BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: LadyJean
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 11:29 PM

I'm a Dean supporter. I will vote for Dean in the Pennsylvania primary. I will vote for John Kerry in November.
Kerry is a politician. He now opposes the Patriot act, because Dean gained support by opposing it, ditto the war in Iraq. If he thinks the majority of American voters want him to dye his hair blue, we'll see him on Leno and Letterman with blue hair. Bush seems to think he's been divinely appointed. (He wasn't really elected after all.) I'd rather have a nice political hack than a fanatic.
I will not work for Kerry. I'm betting his people wouldn't want me.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 02:48 PM

Pretty foggy history. GUEST seems to be under the impression that getting Bush out of office is some kind of heinous Democratic plot. Well. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 03:06 PM

Go ahead, fly into the flames.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 05:31 PM

"...We can't fight the far right by supporting the moderate right. The left did that in Germany in the 1930 elections."

That just ain't true. Whoever that faceless person who posted that is, he she or it knows bugger all about what happened in Germany in the 30s.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 07:06 PM

Two wrongs don't make a righ...but two moderate regines laid end to end can equal one extremist regine...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Frankham
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 07:24 PM

Hey Kendall, I agree with you about Dean. He shot himself in the
lip.

As to why Kerry voted agains't the first Iraq war, he was probably gun shy about another Vietnam. Most of what was proven was simply
hearsay. It was mostly about the burning of oil wells. I think he
thought it might be solved by other means such as including
the international community in the decision making. He has been consistent on this in his statements.

Kerry has a history of military service. He sees things in terms
of military intelligence which he probably believed and found
out later to be faulty. I think a person with his background
can change his mind to the benefit of the country without being
perceived mechanically as a "flip flopper". Bush certainly has
the prize on this issue. "Not a nation builder". Unfunded policies by members of his own political party in congress. "Uniter not
a divider"? "No child left behind"?    The list goes on. The rationale for Bush changing his mind was that times and conditions change. Remember the old saying "Things changed after 911"?
And I believe that conditions do change.
This does not require rigid position taking
but response-ability to the new conditions. I think it's
a credit to Kerry to be able to do this. It's working with
the situation rather than against it.

Nader is a spoiler. It's only ego that keeps him in the race.
He has nothing to contribute. Kucinich has already articulated
Nader's position better than Nader himself.

BTW, wouldn't it be nice if all these Guests who are discussing with one another would be polite enough or possibly sincere enough to reveal who they are.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 07:51 PM

Two bonny wrongs together went
Into the greenwood glent
to there conspire
in fine attire
And get the left all bent

Gayly posting frae the shire
A devil's advocate desire
For liberals
Make bugger alls
When egos test their feet wi' fire

A fracturing, these wrongs did gae
Frae post to post and blow by blow
For to incite
Is their delite
Your dissapointment makes them grow...

Confusion makes us stronger when
We cease to squabble there and then
Joining together
Through all weather
Provoke them not; and then begin...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 10:32 AM

While the "anybody but Bush" camp currently is dictating the terms of this year's election, I disagree that Nader's efforts to draw attention to the need for change in our 2 party monopoly system is just about Ralph's ego and (I have a real problem with this claim) desire to punish the Democrats by being an election spoiler.

Many intelligent, reasonable people see a need for electoral reform in the US, and not just of the campaign finance system. Many people believe the time has come to reform the system itself in a myriad of ways. One way people feel the system needs to be reformed is the electoral college. Other reform minded people believe the time has come to implement some form of proportional representation, which the other successful democracies have, to open up the system to more voices, and become more inclusive of our citizenry's interests.

Now then, the "anybody but Bush" movement is really nothing more than a bunch of fear mongering Henny Penny types. For them, the sky is falling every four years, and every single election cycle is a crisis because they fear their guy won't win, and they'll have to put up with the other guy's policies.

Now, I happen to believe that Bush's policies have had a negative influence on the nation and the world. But I also believe he has only been successful at implementing those policies as quickly and easily as he has, because of nearly universal cooperation in doing it from the Democratic party.

I also believe that the Democratic Henny Pennies don't have much faith in the system to withstand the occassional extreme right wing takeover we are currently enduring in the US. I do believe the system is strong enough, and that eventually the American people will put the bums out. But not until the American people come to understand that the bums are working against their best self-interests.

So the suggestion that the only thing that matters in this election is getting rid of Bush, is wholly disingenous, and runs completely counter to democratic traditions. In a democratic society, especially at election time, open and vigorous debate, using our best critical thinking skills (if the Democratic Henny Pennies even possess critical thinking skills, that is) to both realistically and clearly identify the problems we are facing, as well as try and come up with a few new solutions to try, is what we should be focused on, not the horse race, and not the cult of party personalities.

When one takes a long, thoughtful view of what is best for the country, the person who is president matters much less than the actions taken by the citizenry and ALL of their elected representatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 12:05 PM

Another post from the ivory tower "to hell with what happens to the average family, I am voting my principals no matter who it hurts" wing.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 12:18 PM

Apparently some of you are so poorly educated about the US political system, that you actually believe the president has the power to legislate. The president does not legislate, the Congress does.

That means, those who hold the most power over "average families" are our congressional representatives, not the president.

Now, the president does have the most powerful bully pulpit. He has the power to present his budget and legislative priorities to the congress. However, he doesn't have the power to enact those priorities. Only Congress does. So if the Henny Pennies were truly concerned about the average family, they would see them working a lot harder to change the party divisions in the Congress, and less hand wringing over George Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 12:47 PM

The US Patriot Act was passed by Congress, not the president.

The No Child Left Behind Act was passed by Congress, not the president.

The Iraq war resolution was passed by congress, not the president.

From the Common Dreams News Center (a liberal website):

On October 9, 2002, Senator Kerry made a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate announcing his intent to vote for the congressional resolution on the war. The speech, which has received little scrutiny during this presidential primary season, stands in stark contrast to statements the senator now makes about that vote.

Senator Kerry claims today that he voted for the October 2002 congressional resolution on the Iraq war based on a promise made by the president. The president, the senator said at a presidential debate on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, "had promised to go to the United Nations, to respect the building of an international coalition in truth, to exhaust the remedies of inspections and literally to only go to war as a last resort."

Senator Kerry also claimed during that debate that he would not have "gone to war the way George Bush did", but rather he "would have stood up and exhausted the remedies…" The senator has recently repeated these claims on the campaign trail.

But Senator Kerry has not revealed what he himself promised on the floor of the United States Senate when he announced his support for that October Resolution. "In giving the President this authority," the senator said at that time, "I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days – to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force."

"If he fails to do so," Senator Kerry continued, "I will be the first to speak out."

Senator Kerry broke that promise he made to the American people. In the crucial days after the president withdrew his efforts to gain United Nations support for his war and before the president launched his invasion, Senator Kerry remained silent. The president had, indeed, failed to build an international coalition, and yet the senator did not speak out.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 01:09 PM

A few more snippets from a different article at Common Dreams on Kerry's foreign policy stands being nearly identical to Bush:

Published on Friday, March 5, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Kerry's Foreign Policy Record Suggests Few Differences with Bush
by Stephen Zunes

Those who had hoped that a possible defeat of President George W. Bush in November would mean real changes in U.S. foreign policy have little to be hopeful about now that Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has effectively captured the Democratic presidential nomination.

That Senator Kerry supported the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq and lied about former dictator Saddam Hussein possessing a sizable arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in order to justify it would be reason enough to not support him. (See my March 1, 2004 article "Kerry's Support for the Invasion of Iraq and the Bush Doctrine Still Unexplained" )

However, a look at his record shows that Kerry's overall foreign policy agenda has also been a lot closer to the Republicans than to the rank-and-file Democrats he claims to represent.

This is not too surprising, given that his top foreign policy advisors include: Rand Beers, the chief defender of the deadly airborne crop-fumigation program in Colombia who has justified U.S. support for that country's repressive right-wing government by falsely claiming that Al-Qaeda was training Colombian rebels; Richard Morningstar, a supporter of the dictatorial regime in Azerbaijan and a major backer of the controversial Baku-Tbilisi oil pipeline, which placed the profits of Chevron, Halliburton and Unocal above human rights and environmental concerns; and, William Perry, former Secretary of Defense, member of the Carlisle Group, and advocate for major military contractors.

More importantly, however, are the positions that Kerry himself advocates:

For example, Senator Kerry has supported the transfer, at taxpayer expense, of tens of billions of dollars worth of armaments and weapons systems to governments which engage in a pattern of gross and systematic human rights violations. He has repeatedly ignored the Arms Control Export Act and other provisions in U.S. and international law promoting arms control and human rights.

Senator Kerry has also been a big supporter of the neo-liberal model of globalization. He supported NAFTA, despite its lack of adequate environmental safeguards or labor standards. He voted to ratify U.S. membership in the World Trade Organization, despite its ability to overrule national legislation that protects consumers and the environment, in order to maximize corporate profits. He even pushed for most-favored nation trading status for China, despite that government's savage repression of independent unions and pro-democracy activists.

Were it not for 9/11 and its aftermath, globalization would have likely been the major foreign policy issue of the 2004 presidential campaign. Had this been the case, Kerry would have clearly been identified on the right wing of the Democratic contenders.

Senator Kerry was a strong supporter of the Clinton Administration's bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan which had provided that impoverished African country with more than half of its antibiotics and vaccines by falsely claiming it was a chemical weapons factory controlled by Osama bin Laden.

In late 1998, he joined Republican Senators Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Alfonse D'Amato, and Rich Santorum in calling on the Clinton Administration to consider launching air and missile strikes against Iraq in order to "respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." The fact that Iraq had already ended such programs some years earlier was apparently not a concern to Senator Kerry.

Nor was he at all bothered that a number of U.S. allies in the region actually did have such weapons. To this day, Senator Kerry has rejected calls by Jordan, Syria, and other Middle Eastern governments for a WMD-free zone for the entire region.

He was a co-sponsor of the "Syrian Accountability Act," passed in November, which demanded under threat of sanctions that Syria unilaterally eliminate its chemical weapons and missile systems, despite the fact that nearby U.S. allies like Israel and Egypt had far larger and more advanced stockpiles of WMDs and missiles, including in Israel's case hundreds of nuclear weapons.

Indeed, perhaps the most telling examples of Kerry's neo-conservative world view is his outspoken support of the government of right-wing Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, annually voting to send billions of dollars worth of taxpayer money to support Sharon's occupation and colonization of Palestinian lands seized in the 1967 war.

Kerry's extreme anti-Palestinian positions have bordered on pathological. In 1988, when the PLO which administered the health system in Palestinian refugee camps serving hundreds of thousands of people and already had observer status at the United Nations sought to join the UN's World Health Organization, Kerry backed legislation that would have ceased all U.S. funding to the WHO or any other UN entity that allowed for full Palestinian membership. Given that the United States then provided for a full one-quarter of the WHO's budget, such a cutoff would have had a disastrous impact on vaccination efforts, oral re-hydration programs, AIDS prevention, and other vital WHO work in developing countries.

In summary, Kerry's October 2002 vote to authorize the U.S. invasion of Iraq was no fluke. His contempt for human rights, international law, arms control, and the United Nations has actually been rather consistent.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 01:19 PM

I draw attention to the review of Senator Kerry's record by liberal Democrats in the above two posts.

It seems to me that nearly all Democrats would much prefer it if no US voters looked this closely at John Kerry's record. Because if people did really examine Kerry's record, they would see just how conservative and in step with the radical right his voting record and position on the issues truly are, rather than what "anybody but Bush" Democrats would like everyone to believe.

The "anybody but Bush" Democrats are unthinkingly and uncritically rushing to the right when they support Kerry as "the most electable" candidate. Even a cursory examination of Kerry's Senate record will show that having him as the new boss will be pretty much the same as keeping the old boss.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 03:18 PM

I disagree.

GUEST, your take on the political system in this country reminds me of the ivory tower view of the world that a group of Objectivists (Ayn Rand enthusiasts) I used to run with a few decades ago. They were in favor of unbridled Capitalism. Indeed, one of Ayn Rand's non-fiction books was entitled Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, in which she argues that due to government regulations, Capitalism has never been free to reach it's full potential. If it were left free of such regulations, then heroic, firm-jawed, clear-eyed businessmen with perfect integrity, such as Hank Reardon and Francisco d'Anconia (two characters in her novel Atlas Shrugged), would then be free to set the world aright and America would be turned into the Utopia it could be.

Rand contended that a dishonest businessman would invariably bring about his own downfall because all the other honest businessmen would learn quickly not to deal with him. She also maintained that unscrupulous businesses that exploited workers would fail quickly because all the workers would quit and find jobs with more honest businesses.

Yeah, right!

For every fictional Hank Reardon, there are twenty (conservative estimate) Kenneth Lays. And it's a little difficult to quit a job that you've been educated for that doesn't pay you fair wages when the only other jobs available in your area involve throwing hamburgers out the window at passing cars and pay minimum wage.

Ayn Rand and her disciples were basically Aristotelians. Aristotle was indeed a great philosopher and is regarded by some as the founder of science, but his science came from pure a priori reasoning—if it sounded good, and looked good on paper, then it had to be right. It wasn't until the Renaissance, when people like Galileo, well schooled in the Aristotelian approach to science and nature, added observation of the real world to all that a priori reasoning that science began to get a real picture of what the Cosmos is actually like.

GUEST, you have an idealistic, ivory tower view of the way our political system works. What you need to do is take a look at the real thing. I admire your idealism. Would that any candidate who we wanted to vote for because he or she reflects what we really believe in had a fair chance of being elected. Or even being listened to. But disappointingly enough, that just isn't the way it works. This is a two party system. It's designed to be that way. The way to make the kind of changes you want is to get involved with the party that most closely reflects your beliefs, even if it is a long way from what your beliefs are, and work to veer that party in the direction you want it to go. You can piss and moan and throw tantrums 'til hell freezes over, but this is the only way it can be done, short of bloody revolution (which has its own disadvantages).

Simple arithmetic:   say in 2004, Bush gets 47% of the vote, Pat Buchanan decides to run again and gets 1% of the vote (reducing the number who would have voted for Bush), Kerry gets 45%, the Socialist Labor Party gets 1%, the Libertarians get 2%, and Nader gets 4%. Bush wins the election. If everyone voted for the party nearest to the one that reflected what they wanted (even if quite a way off), Bush would get 48% and Kerry would get 52%. Kerry wins.

Okay, this may not be ideal. But—Bush lost the popular vote last time around (even with Nader and these other folks in there) but got in due to a) Gore's inaction when he should have demanded a full recount in Florida; b) the Machiavellian machinations of brother Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris; and a conservative Supreme Court, who should have stayed the hell out of it. And look at the mess Bush has managed to make, both domestically and internationally. Think of what he might try to do if he actually wins this next election and assumes he has a mandate from the American people!?? Is that what you'd like to see?

Damage control, GUEST. That's why many, many people are saying "ANYbody but Bush!"

Do what you feel you must. But be fully aware of what you are doing.

And before you start calling me a "Democrat," know that I have no party affiliation. I am independent and I regard myself as a progressive.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 03:43 PM

"GUEST, your take on the political system in this country reminds me of the ivory tower view of the world that a group of Objectivists (Ayn Rand enthusiasts) I used to run with a few decades ago."

Then you aren't reading what I'm saying very closely. What I am saying is about as far from Ayn Rand objectivism as a person can get. But nice try smearing me with a "guilt by association" argument.

"GUEST, you have an idealistic, ivory tower view of the way our political system works."

Hmmm, and now a try at a left handed compliment, and appropriation of Big Mick's "ivory tower" epithet. Pathetic really, that you are so out of touch with what is happening in the political trenches here and now. There is nothing "ivory tower" or "purist" or "idealist" about the debate over whether or not Kerry actually IS electable among Democrats and non-Democrats alike. Just because the Democratic Leadership Council and Terry McAuliffe shove this candidate down everyone's throat doesn't make him the best, or most electable choice in the general election. And what, pray tell, will you do if Kerry's cancer comes out of remission between now and August?

"I admire your idealism."

No actually, you don't. And you detest the fact that I dare challenge the Democratic party line, and will do anything you think will work to discredit me personally, rather than engage in a policy debate on Kerry's stands, his votes, and his public record.

"This is a two party system. It's designed to be that way."

By the two parties.

"The way to make the kind of changes you want is to get involved with the party that most closely reflects your beliefs, even if it is a long way from what your beliefs are, and work to veer that party in the direction you want it to go."

No, that isn't the best way to make the kind of changes I want to the two party system. Transforming the two party system to a proportional representation system where the two parties don't have a monopoly, will never happen from within either party. Those changes will be brought about the same way virtually all sweeping changes are brought about, which is by outside influences.

"Bush lost the popular vote last time around (even with Nader and these other folks in there) but got in due to a) Gore's inaction when he should have demanded a full recount in Florida; b) the Machiavellian machinations of brother Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris; and a conservative Supreme Court, who should have stayed the hell out of it."

Right. We agree on this. So can you explain again why third parties are the threat to Kerry winning? There are many--and I'm talking about conventional punditry here--who believe that this election is now Kerry's to lose, because this election is going to end up being a referendum on the Bush presidency, and not a race between Bush and the Democratic "anybody but Bush" candidate.

"Think of what he might try to do if he actually wins this next election and assumes he has a mandate from the American people!??"

So, you are suggesting we should just walk into the voting booth blindfolded and ignorant of what Kerry might do to the American people and the world? I don't vote that way, and I hope no one else votes that way either.

Rather than just sticking my head in the sand (which is what you are, in essence, suggesting all good Americans do in order to defeat Bush), and voting for whomever the Democratic Leadership Council and Terry McAuliffe annoint, I'll examine Kerry's record, debate with other voters, and make up my mind for myself, regardless of what "anybody but Bush" demagogues like yourself keep admonishing the rest of us to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 04:12 PM

And you're the one who's not paying a lot of attention, GUEST. I didn't say you shared Ayn Rand's beliefs (obviously you don't, if one can believe what you say).   What I said was that you remind me of a bunch of people I knew (who just happened to be Objectivists) who talked about how to save the world while sitting up in their penthouses and not actually looking at what is really going on in the world. Knowing absolutely nothing about it, they pontificated with much authority.

Let me put it more simply: you're unrealistic. The world does not work the way you seem to think it does.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore, GUEST. Your mind is obviously made up and no amount of reasonable persuasion will get to you. Judging from the number of different threads you are posting to and the length of your posts, you have a lot of time to devote to this. I do not.   

Besides, I'm pretty sure I've run into you before. Your style is very familiar.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 04:52 PM

Nice to see yet another post from you full of snide remarks, veiled insults, and atrocious claims there, Don.

What is truly pathetic is you have so little faith in your candidate, you refuse to enter into a reasonable discussion of the issues based upon your boy's positions.

Oh wait--you don't care what his positions and policies are! You just want "anybody but Bush" because for cynical and manipulative demagogues like you, that's just the way the world works.

"Lesser of two evils" and "anybody but that guy" voting tactics do not much of a democracy make. It looks to me, in fact, like you and your "anybody but Bush" cohorts gave up on democracy a long time ago, and decided to take the road most travelled by cynics of all political stripes.

I've run into thousands of people like you before. Your style is very familiar.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 07:39 PM

As we sail through the flames with the greatest of ease
The trolls seem like arrogance feigning to please
Of this one it's doubtful democracy matters
He trashes the people, leaves issues in tatters

No room in his heart for empathy's warming
His need to be right is his reason for storming
But his politics lead to a Bush re-election
So holy he is with his righteous inflection

My point here is clearing, the mist drifts away
I see a man sneering, who must have his say
But standing beside him's a whispering bloke
Who told him quite clearly what to say when he spoke...
LOL!
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 07:48 PM

Hush hush, whisper who dare,
As Christopher Robin so busily sneers.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 03:24 PM

Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
Yes, and probably Dem Golden Slippers too.

Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 01:57 AM

Well, I'm not going to verbally slap arpund those of you who are badmouthing Dean above--you know who you are. But Like I've said before, we're on the same side now. GUEST, one of your posts leaps out at me as absurd. That article at common dreams claims there is a stark contrast between what Kerry said in the debates and what he said on the Senate floor before the vote on the war. It then shows that in fact they were entirely consistent. The promise he did not keep was to "speak out" if Bush broke his promise.

Then it says that he "remained silent." I always wonder what that means, and how a reporter would know anyway. To get down to the level of technicality they are holding Kerry to, he never said TO WHOM he would speak out, he never said he'd do it from the floor or at a press conference. Maybe he chewed out W. over the phone. Maybe he went into Senator Byrd's office and they vented their frustration over a whisky. Who the hell knows?

THAT's his big broken promise?

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 10:56 AM

That's a pretty damn big broken promise--a broken promise that lead us into a war we never should have started, which dramatically changed the foreign policy traditions of the US to pre-emptive from defensive.

I truly can't think of a bigger issue than that, Nerd. And if you were a Dean supporter, may I ask why this broken promise of Kerry's isn't deeply troubling to you? May I also ask why, when your candidate hasn't found it necessary to come out in support of Kerry at this juncture (and likely won't until the convention), you feel it so necessary to develop a convenient case of amnesia over the presumed nominee's position on the Iraq war?

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 02:15 PM

No, Ivory tower philsopher GUEST, it isn't amnesia. I won't speak for Nerd as he has been very capable of doing that well, but it seems to me that he understands that no greater good is accomplished by taking an action that will insure the furtherance of the current administration. He has not hidden his concerns about certain positions of Kerry's.

If one is going to live in this system, then they learn to not eat their own. You might give that some thought.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 02:27 PM

GUEST 10:56 AM seems to say that Kerry's 'broken promise' "lead us into a war we never should have started." Why would anybody think Bush would have care what Kerry said, or why he would have listened, or how this 'promise' started the war?

Shall we all stop responding to the troll now?

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 03:09 PM

In today's Washington Post, there are results of a new ABC/Washington Post poll, available here:

ABC/Washington Post Poll

To quote from that article:

"...nearly two-thirds of Democrats opposed Nader's decision to run"

Is it fair to say then, that those of you calling me a troll, etc. would be in that nearly two-thirds group?

I think the answer is yes.

So, by following that line of reasoning, I'm guessing that those of you who are foaming at the mouth at the mere presence of someone who says they support Nader's decision to run (and according to the poll, that category includes over one-third of Democrats), will continue to attack and shout down any and all posters who represent 1) that 1/3+ membership of the Democratic party who aren't opposed to Nader running 2)independent voters 3) third party voters 4) Republicans who don't support Bush, any time they dare to contribute to this forum.

That is how you all look. You are in lock step, and anyone who disagrees with your opinion that Nader shouldn't run, will be attacked and villified, rather than engaged on the issues.

In other words, you will play the role of Democratic demagogues any time someone argues for Nader support here.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 03:22 PM

Did they have a figure for the percentage of Republicans who are in favour of Nader being on the ballot?

Also the real question for Democrats wouldn't be whether they favour him running, but whether they are in favour of his pulling out at some later stage, which to seems quite likely to happen. By "running" Nader is making sure that some issues that would be ignored will be kept in the picture during the campaign. This seems an excellent idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 03:29 PM

"Did they have a figure for the percentage of Republicans who are in favour of Nader being on the ballot?"

Just over half of Republicans polled said they were pleased Nader was running. And why wouldn't they, when the conventional punditry keeps insisting it was Nader who beat Gore in 2000?

"By "running" Nader is making sure that some issues that would be ignored will be kept in the picture during the campaign."

I said that very thing, long ago in this thread. I also support Kucinich remaining in the race all the way to the convention. I want both Nader and Kucinich in the race when the Democratic convention is held.

It appears, according to Kerry, that a meeting with Dean & his people is to take place this week, so we may see Dean throw his support behind Kerry very soon. I think Dean doing that would be a big tactical mistake for him, but I'm sure he'll do it, in hopes of rising from the ashes another day.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 03:30 PM

GUEST, you continue to flop around trying to justify an intellectually defective position. And it bothers you that no one is buying it. Fits in with that martyr thing you play from time to time. I assume you will point out soon how all of us that don't agree with you are idiots, just as you so smugly point out that 70% of Democrats are a bunch of lockstep robots. This might come as a surprise to you, but those folks are basing their decisions on a pragmatic and well thought out position.

Sometimes I wonder why we tangle so much. Your arrogance in this thread has anwered the question.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 03:55 PM

Jumping to the head of the line without reading--I hope this hasn't already been posted: BushFlash.

I voted in the Texas Democratic primary today. And will attend the caucus this evening. The grassroots are supporting Kerry. It's spring down here, and we're preparing to do a little selective weeding to remove some Bushes. . .

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 03:58 PM

Big Mick, instead of attacking the poster, it would be helpful if you stuck to a discussion of the issues. Ad hominem attacks on me just shut down the discussion altogether.

For those of you who don't wish to/aren't already registered at the Washington Post, here are some excerpts from the article:

"A majority of Americans -- 57 percent -- say they want their next president to steer the country away from the course set by Bush, according to the survey."

This would support my perception that I voiced earlier, that Bush will likely defeat Bush, not Kerry.

"Bush's overall support, 50 percent, was unchanged from February and equal to the lowest of his presidency; only the war on terrorism continues to garner him the support of more than six in 10 Americans.

As a result of these doubts, Bush narrowly trails likely Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry by 4 percentage points, 48 to 44 percent, among registered voters in a hypothetical presidential matchup. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, an independent, claims 3 percent."

This is 3% lower for Nader than the poll released last week, which I thought seemed unrealistically high.

"In a bit of good news for Bush, Nader is drawing essentially all of his support from Kerry, who leads Bush by 9 percentage points in a two-way matchup with the president -- an indication Nader could play the spoiler for Democrats in 2004 as he did four years ago. Underscoring that potential, nearly two-thirds of Democrats opposed Nader's decision to run, while nearly half of all Republicans supported his move."

That last sentence answers McGrath's question.

"(S)ix in 10 Kerry supporters say they are voting for the Democrat more as a protest against Bush and his policies, and not because they are attracted to Kerry."

When you combine that damning statistic with this one, mentioned above:

"nearly two-thirds of Democrats opposed Nader's decision to run"

which I noted left over 1/3 of Democrats unopposed to Nader's candidacy (although we don't know how many of them actually would support Nader), it shows a definite pattern. Support for Kerry is extremely soft across the board, and is being driven not by unity for him, but a desire to unseat Bush.

In 1988, that "anybody but Bush I" movement resulted in a weak Democratic candidate with soft support, and ended up with Bush in power. In 1992, the "anybody but Bush I" movement resulted in the extreme move by the Democratic elite to the right, which is where it remains today. And based upon the current assumed nominee's proclivity to hire everyone who worked in the Clinton administration to work on his campaign, I'd say the party isn't set to move back to the center, much less towards the left, anytime soon.

Which makes the Kucinich and Nader campaigns so crucial in this election year.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 04:13 PM

Sorry, GUEST, but I was just doing what you have done in several threads when people don't agree with you. And which you have done in this one. The difference is that I am directing my comments at a specific person (YOU) as opposed to your tactic in this thread and several others where you point out how everyone who doesn't see it your way is less wise than you. So you can quit trying to shift the premise.

The answer to the original question, it appears, is yes they will support Kerry. Nader is already fading, and that (if it holds) is a good thing. So ...... GUEST ....... could you get back to the original topic, instead of hijacking the thread to your own goals?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 04:19 PM

I don't think it is possible to hijack a thread I started.

There is a difference between addressing a specific person in a conversation (which is something I only occassionally do because I tend to address the group, not individuals--a purely stylistic choice), and constantly personally attacking and insulting a specific individual you disagree with, which is what you keep doing here.

Like I said, you only drag the conversation down into the gutter with your ad hominem attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 04:30 PM

A cupla more excerpts of interest to note:

"Bush no longer is viewed as someone who can bring the country together. Slightly less than half the public says the president has done more to unite the country, while just as many say he has done more to divide Americans."

"More Americans also view Kerry as being honest and trustworthy, more understanding of the problems of "people like you" and more tolerant than the president. On the key issue of leadership, a strength GOP strategists are featuring in ads supporting the president, the two candidates are virtually tied, with 63 percent saying Bush is a strong leader and 61 saying the same of Kerry. The two are also closely matched on ideology: A third see Bush as too conservative, and a third see Kerry as too liberal.

Democratic attacks on Bush as a president who favors the interests of large corporations over working people clearly have had an effect. Two in three now say Bush cares more about protecting the interests of large business corporations, up from 58 percent in December."

"While Americans, by 57 percent to 41 percent, would prefer a new direction over Bush's leadership, that does not necessarily mean they will remove him from office in November. In May1988, a similar number favored a new direction, but then-Vice President George H.W. Bush was elevated to president. In March, 1992, 66 percent favored a new direction and he ultimately lost the election. At a similar point in 2000, the country was evenly split."

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 04:51 PM

Apparently you consider being held liable for your opinions to be an ad hominem attack. I must have missed something in several threads in which you were abusive when folks focused on an area other than what you wanted them to. Oh well ......

Back to the subject. Your views are attacked by me because I see them as dangerous to ordinary folks. When I point that out, you react with self righteous outrage, as in your how dare anyone suggest that a vote for Nader is a vote thrown away ramblings. The simple fact is, in an election with such grave consequences for average folks, it is dangerous. I note the incongruity in many of your arguments with regard to going to war. I recall clearly how you berated veterans for simply wanting a thread in which they weren't attacked and you had to go on and on about how we didn't have that right. I understood from that thread that you have a deep seated resentment towards those that make decisions about going to war. Fair enough. Now, we are faced with an election that chooses whether or not we put back in office a man who uses unilateral action to go to war, and you advocate a policy that enhances his chance at re election.

Here is a surprise for you. If I had my way, Kucinich or Mosely Braun or Tom Harkin (even though his hat wasn't in the ring) would be President. But they have no chance, and I am faced in our type of society with making a choice with real consequences. Average folks like us must do this. And then, we must hold the candidate accountable.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 05:10 PM

I'll stick to the issues, since you refuse to.

"When I point that out, you react with self righteous outrage, as in your how dare anyone suggest that a vote for Nader is a vote thrown away ramblings."

I still maintain that no vote is ever a wasted vote, regardless of the cirucmstances of the election. It is perfectly legitimate to vote based on one's conscience, especially when being castigated for doing so by cynics who use words like "idealist" as an epithet.

I want no part of that sort of political reality.

"The simple fact is, in an election with such grave consequences for average folks, it is dangerous."

Every election has grave consequences for average folks. Every single one of them.

"Now, we are faced with an election that chooses whether or not we put back in office a man who uses unilateral action to go to war, and you advocate a policy that enhances his chance at re election."

First, there is no significant difference between Kerry's position on the use of pre-emptive force (he says he too would use it) and Bush's position. Kerry has made it very clear, repeatedly during the primary debates, that he would also use unilateral force if he failed to get an international coalition together, and he believed that US interests/security were at stake. So I fail to see how voting for Kerry will change anything in that regard.

By supporting a candidate other than Kerry, a person is not advocating any policy that enhances Bush's re-election, they are merely supporting the candidate of their choice, period. Last time I checked, we still allowed that in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 05:24 PM

Yes you are. As I said before, go ahead, fly into the flames.

And I have been sticking to the subject, by responding to your posts on it. I shall continue to do so.

One last thing. We are in agreement on the issue of voting. None cast is ever wasted, in the sense of having folks vote. But advocating that folks vote for a candidate to register a protest in a tight election is, at best, foolish.

I do not view idealism as an epithet. But when idealism gets in the way of pragmatism, and does so with harmful affects on average folks, then it seems unwise at least. And as we have seen, can also be tragic.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 05:34 PM

There is a scenario no one wishes to entertain right now, and that is the prospect of Nader actually winning, by splitting off votes from both Bush and Kerry. That is how Jesse Ventura got elected.

Here are a few excerpts from an article republished at Common Dreams News Center today, on Nader:

"Followers see Nader as a crusading romantic hero, a modern Robin Hood organizing citizen bands to combat corporate interests in the Sherwood Forest of American politics. They are a small but loyal group in every hue of the political rainbow, including folks who have voted for Bill Clinton, Ross Perot and Patrick Buchanan...

"In the 2000 election, 2.9 million Americans, or 2.7 percent of those voting, cast their ballots for Nader, then the Green Party's nominee. Democratic strategists say Nader will get only a fraction of that support this year...

But they dread the thought that he might do better...

The notion that most voters who backed Nader in 2000 were chagrined after helping Bush to a thin Electoral College win, and would not behave likewise again, may be overdrawn...

Nader's most committed supporters share his conviction that Kerry and Bush, never mind their differences, would both preserve an entrenched American power structure that often victimizes ordinary citizens.

They want to shake up the system...

Pat Choate, a Washington-based political economist and author who backed Pat Buchanan in 2000, is supporting Nader this year.

"He's a person of great integrity, and he's focused on the issues that matter -- the budget deficit, trade, and Iraq," said Choate, 63. "He's a courageous man and very good for America. A good number of independent voters are going to be for him, and I think a lot of the old white-shoe conservative Republicans are going to be interested, along with the more traditional liberals of the Democratic Party."

Russell Verney, 57, who helped organize the Reform Party that launched Ross Perot's presidential campaign in 1992, is now advising Nader.

"I want desperately to see him in the presidential debates," Verney said. "Without that independent voice, the Republicans and Democrats will avoid the most pressing issues."

Unlike the Democrats, Courtney said, Nader "is telling the truth about the relationships between the government, the military and the corporations."

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 05:47 PM

And here are some excerpts from a second article at Common Dreams today, this republished from Knight Ridder:

Published on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 by Knight-Ridder
Green, Reform Parties May Both Tap Nader
by Maria Recio

WASHINGTON - Q: Ralph Nader, who is running for president as an independent, will be listed on the ballot in November as:

a) the Reform Party candidate

b) the Green Party candidate

c) an independent

d) all of the above.

The answer is likely to be "d." Nader has made it clear that he will use whatever tactic helps him get on state ballots, and he has lots of options.

In 2000, Nader was the Green Party candidate and won 2.7 percent of the popular vote while on the ballot in only 43 states. In Florida and New Hampshire, if only a small number of Nader voters had gone to Democrat Al Gore, he would have defeated Republican George W. Bush. Democrats fear a repeat this year.

An Associated Press poll released Friday put Nader's support at 6 percent nationally, with Democratic candidate John Kerry in a virtual tie with Bush. The poll, taken March 1-3, was of 771 registered voters and had an error margin of 3.5 percentage points.

Nader's independent, anti-corporate, populist campaign starts its uphill effort to get on the ballot in all 50 states this week in Texas. And there are signs that he may end up as the nominee of both the Reform Party and the Green Party, which are strange bedfellows ideologically.

Texas has one of the toughest standards for ballot qualification in the nation. Starting Wednesday, any minor candidate has 60 days to get more than 60,000 signatures. Complicating the task is that anyone who votes in Tuesday's Texas primary can't sign the petition.

But it's easier for a third party to get listed on the Texas ballot than an individual; a third party needs only 40,000 voter signatures collected in a 75-day period starting Wednesday. As a result, Nader is engaged in an unlikely flirtation with the Reform Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 07:17 PM

"Sorry, GUEST, but I was just doing what you have done in several threads when people don't agree with you."

How do you know it's the same GUEST from one thread to the next, Mick? I find it pretty difficult, and sometimes impossible, working out that, even in the same thread - which is the main reason why I find the practice so gratuitously irritating.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 11:12 PM

Anyone But Bush Increases Lead Against Undecided

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 12:36 AM

GUEST,

I didn't agree with Kerry on the war. I don't have amnesia about it, but I'd rather have Kerry in the White House than Bush. I think it's an emergency situation, Bush has to go, and I think it's the wrong year to make a statement by supporting a more progressive candidate who can't win.

I respect your right to vote your way, however.

What I was pointing out was that the article claimed Kerry was inconsistent, and he wasn't. Before the vote in the senate, he said "This is what Bush has promised, and that's why I'm voting this way." In the debate, he said, "this is what Bush promised, and that's why I voted that way." Those two statements were consistent, not inconsistent.

Countering your own argument, Kerry's broken promise to speak out could NOT have led to the war, because (follow me here) he had no cause to speak out until the war had already been started. It was starting the the war on false pretenses that he would have spoken out about.

Third, my point again (which you ignored): how do we know he did not speak out? How do we know he did not call George Bush and call him a lying bastard? The reporter simply ASSUMED "speaking out" meant "speaking out in a form that a reporter would hear." Most of the speaking that Senators do goes under the journalistic radar. So there is no evidence he broke any promise at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Alaska Mike
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 01:40 AM

I hate the process by which the "chosen" candidate is selected. Living in Alaska the Kerry decision is already made before I can cast my preference in this coming Saturday's Democratic caucus. I won't have the opportunity to vote for Kucinich, or Dean or Clark or Edwards because somebody else already decided it would be Kerry.

Kerry and Gephardt and Lieberman are typical good old boy politicians from Washington DC and I didn't want to vote for any of them. But I don't get a choice because I live in a state with only 3 electoral votes. And that's another of my gripes.

Why does my vote have to go through the Electoral College? Why can't I cast my vote for the candidate of my choice instead of losing it to the majority of Republicans in "the last frontier". I think its time for an honest one person, one vote for the highest office in the land.

No wonder so many people chose NOT to vote, the way the system works, their vote doesn't count even if they mark the ballot.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 02:24 AM

Here I am the outsider, again.

If Kerry gets in you will have four more years (maybe forever) of the status quo - especially if he and Paul Martin (Canada) get together.

If Nader gets in, you will have a president with courage and conviction. Lead the way, America!

If Bush gets in, you will have a great deal of civil unrest and international turmoil.

Take your pick.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Frankham
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 09:44 AM

Nerd, I agree with you completely.

Dianavan,
Nader, unfortunately, is a spoiler and a vote for him will be a vote for Bush. That's reality. The Bush supporters would like nothing more than to have Nader run.

On the other issue, Alaska Mike,
Kerry is not like the other candidates. He has articulated his position carefully. He is not anti-WTO or NAFTA but feels that is needs to be modified. In this, he agrees with Paul Krugman, economist and writer for the New York Times.

He doesn't
agree that it would be wise to suddenly pull American troops out of Iraq. It would be in his view de-stabilizing but he would enlist the aid of the UN and international communities and countries that the Bush Administration has alienated. He has eschewed "simplistic" answers to the problems facing the country and it would be nice to have a president that thinks carefully for a change.

He is not part of any "good old boy" network. He is a savvy politican, however, and part of any presidential job description in my opinion.

Kucinich articulated some wonderful ideas but they can't be applied to the current political situation. They are idealistic rather than practical in my opinion.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 02:17 PM

Frank, nice to be on the same side. The only thing I disagree with in your above post is that I think Kerry is part of an "Old Boy Network." But that's not the end of the world. It was the life he was handed. Edwards, despite the Millworker thing, was part of such a network; in some ways that's how the Senate functions. But everyone who has reached the level of being a serious candidate has friends and cronies in powerful places...you can't get where Kerry is without that.

Even Dean was trying to penetrate that network, starting with his endorsements by Gore, Bradley, et al. So if that's Kerry's deadly sin, the left will have to get over it. The most effective leftists in our government are part of this network too.

Nader, by the way, is part of such a network too, it's just more based on intellectual capital than financial and political capital. It would mean that as president he would be able to command great respect among many academics, philosophers, and progressive thinkers, but he probably wouldn't be too good at working with Congress and the Supreme Court. I'd rather have Kerry in there, personally.

As for the comparison between Bush and Kerry, Bush is even more of an old boy insider. So again I prefer Kerry.

Alaska Mike, I totally agree with your post of 10 Mar 04 - 01:40 AM. I also live in a late-voting state, but it's a swing state, so I have the added anxiety of not knowing who my delegates will be supporting, despite knowing how I cast my vote. We have to get rid of the college and hold primaries all at once, IMO. Only that way will everyone have a say.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 03:15 PM

"The most effective leftists in our government are part of this network too."

Ah, could you please name the leftists in our government? Seriously Nerd, I need some clarification here on how you define "leftist". Some examples of who you consider to be on that list would help.

As to Nader being part of an old boy network--what old boy network would that be, exactly?

And Nerd, Ralph Nader has spent his entire life working with Congress and the courts, and accomplished more genuine change for the better than all the politicians presently serving in our nation's capital combined.

What, on the other hand, has Kerry accomplished in the realm of significant change, as a result of a lifetime in politics and serving in Congress?

I'm very curious to see your list of significant changes Kerry has made in his career as a US senator.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 03:57 PM

I have to agree with GUEST on this one. I don't see any serious leftists out there, but I don't see this as a handicap. A leftist would not be able to govern in this environment, nor would I want an environment in which leftists, or right wingers for that matter, could govern. We have had failed experiments in that vein in the world already. What we need, however, is someone who can restore the balance. In the last twenty years or so, the balance has tipped to the right, and as a result the liberal voice has been muted to a whisper. As I have said before, in our version of democracy it is always a fight for the middle. The progressive voice has been perceived as being out of touch with the mainstream, and that is where you win or lose. This is why, even though my political are decidely to the left of center, I will support (as will the grassroots, IMO) John Kerry.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 02:12 AM

GUEST, I tried to answer you earlier, but the cat was down, or seemed to be.

Leftists in our government? Ted Kennedy. Dennis Kucinich. Bernie Sanders. Jesse Jackson Jr. My own representative, Chakha Fattah. They're there if you look for them. Of course, it's all relative, and these guys aren't socialists (except Bernie), but by many people's standards they're on the left.

As to the Old Boy Network question, Nader has a network of people all over the country, lawyers principally, but also academics, some congresspeople and progressive thinking intellectuals, who comprise a support group very similar to the traditional "old boy network."   If he needs a speaking engagement or a job for his nephew, I'm sure he has no trouble arranging it. His daughter became a very successful academic, and this I think is no coincidence. I'm not saying she isn't good, just that having RN be your dad can't hurt you in academia.

As for Nader working so successfully with Congress in the past, something big has changed since then. Have you forgotten 2000? Washington Democrats hate him for running, and Washington Republicans hate him on principle. Congress would have a VERY uncomfortable relationship with President Ralph, believe me.

Finally, GUEST, Nader has "accomplished more genuine change for the better than all the politicians presently serving in our nation's capital combined." Come on! Some of these people worked on Civil Rights, on Medicare, on social programs of all kinds, created the endowments for the Arts and Humanities, etc, etc. I agree that Kerry hasn't led on that many issues, which is one reason I originally supported a different candidate, but it doesn't help your case to aggrandize Ralph Nader in such an overblown manner.

Nader has done some great things, and may do more. I predict that being president is not one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 03:48 AM

I keep asking but nobody seems to have an answer.

Kerry has been in politics for a long time. What has he done to make your life any better?

d

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Bobjack
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 06:18 AM

Post no 100. I thank you. You have made an old guinea pig very happy.