The foreign policy battle in the Kerry campaign.

[Classical_Liberal]

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

By Al Giordano

In a sane U.S. political landscape, such inspired words from an elected Latin American leader would generate pride from the candidate that moved him from afar, pleasure to his supporters, and general admiration from the press and public. It is long overdue, after all, that the United States finds and respects its natural allies in this hemisphere instead of trying futily to colonize them. But the Commercial Media-soaked U.S. political system is too toxic to understand even its own rare victories. Here was the most independent elected leader in Latin America trying to make friends with the next president of the United States, a country whose government had recently tried, and keeps trying, to topple him, declaring, again, his adherence to that nation’s highest (it says) principle: democracy.

On the matter of the Haiti coup, in fact, Chávez’s position is essentially the same as Kerry’s: pro-democracy. And if Kerry were at all consistent in his own positions, his position on the matter of Venezuela would be equally close to that of Chávez. But, alas, we are not living on a sane political landscape.

IV: Kerry: The Empire Strikes Back

Rand Beers, stung from his internal defeat (some insiders feel that the victor of the first battle in the Kerry Civil War, over the Haiti policy, was Senate staffer Nancy Stetson; if so, she deserves much support) and his corresponding failure to impose a Haiti policy on John Kerry that was not John Kerry’s, Beers jumped into overdrive after Chávez held his hand out to the North.

Beers, it must be reminded again and again, was flailing inside the Bush administration when Kerry picked him up on waivers last Spring. His spectacular terrain damaged by misstatements on a sworn affidavit regarding Plan Colombia, Beers was going nowhere fast in a Bush administration. Beers has extracted his own political makeover from the Kerry campaign, rescuing beltway relevance for himself, but has given nothing of authentic value to Kerry in return except for the simulation of having a foreign policy dick, with an anti-terrorism gloss, on the team to act as surrogate. I predict that, should Kerry win, between November and January, Beers’ stock will deservedly plummet. Users get used. Players get played. It’s a law of nature.......

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

[Padraig18]

1. Kennedy?

:shrug:

[Classical_Liberal]

2. I'll edit. The Kennedy camp was one of the combatants

. I hit enter without checking for mistakes.

[pop goes the weasel]

3. this is extremely important

Why can't Kerry see that? I can't in good conscious vote for anyone who will pursue predatory foreign policy toward Latin American nations. To me, choosing between Bush and Kerry here really is choosing between two brands of the same product that I don't want to buy to begin with. I far prefer Kerry on domestic issues, but I can't be bought off with domestic policy to ignore our foreign policy. He needs to get rid of the friends of oligarchy now.

I wrote his campaign immediately after Kerry's repudiation of Chavez and got only an auto-response. Oh, and now I get contribution-begging posts. But not one word in response to my concerns.