Holding our noses for Kerry

[malatesta1137]

Interesting position by this Noam Chomsky collaborator:

I'm voting for Kerry, unless the election outcome in Pennsylvania is very clear, in which case I'll vote for Cobb or Nader. I agree with Richard Falk, however, who says: "I have been urging friends not to listen to what he says, because it is likely to be so awful as to undermine the morale needed to raise money and work for the registration of young and minority voters that will be required to defeat Bush." But I can't bring myself to give money and energy to support a man who has already sold out on so many issues ("I am no redistributionist," Sharon and the wall, staying the course in Iraq, etc

http://www.swans.com/library/art10/herman13.html

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. So long as he ain't voting for Bush

Fine by me

[Misunderestimator]

2. Ugh

[oasis]

3. The s.o.b. can vote for Bush with his nose wide open for all I care.

Damning with faint praise is still, damning.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. His nose holding ability is greater than mine.

After Kerry's recent statements regarding the occupation and the Apartheid wall in Israel, Cobb has my vote, no matter what the polls say.

[DemBones DemBones]

5. We'll remember to thank you if Bush* wins.

:grr:

On Edit: Are you NUTS???

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. No need. Thank Kerry and the DLC.

They're the ones who sold out.

[Kahuna]

8. Apparently you are not of draft age. Maybe you should consider...

Your friends and family members who are of draft age before recording your vote,

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Nope. But, I was one of those guys who fought to abolish it.

That was after I got out of the Marines in '65. You?

[tedzbear]

23. Wha? Kerry is just as likely to reinstate the draft!

He will be like LBJ and Viet-nam: escalating it until it almost destroys our nation.

[geek tragedy]

11. So Palestine is more important than America to you? eom

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Human Rights are more important to me than Kerry.

And, they're also more important to me than they ARE to Kerry.

[geek tragedy]

15. If you're going to help get Bush elected, why are you hanging out at

Democratic Underground? This is not Green Party Underground or Electronic Infitada.

I just don't get single-issue voters.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Because I'm a Democrat.

Been registered a Democrat since 1965. I'll be voting for Democrats this fall...my senator and congressman..both of whom voted against the invasion of Iraq.

Why are you hanging out at DU?

[geek tragedy]

24. Because I'm a Democrat, have been all my life, and I recognize

that voting Green is an indulgence that we can't afford. The Bush regime is so dangerous that this is the most important election of our generation, and to whine because Kerry takes a position that aligns him with 80% of the electorate on one issue that happens to work against a group of people that are not our allies or friends, is not a course of action that can be argued to lead to improving this country.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[geek tragedy]

41. Where has Kerry endorsed apartheid?

And Kerry can't make bold pronouncements about Iraq and what he'll do differently. Sorry, but that's the situation he faces. If he sounds too "soft" or eager to get out, that could send the message to militants in Iraq that they should step up attacks on the US troops there. He has to be able to bargain with Sistani, al-Sadr, etc. when he takes power. He can't commit or tip his hand until he takes power--it'll be six months before that happens, and a lot can change in six months.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. He said, in a speech, that he supports the "security wall" in Israel.

Uh..in case you haven't noticed the "militants" in Iraq are stepping up attacks. Also, 80% of Iraqis want the troops out. Are all of them "militants?

He already "tipped his hand" with the IWR vote and his call for more troops and "staying the course".

[geek tragedy]

55. Israel has a right to build a wall within its own borders--the ICJ never

said it didn't. Instead, it criticized the building of the wall inside Palestinian territory--a criticism that Kerry has also made.

Israel/Palestine is a very tricky area for US politicians. See this article for a balanced discussion of Kerry's approach.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=6384

Yeah, he's being a politician about the whole thing. But, there's little doubt that he'll be better than the Likudniks currently in power in the US.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. South Africa had a right to build a wall within it's own borders.

The state of Mississippi had a right to designate "White" and "Colored" facilities. It wasn't right then, and it isn't right now.

Will Kerry be "not as bad" as the smirk-in-chief? No doubt. And, I really hope that he wins.

But, his abandonment of basic ethics in pursuit of the office has crossed a moral line that I refuse to cross.

[geek tragedy]

86. What are you talking about?

Israel has an absolute moral and legal right to build a wall along its pre-1967 border. Canada could build one along its border with the US if it wanted.

How is that similar to apartheid?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

92. Don't be so naive.

The wall, combined with the illegal settlements, are setting up what amount to Bantustans for the Palestinians. A patchwork of Palestinian enclaves without access to each other without crossing Israeli territory through Israeli checkpoints which are often closed arbitrarily.

[geek tragedy]

96. Then the problem is the settlements, not the wall.

I agree that he needs to address the settlements.

[merh]

46. If you are foolish enough to think that Kerry or anyone else

can come out and say - "the first thing we do is stop the war and pull all troops" then you are mad. Who the cheney knows what type of mess is waiting for Kerry when he takes over in 2005. To make a bold statement that he will end it all would be a lovely thing to hear, but not practical by any stretch of the imagination. As someone who fought, you should appreciate the fact that maybe he wants to try to salvage some honor for those who died and, at the same time, try to made amends for the destruction we have caused in Iraq. He hasn't a clue how f'u things are and he realisticly cannot announce he will end it.

Please folks try to be realistic.

[sandnsea]

14. What's Cobb's plan?

I see lots of griping at the Green Party web site, no plan on Israel, Iraq, or Kyoto. It's easy to gripe about what everybody else does when you don't have to be responsible to actually come up with workable solutions yourself.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. Doesn't matter...Cobb can't get arrested let alone elected

Bandera has opted to help Bush in a battleground state.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. No he hasn't.

If you dislike Bush's policies so much why are voting for someone who supports them?

BTW I don't live in a "battleground" state. I live in Washington.

[CWebster]

18. Personal attack

.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

48. How is saying that someone is going to split the vote in a battleground

state a personal attack?

Do you ever have a rebuttal that is on point?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. What's Kerry's "workable solution"?

He has said he will "stay the course" in Iraq and calls for more troops.

He supports the Apartheid Wall in Israel.

Do you consider these "workable" solutions?

[sandnsea]

28. Can you support Cobb or not?

How can you vote for somebody when you have no idea what they would truly do if elected? The fact is, you don't even have to think about or defend a course of action because there's no chance your candidate will ever have to implement one. Third Party candidates can say anything they want because they don't actually have to think about the massive responsibiity of all the people in the world. It's like a teen-ager complaining about their parents when they don't have to worry about paying the bills. Third Parties are currently nothing more than playgroups of children who cry about how mean and imperfect mom and dad are. Until they grow up and offer viable solutions that look at the reality of the world, that's all they'll ever be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Reality of the world.

What "viable solutions" is Kerry offering? More troops and "staying the course" in Iraq?

Support for the apartheid wall in Israel?

Support for the embargo on Cuba?

[sandnsea]

56. Are you FOR Cobb?

Or just harping against Kerry? Why can't you talk about your Presidential candidate's platform? What's his position on any of this, do you even know? Don't people deserve to know what Cobb would do if he were President? Shouldn't he have to be put under the same magnifying glass as Bush or Kerry?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. What happened to "realistic"?

Cobb has no chance of being elected president. I'm a Democrat, have been for 40+ years. I guess I have a right to disagree with my party's candidate. Or, is he so saintly, and so wise in all of his policies, that he is above reproach? I hope that Kerry gets elected. I will still be a Democrat and I sure as hell will hold his feet to the fire until he gets the courage to stand on them.

[sandnsea]

81. You're voting for Cobb

That's what you said. He has no chance of being elected so... what??? What does that mean?? You don't have to know anything about him because he doesn't have a chance anyway?? That makes no sense. Vote for me, I don't have a chance of being elected either.

You now say you hope that Kerry gets elected. If that's true, find the reasons why and support him. You can't possibly be a Democrat and not be able to find a ton of good things Kerry has done for this country. There won't be any feet to hold to the fire unless you get him into the White House in the first place.

[merh]

60. What would you have Kerry do?

He cannot realistically say what he can do in office until he gets in there to see how badly the weed that would be king has screwed things up.

Your expectations are not practical at this time. The secrecy of the admin makes it almost impossible to predict what can be done to fix things until someone gets in there to see how f'u they are.

The important thing is to get * out - wasting a vote will not accomplish that mission. (imho)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. I have no problem with your stance.

I had decided to hold my nose, at one point, until Kerry's statements about continuing the occupation and his support of the Wall.

I don't consider voting for Cobb, or withholding one's vote a waste of that vote. The Democratic Party, at this juncture, should be in total opposition to the Fratboy Emperor. The Party has decided, for political reasons, to abandon the left and pursue the right. Which, since Clinton's "triangulation" strategy, has moved the entire nation to the right. The DLC mantra is "We must get the moderate/center". The only way to change that is to make the left/liberal vote more difficult to get. Thus, the mantra will change to, "We must get the liberals".

But, beyond that, it is my opinion (speaking for myself) that to support the occupation of Iraq and the Apartheid in Israel, is just plain immoral. By voting for Kerry I would, in essence, be supporting his "plan" in Iraq, and his endorsement of apartheid.

As I have said, many times, I hope that Kerry wins. He'll just have to, either change direction on those issues, or do it without my vote.

[merh]

85. I can respect that. I feel different than you do, I have no qualms

with Kerry taking a cautious position and trying to appease the moderates, the disenfranchized RWers, the folks on the fence, in essence to get the votes to take the office from the weed that would be king. Then I foresee him actually taking drastic steps to get the troops out as soon as possible and to correct the f'us of the current clowns.

I understand your frustration and I do respect your position.

[merh]

107. Please refer to post 106. thanks

"peace"

[progressivebydesign]

30. Please stick around after the election here...

.. I'd LOVE to rub Bush's second term in your face. Thanks for nothing.. Don't they have a Cobb Underground site somewhere? Oh.. BTW... who is Cobb? Was he a baseball player or something.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Why don't you blame the guys who are doing this?

I didn't move to the right. Kerry did.

[Forkboy]

94. The ole " go to somewherewherethepeoplewhodontagreewithmego underground

[NoPasaran]

6. Plenty more where this one came from

[ezod]

9. I'm voting for Kerry...

unless the outcome in Georgia is very clear...ummm...Bush is going to clean up in Georgia. Do I vote Cobb or Nader? Vote Kerry just to hopefully bump the margin of loss up? Chomsky voted for Clinton while "holding his nose". The more I hear Kerry on the issues the more likely it'll be Cobb or Nader...

[UTUSN]

10. As Opposed to? Not Holding Their Noses for Shrub?

I predict that when President KERRY takes office, he will be ASSAILED, not only by the wingnut thugs, but by the LEFT.

[Walt Starr]

36. I'm a Kerry donor, have a Kerry bumper sticker, will place a Kerry sign

in my yard.

The moment I walk out of the voting booth, I become anti-Kerry.

Sorry, I'll be pragmatic for the vote, but I will not compromise my values after it. At least not until 2008 when I'll compromise my values to vote Kerry out of office if he governs the way I expect him to.

[lastliberalintexas]

75. Damn straight

"I predict that when President KERRY takes office, he will be ASSAILED, not only by the wingnut thugs, but by the LEFT."

The right will attack him personally, as they normally do. But the push from us wild eyed lefties will be policy driven, to try to move the party back to the freaking middle and away from the right wing Fromites running our party.

Maybe if we actually start acting like Democrats again, we can again become the majority party.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. Utterly Preposterous

More pursuit of purity. The most important thing that can happen in November is a resounding victory that creates a mandate to invalidate and turnback the neocon agenda.

Any other approach is a fool's game.
The Professor

[MadHound]

26. How are the Dems going to "invalidate and turnback the neocon agenda.",

When they are embracing so many elements of that very same agenda?

Stay the course in Iraq
Maintain and reaffirm the Patriot Act
More corporate tax cuts
Maintain and expand free trade
Continue to ignore the Kyoto Treaty

And much more. I agree, it is becoming very difficult, if not impossible to vote for, much less work and be enthused by Kerry. In the Dems blind rush to ABB, they have sold out us and the American people by pursuing a position that is only slightly to the left of Bushco.

And no, this isn't about purity, this is literally about life and death, both here at home and abroad. It truly amazes me, here is a man proposing an agenda that would be roundly, and justly, criticized if it were proposed by a Republican. But somehow it is OK, since the agenda was proposed by a Dem. C'mon people, at leaast be consistent!

And the march towards the two party/same corporate master system of government rolls merrily on:eyes:

[ProfessorGAC]

27. Unbrilliant

Nice attempt to pick parts of your own narrow vision and extrapolate them to the entire population.

The invalidation takes place in the minds of middle americans, and you've already made up your mind. I have no interest in debating with someone who is unwilling to see another's POV.
The Professor

[MadHound]

34. Oh I see others' POV friend, and no, I haven't made up my mind yet

But it is getting increasingly difficult to fit that industrial strength clothespin on my nose though. It seems like every week now, there is some position of Kerry's that closely parrelells Bush's. There has been NO effort on the part of the Kerry camp to welcome leftists, especially anti-war leftists, into the Big Tent. They are ignored and taken for granted, and if they dare stray, mocked ridiculed and attacked. Compare and contrast that with how the centerists and swing voters are treated, catered to, and forgiven when they stray into 'Pug territory.

And answer me this, how is Kerry going to invalidate anything, when his very positions seem to validate what the Bush and corporate America stands for? You've seen how close Kerry and Bush are on many issues, you can't deny these facts, so how can you justify it? About the ONLY issue of importance that there is still a bit of difference on is the appointment of judges. And that's not even a given, especially if there is still 'Pug majorities in Congress.

Look friend, you can mock me, yell at me, or ignore me at your will. But the American people are starting to realize the fact that Kerry is simply a kinder, gentler version of Bushco, with many of the same positions as Bush. How are you going to address THEIR concerns? The chants of ABB are starting to fade in their ears, and they are wanting real answers, what are you going to tell them?

[ProfessorGAC]

38. Really?

The american people now see things exactly your way? That's pretty convenient, however hard it would be to either prove or disprove.

I am quite tired, after 3+ years of this administration, of still hearing the empty mantra of "no difference". If you don't see the differences in philosophy, approach, and intention of the Democrats vs. the noeconservative Republicans, there is NOTHING i can say to make you see it.

The "no difference", Bush-lite, "all supporting the same policies" arguments are hollow rhetoric. There is simply no truth to it, and the evidence pointed out is always a set of individual, anecdotal events as "proof". That's fine, as long as a broader and deeper look at things is ignored. Approach, intent, and overall philsophy are GROSSLY different. Like i said, if you don't see that, then you don't want to.
The Professor

[MadHound]

44. Ah, so now I'm spouting "hollow rhetoric"

Is that the same hollow rhetoric that has been documented extensively by the likes of Palast, Phillips, Chomsky, Hightower amongst many others, including the majority of the US population who doesn't vote?

Look friend, we have entered the Second Gilded Age, where political affiliation doesn't matter, only corporate loyalty. I know, I know, it is both tempting and comforting to hang onto the old two party differences, but WAKE UP, YOU ARE BEING PLAYED! The Democrats and Republicans are simply working the good cop/bad cop routine, while their coporate masters make out like bandits.

If you can't see what a majority of the people in this country see, then you're not looking. Stop, look around and wake up. This isn't your parents Democratic party anymore friend. It is corporate America's party.

[ProfessorGAC]

62. If The Shoe Fits. . .

. . .
The Professor

[CWebster]

33. Hey you, stop making sense.

Blinders must be donned in this argument. Do you think Bush has to be removed? Yes, of course, but if Kerry's position reflects the very reasons we want to remove Bush, well then, that is demanding ideological purity.

[ProfessorGAC]

43. You Can Think What You Want CWeb

I'm not wearing any blinders. I'm just as informed as anyone else here. I've been here reading all the POV's for 3 years.

I have arrived at a different conclusion, rooted in a broad look at the country, and not from any attempt to extrapolate individual events, statements, and occurances into the full philosophy.

Apparently, since i am more optimistic, and see things from a different perspective, i must be wearing blinders, huh?

Again a pretty convenient way to justify one's position. If i don't see things your way, i'm either stupid or ignorant. I guess any debate is pointless.
The Professor

[CWebster]

49. Well sure, Prof

Easy if the horserace just comes down to R vs D. Just ignore all the issues.

[ProfessorGAC]

61. See What I Mean?

Pretty convenient for you to assume that since i'm taking a wide-angled view, that i'm ignoring the issues.
The Professor

[merh]

104. What you have listed is not the dems position on these issues.

How is it that the repukes went to the far right from their campaign promises?????

I don't know, gee if you ask a "true repug" they will tell you they are the party of less government, more state rights, conservative economics, yaadaaaaaaa yadda. Is that what we have - NO! Just as the repug went to the extreme right after winning, it is possible that K/E can find their liberal roots that the repugs scream they have.

Bottom line is we have to get * out before he invades Iran and Syria, before he appoints any RW to the SCOTUS or any more federal judges.
We cannot reestablish any type of relationship with foreign nations until * is out.

It is pretty simple.

[merh]

106. Democrat platform 2004

"we must end our dependence on Mideast oil."

=======================
Platform Preview
In offering this vision, we affirm our faith in the greatness of America. We recommit to the ideal of a people united in helping one another, an ideal as old as the faiths we follow and as great as the country we love. To those who are threatened, we pledge protection; to those who are victims, we promise justice; to those who are hopeless, we offer hope. And to all Americans who seek a better future for themselves, for their loved ones, and for our country, we say: your cause is our own.

- From the Preamble to the 2004 Democratic Platform

SECURITY
"To meet these challenges, we need a new national security policy guided by four new imperatives: First, America must launch and lead a new era of alliances for the post-September 11 world. Second, we must modernize the world's most powerful military to meet the new threats. Third, in addition to our military might, we must deploy all that is in America's arsenal -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas. Fourth and finally, to safeguard our freedom and ensure our nation's future, we must end our dependence on Mideast oil."

THE ECONOMY
"We will fight for American jobs and we will fight for American workers. Under John Kerry and John Edwards, we will revive America's manufacturing sector, create new jobs and protect existing ones by ending tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas and cutting taxes for companies that create jobs here at home; by fighting for free, fair and balanced trade; by encouraging investment in small businesses and helping companies deal with rising health care costs; by promoting new technologies, like energy, that will lead to the companies and jobs of tomorrow; and by ensuring that people of every age learn the skills to succeed in today's economy."

HEALTH CARE
"We will attack the health care crisis with a comprehensive approach. Our goal is straightforward: quality, affordable health coverage for all Americans to keep our families healthy, our businesses competitive, and our country strong."

EDUCATION
"John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democratic Party believe that a strong America begins at home with strong families, and that strong families need the best schools. We believe schools must teach fundamental skills like math and science, and fundamental values like citizenship and responsibility."

To read the full 2004 Democratic Platform and pass it on to your friends, go to:

http://www.democrats.org/platform

[ezod]

29. Forget purity.

I want my vote to reflect the most effective stance I can assume. I take it then you would suggest I vote Kerry in Georgia no matter the margin of loss or his failure to address issues important to the progressive wing of the party.

[tnlefty]

40. Hi ezod and

welcome to DU :hi:

[ProfessorGAC]

42. Sorry, But I Don't Care About Georgia.

I care about ALL the states. The larger the margin of victory, overall, the more the PEOPLE have invalidated the Bush agenda.

The arguement seems to be in search of some "LEADER" of our ideals. I don't want a leader. I want an administrator to do a good job and pursue the general welfare. I don't want a leader! I want a facilitator.

Compromises have to be made to do that, and i can live with those. So, yes, there is an element of ideological purity, if compromise is unacceptable. I see that in the Right Wing EVERY DAY! Don't you?

You want to worry about your state, and your opinion, over the overall scope of the country, that's fine. I refuse to see things in that limited a fashion. My state is less important than the country. Just like your state, the borders are utterly arbitrary. I don't care about states. I care about the movers and shakers seeing that the PEOPLE have rejected this approach to governance in a big way!

Voting around ideals is fine, but it doesn't send the message that i would like to send. I won't have to hold my nose, because i'm looking at a different picture of things than folks who want perfection. I don't expect it, so i don't pursue it. It's not realistic, and if anything, i'm a realist.
The Professor

[hughee99]

98. Is it really a mandate

if, as it seems from reading so many posts on many threads, that Kerry will recieve a large number of votes from people who may disagree with him but dislike * even more (aka "holding your nose")? If this margin brings him to victory then the only true mandate was to get * out of office, and Kerry will not really have a true mandate for his policies. As of right now, I have no intention of holding my nose for Kerry. I hope he changes my mind in the next few months, but I won't vote for him if I don't agree with much of his agenda. It won't bother me at all to stay home or vote for another canidate since there's no way in hell he's going to lose my state.

[peacetalksforall]

22. I'd sure like to see the figures that dictate Kerrys' positions.

How many votes does he earn for the new wall in the ME?
How many votes does he earn for Cuba?
How many votes does he earn for Venezuela?
How many votes does he earn for sustaining killing in Iraq versus a search for peace?

I thought the U.S. was all about tearing down walls?

As an ABB voter, I have the feeling I'm being used. So where is his liberal platform? If you are young or non-white or poor or still idealistic - are you going to get out and vote with fervor?

Do you ever have the feeling that the Senators may know more than you when they say the things they say and vote like they do? When did I stop trusting them? Thank you - all you remaining faithful ones and Congresspeople, too.

Is the right wing bringing us to a tar pit and and all we say is we might as well go along with it?

[Alpha Wolf]

25. Consider this as we hold our noses...

Not just the statements about the wall and redistribution but also:

We now have a "progressive" Democratic ticket that includes two wealthy, white men who both voted to give the shrubby the power to wage war in Iraq and who both refused to vote against the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage.

Gee, I'm just bubbling with enthusiasm for this "progressive" ticket.

[Rowdyboy]

32. Three words explain my vote for Kerry...they are all that is necessary

Supreme Court justices.

Next president will get at least 3, maybe 4 or 5. Who do you want to make those appointments, Bush or Kerry?

Chief Justice Estrada.... Mr. Justice Pickering...That sound good to you 3rd party supporters? Gay rights, women's rights, affirmative action, privacy rights-everything is in the balance, and some people here want to vote for Cobb or Nader? Sheesh. No sense in wasting time arguing with a brick wall. If you don't understand the importance of this election by now, you never will.

I don't want to live in a theocracy, and a Bush election will bring us that much closer.

[MadHound]

37. But even that is a calculated gamble friend

Especially if there are Republican majorities retained in either the Senate or House. Kerry could very well be forced, much like Clinton, into choosing rather consevative judges. I personally think that yes, Kerry's judicial picks will me more liberal that Bush's, but quite frankly, only incrementally so. And that isn't even guaranteed.

[emulatorloo]

47. Life is a gamble

The odds are better w Kerry than Bush, a protest vote is throwing your money away at this point in the game.

[MadHound]

54. No, a protest vote is never thrown away.

Protest and third party votes have a long and honored tradition in this country, and they serve a couple of purposes. The first is to build up a party to the point where it can replace the corrupted unresponsive dominant party currently in power. The second purpose of a protest/third party vote is to get the majority party that is closest to you in theory to actually move in the direction you wish them to. A good example of this is FDR's first re-election bid. The Socialists were making so much noise that FDR was seriously worried about relection. In order to stave off the spoiler role of the Socialist, he stole two of their favortie issues and added them to his platform, much to all of our benefits. The issues he stole? Social Security and unemployment insurance.

So as you see, a protest/third party vote is NEVER thrown away.

[emulatorloo]

59. beg to differ with you

understand well the need for third parties.

unfortunately, IMHO, in this particular presidential election this year, 2004, a protest vote will only serve to delight GWB et al, and ensure that he remains in power for another 4yrs. Although he is not talking about his agenda yet, I have no doubt we will be kissing social security good bye. And that will be the least of it.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[MadHound]

39. Ah, the response of those who cannot support or justify the facts

Bullyboy, strong arm tactics. Good one friend, and quite predictable. This is, after all, what ABB is at the core, a strong-armed, blind stampede towards. . . what? A kinder gentler screwing. I am so enthused.

Sorry friend, but I want a real change in this country, no a continuation of the same ol' same ol' two party/same corporate master system of government. And apparently the majority of people in this country agree with me, why do you think they're staying home in droves? Could it be that they see no difference, nothing to vote for?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[MadHound]

58. NEVER made a difference? You're showing your ignorance of history friend

Two quick examples for you. The Republicans when they replaced the Whigs, and the Socialists when they forced FDR to adapt Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. There are countless other examples, from the Populists to Perot, but hey, what do I know, eh? Just my history.

And continually calling legitimate POVs "bullshit" just shows up your bully-boy mentality in it's worst light. My suggestion for you is to go read Kevin Phillip's "Wealth and Democracy" for a run down on just how very little difference there truly is between the Republicans and Democrats. Or better yet, just walk down the street and talk to a few of the majority of Americans who don't vote, and see if they agree with you.

Just because you believe in something doesn't make it so, it helps to have something to back your happy ass up with, a factor you and the other ABBers distincly lack.

[TreasonousBastard]

64. And you, of course...

will be stuck with either Kerry or Bush as President next year.

There is absolutely nothing you can do about that no matter how much you cry or get my posts deleted.

You can, of course, help one or the other.

[MadHound]

76. Yes, sad to say, we will be stuck with the lesser of two evils, again

But even sadder to say, is we will be stuck, once again, with evil no matter who wins

And I am not the one alerting on you, or getting your posts deleted, so take your paranoia somewhere else.

And instead of helping one evil over another, I'm thinking I might actually vote for good this time, and work for a brighter future for us all. You of course are welcome to join this good, or continue to be stuck in the evil rut you are in. The choice is yours to make.

[TreasonousBastard]

84. It's not paranoia...

SOMEBODY obviously had my posts deleted. But it makes little difference who. The "grow up" thing gets 'em yanked every time.

However, my point is, as it has always been, simply that conscience voting is usually silly and irrelevant. Building a better future is not done by throwing a vote away. It is done by building movements and fighting for whatever it is one believes in. Then perhaps voting where there is a possibility of winning.

In this particular case, the lesser evil is far less evil than the greater. Far, far, less. I don't think he's an evil at all, but if one must, he's still much the lesser.

We know how bad Shrub is, and it is not the time to play around. It is the time to get him out.

Anyway, do whatever you want to do. Just hope Shrub doesn't get back in.

[MadHound]

88. BING BING BING!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!

"It is done by building movements and fighting for whatever it is one believes in. Then perhaps voting where there is a possibility of winning."

And that my friend, is what third party movements are all about. I'm looking towards the future, and therefore have to start working towards it today. Yes, one must start on local campaigns, but the Greens have gotten to the point where national recognition is vital, hence the run for the top spot. Five percent of the vote is a crucial goal, and one that is obtainable.

And no, I don't want Bushco back in. I want ALL of the corporate whores out. And I've been around long enough that the fearmongering tactics of "X is the devil incarnate" really don't bother me anymore. I survived Nixon, Reagan and Bush I, I can survive another Bush. Getting big business out of our government is THE only way to solve our problems, and there are only two ways to insure that. The first is to not work for, donate to, or vote for any candidate who takes corporate money. The second is work for publicly financed election campaigns. I realize that in the push for ABB this is an unpopular stance to take, but it is done out of neccesity. Replacing one evil with another only insures that no good can come about. Think about it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

66. Actually you are showing your ingorance of history my friend

Socialists didn't FORCE Roosevelt to do anything...Roosevelt actively courted them into the party. In fact, after the Hoover years that wasn't very difficult. Roosevelt used his fireside chats to pull everyone including African Americans away from the Repubs (remember they remained with that party since Lincoln) and he all but PUSHED conservative Democrats out of the party.

So I think you are revising history a bit yourself.

BTW, Social Security was an invention of John Maynard Keynes who while he COULD identify with the labor party simply called himself a "liberal" as he felt the Labor Party really didn't politically know their ass from a hole in the ground....furthermore, he rejected all notions of "class war."

[TreasonousBastard]

67. I thought Bismarck started it...

(but what do I know...)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

78. Roosevelt actually took his lead from Keynes not Bismark however

I apologize, I did not mean in infer that Keynes was the grandaddy f SSI.

[TreasonousBastard]

83. No apology needed...

and the concept is older than Bismarck. Or even Marx. Mill may have mentioned it, but I'd have to check. I seem to vaguely remember the idea being tossed around during the Enlightenment.

But, yeah, FDR looked a lot closer to home for his ideas, no matter where they started from.

[MadHound]

79. Got a source for that?

I've got one to back me up, here<http://www.book-info.com/asin/1572305622.htm?ID=O6tzGQjiEg5keSUK> An excellent book, one that I highly recommend you read. I just got done with it, and it was a fine read.

Ball is in your court friend.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

80. No you haven't made any point except linked to a book

which I suspect you have misinterpreted...my evidence for such being your very deliberate misinterpretation of Kerry's positions.

[MadHound]

89. Have you read the book? I have

Why don't you try reading books friend. The most valuable resource aren't always on the net.

Your grasp of history in this instance is flawed. I have source my point, can you do the same?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

93. YES I READ..it is CLEAR you deliberately MISINTERPRET what you

read..and again you have not proven SHIT.

You claimed you read a book...if you read it with as much accuracy as you read Wealth and Democracy, or Kerry's position papers (which you now admit don't say "stay the course") then why would I imagine you proved anything in this debate by claiming you read a book?

Here is an opportunity to demonstrate your recall ability...what did the book say that you think it proves your point so well?

[MadHound]

99. I'm not challenging your reading ability friend

I'm asking if you have read the book I referenced. Apparently the answer is no, or otherwise you would realize that your (unsourced) point vis-a-vis FDR is in error. If you have anything, any sources to back your point up with, I would appreciate seeing them, even if it is a link to a book.

And yes, I am accurately recalling what my source says. However to verify that I'm doing such, you will have to read the book. I would reccomend it highly, it is quite an eye opener.

Sources, they are your friend.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

101. "Why don't you try reading books friend." a quote from you

and much of what I posted to you came from Doris Kearns Goodwins book on Roosevelt.

[MadHound]

108. Yes, I was challenging you to read a book

Since you seemed all anxious for immediate gratification with sources from the web, I suggested that you read a BOOK. I wasn't implying that you couldn't read. Sheesh, we're posting back and forth here, it would be hard to do that without the ability to read. I was simply advocating that you read a book. It seems to be a dying art, seeing as fifty million adults didn't crack one last year.

And quite frankly, I wouldn't trust Goodwin. First of all, she plagerizes her work<http://slate.msn.com/?id=2061056>, <http://www.hnn.us/articles/590.html>
Secondly, while the woman writes an entertaining history, she doesn't write an in-depth history. Her historical treatises are meant for mass consumption, not scholarly research. In fact, since her plagerism scandal first broke, all of her work, including her Roosevelt piece is suspect.

It is always a good thing to read many books on one subject or person when researching history. There are parts and pieces that are left out of one book or another, and quite frankly there are different viewpoints and motives that make up the authors.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

111. Goodwin's so called plagerisms were inadvertent as both articles

indicate...nice smear though.

And again with your under the radar insults about whether I have adequately eduated myself on the subject at hand.

and yes, motives do matter when writing..I am not criticizing any of the authors you cited....and this conversation is frankly off topic to the fact that you have continued to parse Kerry's words to fit your interpretation of them.

[MadHound]

114. You are just too much

I give you sources, cites, multiple examples, and yet you still have your head stuck in the sand, saying that I "parse Kerry's words":eyes:, all the while offering up nothing other than your own brand of spin and ad hominems. Tell you what friend, get back to me on this issue when you have something to back you up, you know, like quotes, sources, books, the references that I gave you.

Until then, all you're doing is offering an unsubstantiated opinion.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

115. Look..you gave me the name of a book...that is not proving your point

You quoted Kerry as saying things he didn't and your own links argue against you. Your opinions on this thread are not substantiated by claiming you read a book that you cannot even provide a breif explanation of....

Your posts demonstrate that you are participating in this thread SOLELY to bash Kerry as though he is responsible for the 30 year rightward trend...maybe you should read Phillip's The EMERGING REPUBLICAN MAJORITY so you can at least look at history in context which it is clear you cannot.

You have not proven anything....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

57. OK prove your point that they are staying home in droves because of that

While many people are "disgusted" in general with politicians thanks to the manner in which the game has been played...there is a huge contingency that stays home due to intellectual laziness and NO SENSE of duty when it comes to exercizing their right to vote.

YEs people are disgusted, but again...you paint with an awfully broad brush with your accusations earlier in the thread....there is NO PROOF Kerry will advance the "neocon" agenda..he made a statement to the effect that were there proof of an imminent threat to the US, he would use force...NEWSFLASH...that's actually ALWAYS been what the US has done...Bush just raised it to an artform by advancing where there was no threat and creating one.

Kerry has never been a friend to Sharon...while you may not have cared for his positions, I suspect Kerry will make every attempt to broker peace rather than genocide ...both sides have been horrible dealbreakers in the I/P conflict.

Kerry was one of Kyoto's fiercest proponents and yet...it may be IMPOSSIBLE to broker Kyoto now due to actions CHINA has taken...he has not abandoned his position on the environment.

Finally, on NAFTA, he has indicated there ARE environmental and labor provisions in NAFTA that are not being enforced...I wonder how many leftists think we can actually be considered a PARTNER in poorer nations if we DON'T trade with them.

Protectionism will only make us MORE of a target for those that think we are a selfish nation.

BTW...you don't exactly back up yourpoints with facts ... you can't...your points are simply overblown propagandistic rants void of actual facts.

[MadHound]

63. Well friend, just go and look at any major poll about non-voters

You know, the majority of Americans in this country now. In EVERY single case, the number one cause is disgust with both parties. Here:
<http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/2000/10/03/p1s2.htm>
<http://www.beacon.org/excerpt/excerptvote.html>

Now how are my points "overblown propagandistic rants void of actual facts."? All I am doing is repeating what JOHN KERRY is proposing. What, are you telling me that Kerry doesn't want to "stay the course" in Iraq, or throw more men and money into the meatgrinder. Go check his position papers, he states very clearly that this is his wish. You don't think that Kerry actually wants to give corporations more tax cuts in some vague hope of trickle down job creation? Again, I'm taking this from his own statements. I don't overblow or make these facts up from air, I take them from papers and statements Kerry makes himself. Kerry is not a knight in shining armour friend, he is what the Democratic party wanted, ABB. Sad to say, we should have gone for a test drive. Instead, the party is trying to put lipstick on this pig and say that there REALLY is a difference. Ooo yeah, we'll get a kinder gentler screwing. Gee, thanks, but no, I would rather have real change in this country, not just more of the same ol' same ol' two party/same corporate master system of government.

[DjTj]

71. No third party is solving the problem...

Even if voters are disgusted with the Republican and Democratic parties, there is no third party that is sufficiently non-disgusting to bring people to the polls, especially not in this election.

Voting third party this year will do little except possibly but George W. Bush in the White House and alienate those voters closer to center that the third parties would hope to woo. The Green Party will not die out this year if its Presidential candidate gets very few votes. The Green Party will not rise to a prominent status if its candidate gets a few percentage points.

The reality of this election is that there are far more ABB people out there, and no third party is going to effect any "real change" this year. In many other years I might agree, but in 2004 a third party Presidential vote is truly meaningless.

Chomsky gets it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

72. Neither one of your links are polls..they are interest stories gleaned

from individual accounts or anecdotes as the case may be.

Now how are my points "overblown propagandistic rants void of actual facts."? All I am doing is repeating what JOHN KERRY is proposing.
No you are modifying his proposals through your biased lens and repeating your bias as though it is fact.

What, are you telling me that Kerry doesn't want to "stay the course" in Iraq, or throw more men and money into the meatgrinder

I don't think he has said "stay the course." His plan does include withdrawal at a time appropriate to avoid a civil war there and his plan includes bringing partners including fellow middle easterners into Iraq so that a trust can be established.'

Your plan for immediate withdrawal guarantees civil war and atrocities as bad if not worse than what we have already seen.

You don't think that Kerry actually wants to give corporations more tax cuts in some vague hope of trickle down job creation?

Since the cuts are CONTINGENT on those corps CREATING the positions, again you have deliberately misstated his position in order to spread anti-Kerry propaganda on this board...I know you can read as you write rather persuasively...it is unfortunate you are using the gift of persuasion to deliberately mislead people on this board.

Again, I'm taking this from his own statements. I don't overblow or make these facts up from air, I take them from papers and statements Kerry makes himself. Kerry is not a knight in shining armour friend, he is what the Democratic party wanted, ABB. Sad to say, we should have gone for a test drive. Instead, the party is trying to put lipstick on this pig and say that there REALLY is a difference.

No..it is from SNIPPETS of his statements and feeds into that disaffection you claim is so antithetical to democracy....the left claiming they are encouraging participation while doing all they can to disgust and discourage on this board is tantamount to the right claiming to be the party of family values while they starve them out of their homes.


Ooo yeah, we'll get a kinder gentler screwing. Gee, thanks, but no, I would rather have real change in this country, not just more of the same ol' same ol' two party/same corporate master system of government

At this juncture in America, the vote is approximately 50/50 for the two major parties..when you take 50% on the right and stack it up against 45% and 5% on the left...you get ONE PARTY RULE on the right.

YOu are erudite (somewhat)..it's too bad simple math escapes you at this very critical time.

[MadHound]

87. Let us go through this one by one then

Tax cuts, from Kerry's official web site:
"SUMMARY OF JOHN KERRY'S TAX REFORM

FUNDAMENTALLY REFORM AMERICA'S INTERNATIONAL TAX SYSTEM. John Kerry will fundamentally reform America's international tax system, eliminating tax breaks for companies that create jobs overseas and using the approximately $12 billion in annual savings to cut the corporate tax rate. Under John Kerry's plan, more than 99 percent of taxpaying companies will see their taxes go down.

* End tax breaks that encourage companies to move jobs overseas by eliminating the ability of companies to defer paying U.S. taxes on foreign income.

* Close abusive international tax loopholes.

* Cut the corporate tax rate by 5 percent.

JUMPSTART JOB GROWTH WITH A NEW JOBS TAX CREDIT AND A ONE-YEAR TAX HOLIDAY TO ENCOURAGE COMPANIES TO REPATRIATE PROFITS

* Restart job growth today with an expanded New Jobs Tax Credit that covers new jobs in manufacturing, other industries affected by outsourcing and small businesses.

* Increase investment to jumpstart the economy by encouraging American companies to bring their foreign profits back to America as part of a comprehensive tax reform that ends incentives to keep future profits overseas. "
Do you see that bullet up there, the one that says "Cut the corporate tax rate by 5 percent."? There are no ifs ands or buts in that statement, nor any conditions set. Ooo, and a one year corporate tax holiday to boot, all in the vague hope of trickle down job creation:eyes:<http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/10million.html>

Iraq: Ok, I can't find where he said we must "stay the course" in Iraq,(though I'm positive he did), but how about this gem:
"Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission." from on OpEd piece Kerry did for the Washington Post. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6753-2004Apr12?language=printer>

Kerry's only real promise about getting out of Iraq is that he will do it sometime in his first term in office.<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1514&e=10&u=/afp/us_vote_kerry_iraq>

Haven't we learned ANYTHING from our past, the mistakes of Vietnam and other failed colonial expeditions? It doesn't matter when the US pulls out of Iraq, it will still devolve into civil war there. ANY government set into place by the US will be considered illegit by the Iraqi people and will be torn down by them as soon as we leave. So why not get out now, and save both ourselves and the Iraqi people that many more deaths? Or have Democrats suddenly started liking occupation talk, now that Kerry is speaking it?

And friend, one party rule is already here, brought to you by those fine corporations who have bought and paid for both major parties. Don't believe me, then go check out Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy". Check out how over forty corporations donated over $100,000 dollars or more to both parties, with Phillip Morris topping the list at $2mil plus apiece. That is called buying influence, and both parties have sold out to the corporations to peddle it. I would suggest Kevin Phillip's book "Wealth and Democracy" for a further in depth perusal of this subject. Kerry is doing the same as many a Dem before him, selling out his soul, his morals, and his constituency to big business, just to become President.

So, as you can see, I'm not being selective, nor cherry picking. Kerry is simply going to do whatever his corporate masters wish. Once again, we are being forced into a choice of the lesser of two evils. Sorry friend, forgive me for wanting to see some good up there in the highest office of the land.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

91. And again you deliberately mischaracterize

One of the biggest drains on the treasury is all the companies Bush has let SLIDE by allowing them government contracts while they set up off shore and ditch taxes...Kerry's program is DEFINITELY a pull back from that and the incentives are TIED to job creation.

Yes... you finally admit he never said STAY THE COURSE.

Haven't we learned ANYTHING from our past, the mistakes of Vietnam and other failed colonial expeditions? It doesn't matter when the US pulls out of Iraq, it will still devolve into civil war there. ANY government set into place by the US will be considered illegit by the Iraqi people and will be torn down by them as soon as we leave. So why not get out now, and save both ourselves and the Iraqi people that many more deaths? Or have Democrats suddenly started liking occupation talk, now that Kerry is speaking it?

There you go twisting again...some of us HAVE LEARNED something from Viet Nam and do not desire to create another POL POT simply because America does not want to clean up the mess that it made

While a "puppet" government will, indeed, be rejected, we owe it to the Iraqi people to create stability. I haven't seen Democrats LOVING occupation...that's more of your hyperbole....I protested this war along with everyone else and I am not for withdrawing and leaving a nation with a hostile next door neighbor (Iran) with no means of security in tact.

And friend, one party rule is already here, brought to you by those fine corporations who have bought and paid for both major parties. Don't believe me, then go check out Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy". Check out how over forty corporations donated over $100,000 dollars or more to both parties, with Phillip Morris topping the list at $2mil plus apiece. That is called buying influence, and both parties have sold out to the corporations to peddle it. I would suggest Kevin Phillip's book "Wealth and Democracy" for a further in depth perusal of this subject. Kerry is doing the same as many a Dem before him, selling out his soul, his morals, and his constituency to big business, just to become President.

I've read both books, thank you. Phillips recommends NONE of your remedies (not that you've advanced any viable ones) and said NOTHING about the war (of course it hadn't happened yet) and Phillips NOTED the importance of the Radical Middle (as he referred to it) in national elections...it is an unfortunate fact that some of the rhetoric needs to be GEARED to them....I guess you missed that chapter of the book.

So, as you can see, I'm not being selective, nor cherry picking. Kerry is simply going to do whatever his corporate masters wish. Once again, we are being forced into a choice of the lesser of two evils. Sorry friend, forgive me for wanting to see some good up there in the highest office of the land.

Take a look at your lack of actual remedies and the answer is clear...you can't get your people elected because they like to deny there are actual threats, they are promoting protectionist trade policies which are actually as HARMFUL to developing nations as NAFTA is, they are in complete denial of the mindset of people who actually vote in favor of pretending they can make people who don't care ( or use their disgust as an excuse not to vote ) act. Welcome to fantasyland...here's a balloon.

[MadHound]

97. And again you spin, even in the face of facts

Who created Pol Pot? Gee, could it have been US meddling?<http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html>
<http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/apr1998/plpt-a18.shtml>


And of course Phillip's book didn't remedy, he didn't offer ANY remedies friend. His was simply a book outlining the problems we face. Nice spin though:eyes: However, many people, including Hightower, Granny D, the Green Party, amongst many others have proposed the very same ideas and solutions I'm talking about.

And again, you are wishing to parse semantics, well parse this friend. "Stay the course" is equal to "persevere in the mission", or are you going to try and spin that, along with black really being white?(And I didn't concede that Kerry didn't say "stay the course", I simply couldn't find the quote. I'm fairly certain it is out there somewhere, and you'll be the first to know when I find it)

Look friend, I've given you answers, sources and real world solutions, yet you are simply regurgitating talking points and spin. Do YOU have any sources to back yourself up with? Can you really deny, with proof, that we aren't living in the Second Gilded Age? Or are you reduced to spin simply because you realize that Kerry is a bought and paid for corporate whore, entirely beholden to the wishes of his corporate masters. I've given you sources, let's see some from you.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

100. Kerry has rejected corporate money his entire career..where's your

evidence that he is a bought and paid for corporate whore? Are elections free?

I haven't noticed you proposing any remedies on this thread...nice try comparing yourself to Granny D..who just recently advised those on the left NOT to do what you are doing.

You've provided no answers...only tirades that if followed guarantee Bush's reelection and certain defeat for the entire left for generations to come.

[MadHound]

103. Let's see here friend.

<http://www.boston.com/news/politics/conventions/articles/2004/07/08/corporate_donors_fund_conventions/>
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64727-2004Jan30?language=printer>
<http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/WorldNewsTonight/kerry_fundraising_040209-1.html>
And these are just a quick skim. Yes, directly and indirectly, Kerry receives corporate cash.

And no, election campaigns aren't free. However, if you had perused my earlier posts, you would realize that I'm working for public campaign financing, and also in favor of voting for candidate who take NO corporate cash. Those are the only two ways to get big business out of government. If you take corporate cash, you are expected to dance to the corporate tune. I hope Kerry has his tap shoes polished.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

105. I am in favor of public financing too...when it is done by every party

George Bush created this pace when he pledged to spend 200 million on his reselection campaign.

The point is...the candidate with no cash can't get known and can't get elected.

In his career, comparatively, Kerry's taking from corporations has been quite limited.

Again, you demonstrate no political sense when you send an underfunded candidate out against a well funded one with an extremely biased media working against you.

For all your efforts, you will hurt the very people and causes you claim to want to help.

[MadHound]

110. LOL friend

Yes, Bush is doing the hard core bundling operations, and yet Kerry is following his lead, quite well, as I noted above. Including corporate bundling.

And yet the Democrats are just as devious, with the Clinton advocacy of the unconstitutional tactic of soft money donations. Now, to get around those barriers, the Dems are rolling out 587 organizations, both to get around donation limits, but also the soft money barriers also.

And yes, it should be bipartisan public campaign financing. That is what I'm advocating for across the board. It takes time, because it is a state by state fight. All the more reason to start now. In the mean time though, I think it is best to not feed the beast. That is why I'm not donating to, working for or voting for any candidate who takes corporate money. The more you feed the beast, the bigger it gets.

And we will see friend, which hurts our society more. Judging by the grand finale of the First Gilded Age(the Great Depression), I doubt that it will be the course I persue.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

112. If I wanted to steer with the rearview mirror....maybe

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

113. Oh and one last thing since you invoked Granny D earlier....

I believe she is addressing you and those like you who are so destructive in their pursuit of righteousness that they throw the baby out with the bathwater

We are the selfish progressives when we think it is all about us. We require the perfect candidate who reflects our views precisely. If we cannot have such a candidate, we may not vote, or we may vote for someone who cannot win, just to show our support for our precious opinions. This grandstanding is more important to us than the lives of all the people who will die and be exploited if a fascist warmonger is elected because of our selfish narcissism.

The old joke is that the left forms its firing squad in a circle. The truth of that is in the selfish progressive's belief that politics is not for the practical advance of the common good, but is a showcase for personal sentiments. Progressive meetings take forever as all of us must fully expound our views on everything. It is such a bore when other people speak, and so wonderfully enlightening when we finally get a few hours to speak ourselves. It is, in other words, a monumentally selfish exercise much of the time.

I hope the Nader candidacy is not to become a meeting ground for such narcissism at the expense of other people's lives.

I am concerned about the future of the Green Party. My friends in the Greens tell me that they are building a party and that they must look to the long view. If they are right, here is the long view: ten to twenty years of party growth, during which the left vote will be split and the right wing will have the institutions of government all to themselves. Another ten to twenty years of equality between the Greens and the Dems, during which the right wing will have another era of unchallenged power. Then ten to twenty years when the Greens outpace the Dems, but the Dems are still a factor and the progressive vote is still split. So, say, thirty to sixty years before they can see some victories. Will there be anything like justice and liberty and nature left to work with by that time?

Do the Greens have a better scenario to meet the real and present danger to the planet? I do: let the progressives take over the Democratic party, whose doors are unlocked and whose halls are unguarded. That can be done in two to four years. If the energies of the Green Party were transferred to a Green Caucus within the Democratic Party, real progress would be possible quickly

It is time for the factions of the left to understand that, unless they have a practical strategy for early victory, they stand in the way of justice, of environmental protection, and of peace if they continue to split the progressive vote. If they can actually win elections in some areas, that is a different matter, of course.

If any fellow progressives are in the game only to hear themselves pontificate and wax eloquent about their wonderful values and their brilliant grasp of the issues--while others starve and die, I ask them to join Toastmasters where they can learn to make shorter, less boring speeches and also do no harm in the world. Politics is not about posturing, but about winning and losing and representing the interests of millions of people. When you take up the sword of politics, you play to win on behalf of your people, not to look pretty in your uniform.

That same narcissism that we of the left are particularly prone to, by the way, may be on display in the convention cities this summer. Millions of television viewers trying to decide whether or not to jump ship from the incumbent will look at the mess on the streets in Boston and New York and say, well, if I have to choose sides, I know I'm not on theirs. The conventions are a time for massive action, but it had better be well organized and designed to convey real information respectfully to the American people, or it will be a selfish and damaging exercise in adult play at the expense of thousands of lives and the environment. I urge those non-delegates going to the conventions to carry thoughtful signs designed not to show only their anger, but the truth. I urge young people to consider the conventions not as an opportunity for mayhem and fun, but for service to their country and their world by using their creativity to open, not close, the hearts of the millions of Americans who will be watching. Let's look good out there. It is not in protesting alone that we find our power, but in creating change in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans. We have the power to do this, because the facts are on our side and because most Americans do care about the air, water, forests and mountains of their world, and most Americans do not side with corruption and exploitation and greed. We can only enlarge our tent by attracting people into it through our earnestness and our ability to admirably represent truth and love.


http://grannyd.com/speech20040529.htm

[emulatorloo]

45. The alternative is letting Bush/Cheney squeeze us by the balls/ovaries

At this point I would be happy with a gentler grasp on my gonads.

[malatesta1137]

68. with a gentler grasp,

you'll just get comfortable and won't fight for real change.

The author of the article is voting for Kerry, but he's honest and intelligent enough to see there's very little difference, really.

[emulatorloo]

90. I will be happy to hold President Kerry's feet to the fire.

But first he has to be president!

The whole protesting Bush thing hasn't gone very well so far. . .for some reason GWB just doesn't seem interested. . .so four more years of that wouldnt be great.

I understand the author's argument and support his conclusions about what's necessary. . .

[Sirveri]

69. ABB here too.

We have two choices, one of which will be picked, Kerry or Bush.

I didn't vote for Gore in 2k because I liked him, I voted for him because Bush scared me more. I'm doing the same this year, and I live in California. Would I like to send a protest vote out to the Democratic party, I sure as hell would, but right now I have to take the first step before I can even get to the 5th step. That first step is getting seperation between the branches of government back.

[Blue_Roses]

65. Amazing how people just "post" this crap

and then don't show up to respond to the replies...another "drive-by" I guess. We'll see more and more of these as it gets closer to the elections:eyes:

[malatesta1137]

70. I've been reading all responses,

what's wrong with that? And calling it 'crap' just proves that you're an extremist just like all the ABBs out there.

The author of the 'crap' is voting for Kerry, but he knows Kerry is another Skull & Bones member, Ivy League elitist, just like Bush.

[G_j]

73. How I see it

I posted this brief explanation of my feelings on this earlier today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2019922&mesg_id=2019922

[VOX]

95. The judges. The judges. The judges. The judges. The judges. The judges.

Apparently this cannot be repeated enough.

We've already seen the kind of reactionary activist judges that * has appointed and wants to appoint.

It's not only the Supreme Court judgeships that are at risk, but all the federal courts that feed into the Supreme Court. These are *lifetime* appointments, and the right-wing assholes who get appointed to the posts will be interpreting the laws of the land for decades to come.

Anyone who votes for Nader, or Cobb, or any other vanity candidate is simply enabling the right wing -- not just BushCo, but the whole goddamn right wing.

Never has so much been riding on one election.

[merh]

102. Thank you for this post. No we cannot afford to allow * to

appoint any more judges. For pete's sake, why is it the basic, most important differences between K & * which are so obvious are overlooked by so many.

We must reestablish a relationship with all foreign government's in this freeking world. Nobody trusts us, no one will deal with us, no one will believe us. As long as the clown in chief and his bubbling evil baffoons are in office, we - the US - doesn't stand a chance in the international community.

We must not allow the appointment of any more crazy, rabid RW judges.

Can't folks see this -- ABB is a legitimate posture to take to save our nation from ruin and the world from WWIII.

[Selwynn]

109. I'm with Chomsky on this.

I don't think Kerry is a good presidential candiate, and I'm infuriated and ashame that it is people like him who now consistently represent the democratic party....

...but there is nothing more important to me this year than getting rid of Bush. To me it is the difference between bad politics, and outright base evil.

[CHestonsucks]

116. Defeating Bush requires the delay of gratification.

No pun intended. Politics is the art of the possible. The shmuck in the Oval Office is testimony to this.

Need I say that JOB ONE is to get the motherfucker out of office? Once that is accomplished we'll look at the issues again.

And listen to what JK and JE are saying. It's important.