse7]

5. Kerry is keeping his friends close, and his enemies closer.

I prefer Kerry to have a PNAC guy sitting in on some certain Kerry meetings spilling his guts. It better overall that way than having the PNAC all plotting together secretly. Same goes for Sullivan.

[still_one]

6. You are misrepresenting Kerry

He has already said he would engage in negotiations where Clinton left off in the middle east.

As far as Iraq, like it or not we cannot just pull out, we need to make it an international effort.

I have the upmost confidence though, that even with Woodward's revelations, that the Democrats in their infinite wisdom will self-destruct and get bush into office again. They seem to constantly cut off their noses to spite their face. Every poll I see shows that Nader can make or break this election. Taking that fact, along with the left wing of the party, my money is that bush gets re-elected

[Classical_Liberal]

8. How can I misrepresent Kerry's own words

He approves of giving Sharon settlements. This is way to the right of Clinton.

[still_one]

14. You obviously did not see meet the press

In addition, this is exactly the reason why bush will win a second term, because repugs will be loyal no matter what. The left win of the Democrats on the other hand will make sure that everything they are critical on Kerry will be used against Kerry in the general election.

If bush wins, which I think he will, it will be the last election I vote in.

Hell, I have a daughter so I won't have to worry about her getting drafted, I have the means so if they ban abortion, and I need that service, I can travel abroad, I don't need social security or medicare, and I am sure my stocks will go up if bush wins.

Seeing the open letter that Nader wrote to Michael Moore tells me that everything will be done to get bush re-elected, and the so-called parents, liberals, old people who depend on social security, right or left wing, will deserve what they get!

[Classical_Liberal]

15. He made those comments on meet the press as well

.

Rant all you want. I didn't advocate Nader voting, but I am not going to be abused by Kerry.

You obviously didn't read what I said or listen to what he said on meet the press.

[still_one]

20. I know you did not advocate to vote for Nader

but the effect will be the same.

On meet the press Kerry said he supported Israel, but strongly implied that negotiations were essential

[Classical_Liberal]

23. He supported Bush's endorsement of the Sharon plan

on Meet the Press and at the fundraising banquet. That means no negotiations. It is way to the right of Clinton. If the Palestinians negotiate it will be for only 50% of the West Bank. Dah.

[mouse7]

34. Look at the calendar, CL

The primaries are done. Kerry has a general election to win. Kerry is doing what he has to do to win the election in November.... playing to the center.

[Classical_Liberal]

35. He is playing to the right on that issue

That is further to the right than Clinton. People who play to the center stay in the center. Clinton actually went further to the right after getting elected.

I am planning now for a Kerry sellout, and strategizing about pushing him left.

[mouse7]

37. No. Kerry is simply not fighting an unwinnable fight.

Kerry cannot fight the Israeli lobby and win in November. It can't happen. Kerry is being a realist. Kerry undersatnds beating Bush is the most important thing between now and November.

CL, you apparently don't understand the most important agenda items between now and November is defesting Bush. You'd rater be "pure and right" and end up with Pickering on the Supreme Court.

[Classical_Liberal]

39. That is not true. If he wanted to leave mystery for the Israeli

Lobby he could have just endorsed the Gaza part of the plan rather than specifically endorsing giving Sharon settlements on the West Bank. Furthermore, you have to explain how Clinton won without doing that.

[mouse7]

43. Because the Amercian people support Israeli butchery

80% of American supoort the current policy in Isreal of Israeli butchery. That's a fact. The Ameriacan people know exactly what's going on in Isreal now, and do not care.

[Classical_Liberal]

44. Citation?

? Cite that 80% of the american people support the settlements. Also why did Clinton win advocating the two state solution.

[mouse7]

52. Bogus question.

The American people have consistantly polled towards wanting Israel to move out of the settlements, but aren't willing to stop supporting Israel to make it happen.

Americans are going to support Israel no matter what it does. The relative importance of supporting Israel leaves their concern about things like settlements in the dust in comparison.

[Classical_Liberal]

56. non sequitor on support for Israel, and Show me those polls then.

. If they consistently show what you say, then they should be easy to find.

[mouse7]

63. Read post # 61 n/t

[Classical_Liberal]

64. 75% of Americans support the two state solution, and don't

think the occupation of the west bank is part of the war on terror.

According to the poll – which posed more than 50 detailed questions to 801 respondents – two-thirds of Americans want Washington to be strictly even-handed in its approach to the conflict. But 58 percent say President Bush has taken Israel's side in the ongoing conflict.

But the poll also shows that Americans strongly condemn Palestinian suicide bombings and feel greater sympathy for Israel than before 9/11. A strong majority, however, objects to Sharon's military actions last month and his refusal to accede to Bush's appeals to withdraw from reoccupied towns. An overwhelming 76 percent say Israel should allow the United Nations to investigate its military operation in Jenin. Moreover, almost two-thirds of the respondents see Israel's recent military attacks on towns on the West Bank as counter-productive. Sixty-two percent say the likelihood of future bombings has been increased by the attacks; while only 15 percent say the likelihood of such attacks has diminished.

Most Americans also do not perceive the Israeli invasion as a struggle against terrorism. In contrast to a CBS poll taken in mid-April – cited in Monday's New York Times – the PIPA survey conducted during the first week of May found that an overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with Congress's view of the conflict.

This month both houses passed resolutions – which might as well have been written by the right-wing lobbying group American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – expressing strong support for the Israeli offensive, linking it to the broader war on terrorism. When respondents were asked to describe the war, 46 percent agreed with the statement that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was one "between two national groups fighting over the same piece of land." Only a small minority of Americans (17 percent) described it as a part of the war on terrorism, "similar to the U.S. struggle with al-Qaeda.".......

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13116

[mouse7]

68. Read post #61

The answer hasn't changes. In your own article, it showed that Isreal has far greater overall support since 9/11 no matter what Isreal has done on individual issues that they may disagree with.

[Classical_Liberal]

71. Read post 67

and cite a source showing 80% of the American people suppport Sharon's slaughter of Palestinians.

[Classical_Liberal]

7. I forgot to say, he is on the campaign trail with Joseph Lieberman

He made those statements on Sharon while at a fundraising banquet held by Lieberman.


I think Lieberman was responsible for Nader's popularity and Bush's defeat last time around.

[xchrom]

9. pnacers are corporatists

and support for any given goal probably changes according real ability to reach that goal.
what is important to know, to talk about, to gauge how the wind is blowing -- is corporate power.
it's in control of both parties -- mind you i'm voting for kerry but i'm also a realist.

[peace4all]

10. the roots of terrorism?

nobody is going to go there, thus insuring that the "war on terror" will continue indefinitely.
The 9-11 commission won't address this. Kucinich is the only one who has but he was deemed unelectable.

[peachy]

11. Tell me again

why Kucinich voters should support Kerry? Every time I read something about Bush's policy or the Iraq war I remember, but then Kerry comes out with a statement of support for Bush's policy, or quibbles over some irrelevant detail of policy and my memory fails. Why again should those of us who want a more peaceful future vote for Kerry?

[Classical_Liberal]

12. abortion and the environment

basically. The PNAC and the neoliberals don't care about those issues.

The thing is, Kerry is hinging his success on fairing better with EU allies. So we need to put pressure on EU allies not to fall for the new paint job and to be uncooperative until Kerry give substance and not just tact.

Any ideas on how to do this? Any other ideas on pressuring Kerry.

[G_j]

13. the environment alone

is enough reason for me (a Kucinich supporter) because we are at an extreme crisis there.

Also, Dennis will be supporting Kerry so i imagine his supporters will too for the most part.

I do imagine that I may be protesting in the streets once again over Kerry's foriegn policy **once we get him elected.

[greenman3610]

18. judges

one word:

judges

[still_one]

21. At least you are practical

and I am NOT being sarcastic

[G_j]

30. as an environmentalist, I don't see I have any choice but

to vote for Kerry. If it helps save one old growth stand, one river, or one coral reef, I have to, for the sake of all our health and that of coming generations.

As for foriegn policy? I'd rather be lobbying, raising hell and protesting with Kerry in office than Bush. He won't get a free ride from me. I will continue to advocate the same principals of peace that Kucinich represents.

[still_one]

17. I don't think Kucinich voters should support Kerry

I think everything should be grouped as all or nothing. As far as the policy on the Iraq war, if you believe we should just get out without turning it over internationally they you haven't even listened to Kucinich.

Kerry and Bush's policy on Iraq are not the same thing, but that doesn't matter, the important thing is to make sure the independents and the people who are undecided understand that so they can vote for bush

[mouse7]

22. Chief Justice Charles Pickering.

Pickering as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for life. Plan on it.

Now... any more stupid questions as to why you should support Kerry over Bush?

[makhno]

40. Keep up that condescending tone

And watch people stay at home in November just as a big fuck you.

[mouse7]

54. Pickering, Pickering, Pickering

That's your future under Bush.

[makhno]

57. Mine and yours

Hope you can handle living abroad. It's really not that bad.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[w4rma]

26. No. My gut feeling about Kerry is that he'll be nothing like Bush.

To me, my gut feeling has proven correct most of the time.

I think now that the die has been cast and it is either Kerry or Bush who will be president in 2005, it would be best to put your faith in Kerry and watch him closely once in office.

I think that the Democratic base is too wary of PNACers to let him get by with anything of the sort (even if he wanted to, which my gut feeling about him tells me that he doesn't) once elected.

[Classical_Liberal]

28. My gut is telling me the opposite

and I never suggested Nader voting or non voting. The democrats are already letting him get away with pnacing.

[w4rma]

29. Nah, He's not perfect, but he's definitely not going to follow in Bush's

failed footsteps, imho.

Foreign policy will be handled **much** differently under a Kerry administration.

Also, Kerry has a Democratic base to keep happy so, even if he wanted to (and I don't think he does), he isn't going to stray far from the Democratic base's POV.

[Classical_Liberal]

31. I am the democratic base. He is straying

far from me on foreign polcy. The endorsement of the Sharon plan is the end of the two state solution if Kerry follows through.

[makhno]

46. Why would he keep the base happy?

After all, come 2008, we're going to have the same choice - a conservative Democrat or some nutjob Republican.

[Classical_Liberal]

49. That isn't necessarily the case

The left does need to takeover the dem party reguardless of whether Kerry sells out. IF they do that we could have a decent choice next time.

[makhno]

51. Assuming a positive outcome in 2004

Do you really believe an incumbent president will be seriously challenged for the Democratic nomination? It'll be extremely interesting to see Kerry's choice of VP. That should give us an indication of the political orientation he wants to give his administration.

bm

[Classical_Liberal]

59. I've already told you I don't think much of Kerry

and am not putting my eggs his basket for serious change. 2012 may be different, and I am concerned with getting progressives elected to Congress, and in displacing the leadership with progressives.

[rman]

72. should not be a matter of gut feeling

if anything, Kerry should make it obvious he is nothing like Bush (why would he not?).
The fact that to many this is a matter of gut feeling goes to show rationality isn't in the picture here. I'd hope for a non-despot to appeal to people's ratio, not so much to people's emotions.

[seabeyond]

27. maybe and i have been getting the feel

in this listening to kerry and watching and listening to his history.

maybe

adn what is in four years. bush gave us a clear view of what it looks like, and if it is true in democrat, screw them, we will see even faster, adn democrats are willing to see. they dont deny so hard. adn we will get him out. and put in a dean or something. as soon as i heard deans scream, and i love the scream personally though his downfall. i saw that kerry was going to be needed to be backed, adn dean wasnt over. 4 years. people in my area, old republican, where listening to dean. and he didnt hurt their ears which was a good sign

so, if so, we call kerry hard fast and loud

truth is never painful, as much as we fear it. fear the pain of it. which is a true "flipflop" of truth.

[Jacobin]

45. Kerry: "A Kinder, Gentler Conquistador"

Zactly How is Kerry different from Smirky in foreign policy matters? Nada, as far as I can tell.

Domestically, we can still have some fair amount of certainty he won't be as crazy as Smirky.

[MadHound]

58. No, its not PNAC

It is simply more of the same ol' same ol' two party/same corporate master system at work. Bush apparently can't cut it any more, so the corporate masters have found the perfect corporate whore in Kerry. He will be playing good cop to Bush's bad cop, but hey, the show will still go on. The imperial Iraqi occupation will continue, making obscene profits for the few, while killing the many and tearing both countries apart. Support for the Israeli actions will continue, for it insures arms sales to both sides, and instablity in the region which can be used to great advantage by the corporatistas. It also provides a rallying point for the world fundies, a way to whip them up into a frenzy. Interference, both covertly and overtly, will continue around the world, all in the name of Pax Americana, while at home the ongoing war against the poor and middle class will continue. Jobs will continue to be outsourced, pollution will continue to flourish, an unhealthy addiction to oil will continue to be encouraged, the gap between the rich and the rest of us will continue to grow larger, and while Kerry might pay lip service to liberal ideals, the corporate ties that bind him will ensure, much like Clinton, that it will only be lip service.

PNAC, PPI, who needs these anacronyms anymore? The writing should be plain on the wall for all to see. Corporations and their unchecked actions have corrupted our government and are going to ruin our great country if they continue unchecked. Kerry isn't going to do anything to stop the madness, and except for a few courageous Democrats, the entire party has pretty much thrown in with the 'Pugs in order to get a ride on the money wagon. All that is being done now is a grand game of good cop/bad cop in order to maintain the fiction of party differenciation and to appease various subgroups of either party.

This is why it should be a priority to get politicians in place who are not beholden to corporate interests. This can be achieved through two means, either voting for parties that take no corporate cash, or for running state by state referendums in order to achieve publicly financed election campaigns. Until the corporate interests are kicked out of government, all you and I are participating in is being the dupe in a large game of good cop/bad cop. I don't know about you, but I don't wish to continue being used as the dupe. Perhaps enough people will finally wake up in order to prevent our country from being so used also.

[Classical_Liberal]

62. Your right. The public financing option is more workable

because you have to get rid of the electoral college to make third party voting work to your advantage, and alot of pissant states won't go for it.

[CabalBuster]

60. Read "The Kerry Tribes" for insight into his campaign

An excellent "must-read" article on slate about the different groups now fighting to control the Kerry campaign:

The Kerry Tribes: The seven factions fighting for control of his campaign and his presidency. http://slate.msn.com/id/2098894/

[Classical_Liberal]

76. Interesting read. Let's root for "The Band of Brothers!"

.

[John_H]

69. Yes. We must vote Nader so Wolfowitz stays in charge.

[Classical_Liberal]

74. I suspect Wolfowits stays in charge anyway.

judging by the defection of Sullivan.

[rumguy]

77. ahh...nothing like some tinfoil to go with my coffee

PNAC...is everywhere! It's in Kerry's campaign too! PNAC is people...it's peeeeooooopppplllleeee!!!!