Even Michael Parenti is calling for ABB (voting for Democrat)

[IrateCitizen]

Just heard him on Democracy Now say that even though Ralph Nader is a friend of his, he believes that we are at such a pivotal moment that Bush needs to be dispatched from office, because the Republican gang-of-thugs is playing for keeps right now, violating every rule in the book in their rush to do so.

If even Michael Parenti is calling for this, it makes me wonder who can justify voting third party.

Parenti was also saying that Edwards was far superior to Kerry -- on the charisma issue alone. He said that Kerry came off as wooden, and that every response he gave was clearly engineered. He said also that if Kucinich pulled out he would support Edwards.

Thoughts or comments on this?

[Tinoire]

1. Few. Unfortunately I agree. If DK pulls out, I'm going Edwards. n/t

[rockymountaindem]

2. I think we need to change the personality/likeability debate.

Instead of "wooden" we should say "dignified", and instead of "engineered responses" we should say "carefully considered positions on the issues". I don't want a cheerleader, just a guy with some brains and even a little kindness who can do the right thing and get it done.

[moondust]

3. Good post. n/t

[IrateCitizen]

7. Unfortunately, charisma matters

And in characterizing Kerry as "wooden" or giving "engineered responses", Parenti isn't that far off the mark.

If you're familiar with Parenti, you would know that he is certainly not one to focus on the trivialities upon which the mainstream media dwells. But he also recognizes the importance of charisma in garnering support and providing inspiration -- and he correctly recognizes that it isn't something that comes natural to Kerry.

Speaking of engineered responses, it's like what Edwards referred to as "the longest answer I've ever heard to a yes or no question" when Kerry responded to his support of IWR. And a canned response is not a "carefully considered position on the issues", it is quite often an attempt to be all things to all people without really giving a definitive stance. Sadly, this is the feeling that Kerry has given me throughout much of this campaign -- especially on war and peace issues and free trade.

[rockymountaindem]

10. Just because Kerry repeats the same response

doesn't mean it's scripted or anything. Maybe that's the way he really thinks, and he doesn't feel the need to say something different about it every time he's asked. We can't all be poets. If you asked me 100 times if I like milkshakes, I'd probably give the same response every time. I wouldn't be able to come up with 100 adjectives to describe their frozen goodness... mmmmm...

As far as the Iraq war goes, it's impossible to give a yes or no answer. Just think of all the times we've been asked by people if we supported the war. If you say "no" to a war supporter, then they'll fire back with "well then, would you rather see Saddam in power?" Of course not. Then it takes a couple of minutes to explain that we're all happy Saddam is out, but we'd rather not have lost so much prestige and money, not to mention the lives of our troops, doing it. For us, a yes or no answer to the war might be easy because we all agree, but for the public at large who still wrestle with the issue, it's just not as simple.

[JVS]

4. Well, I hope that lots of our angry centrist DUers denounce Parenti as...

a Stalin apologist for the sake of consistency.

[enough]

5. Ditto Chomsky and Chris Floyd

Chris Floyd: This is no ordinary election. It's emergency surgery
http://www.tmtmetropolis.ru/stories/2004/02/20/120.html

Chris Floyd makes the case for the crucial need to vote for Kerry, even in full knowledge of the many ways in which he represents the same interests as Bush.

He also quotes Chomsky making the same point.

snip>

Kerry is the quintessential "safe pair of hands," with a solid record of hauling heavy lumber for elite interests -- especially elite media interests. His new prominence -- helped in no small part by kid-gloves media coverage while his opponents were raked with withering fire -- made it safe to give Bush a little bruising. For the mandarins, it's a win-win situation: Replacing one multimillionaire Skull-and-Bones Yalie aristocrat with another is not likely to upset too many profitable applecarts or usher in a more egalitarian society.

snip>

Noam Chomsky, an old-style patriot bitterly scorned across the political spectrum for his dogged insistence that the United States live up to its own ideals, put the case well in a recent interview: "The current incumbents may do severe, perhaps irreparable, damage if given another hold on power. In a very powerful state, small differences may translate into very substantial effects on the victims, at home and abroad. It is no favor to those who are suffering, and may face much worse ahead, to overlook these facts.

snip>

Kerry might be a rusty knife, but the life of a patient in extremis takes precedence over questions of hygiene. When the worst is past, then judge the knife -- discard it if necessary -- and get on with the work of restoring the Republic.

[flpoljunkie]

6. Edward's talks populist lingo, but his Senate record belies his rhetoric

l. Voted to send waste to Yucca Mountain, 7/9/02 (environmentally unsound)

2. Voted for the Energy Act of 2003, 7/31/03 (incredible giveaway to energy companies)

3. Voted against increasing reliance on renewable energy, 3/14/02

4. Voted to subsidize insurance to nuclear plants (billions of our taxpayer dollars)

5. Voted for the egregious bankruptcy bill of 3/15/01 (giveaway to banks and credit card companies)

6. Voted for fast track final passage, 5/23/02

7. Voted for the China Trade Deal, 9/19/00 (where most of US jobs have gone)

Yet, John Edwards is now presenting himself as a raging populist who will look out for the "regular folks". With this voting record in the Senate, he looks like a "Johnny- come-lately."

I don't think many people who are swayed by the "charisma" thing, know anything about Edward's voting record in the Senate; it is hardly populist.

[CWebster]

8. Do you think that in the future

they will forever have that ace in the hole to line up votes against rather than ever offering a vote for? Because if they keep on promising, but keep on compromising and giving away the farm in triangulating issues, rather than defining issues, then how can there ever be any hope if the power elite has the entire process locked up indefinitely?

[IrateCitizen]

9. The greater population is to blame for that state of affairs

The politicians (perhaps more accurately, the business interests whom they represent) will continue to do what they feel they can get away with. So long as the system is supported -- be it actively or passively -- things will continue down this path.

The only thing that can really change things is if the vast majority of people decide that they are no longer going to give their cooperation, and decide to drop out. I'm talking general strikes and the like on a MASSIVE scale right now. I'm also talking about a committment to nonviolent resistance when the inevitable violent backlash comes from the power structures.

Unfortunately, realization of this no longer enables us to point our fingers at some "other" and blame them for the state of affairs -- it means that we must instead look at those three fingers pointing right back at us. This is a fact we must come to grips with, and commit ourselves to the heavy lifting that is truly necessary to change things.

Otherwise, it's just ranting at the wind....