BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'

Subject: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 01:32 PM

Here is an excellent analysis of the dangerous, short-sighted strategy being espoused by complacent "Anybody But Bush" liberals (calling themselves progressives, of course), who continue to insist everyone hold their nose, gag, and vote for Kerry.

The author, Greg Bates, says:

"I find myself in awkward opposition to Dave's (a fellow writer and colleague of his) call for all progressives to gag but nonetheless vote Kerry, saying that a vote for Nader is no more than a dangerous protest. (Counterpunch, September 27, 2004) Behind every plea of this ilk is a simple demand: THINK STRATEGICALLY! Okay, let's get real."

He then goes on to talk about the hysteria surrounding the strategic thinking of many progressive leftists (like Bobert, for instance), who are planning on voting for Nader or Cobb in "safe states" where Bush is considered a sure win. They too are being admonished by the hysterical Democrats, in an attemt to shame and guilt trip EVERYBODY who isn't a gung-ho Republican, into voting for Kerry. In other words, the Anybody But Bushites are now claiming there are no safe states, and there is no safe vote for non-Repubs to cast, except one for Kerry. Fear mongering for Kerry is the order of the day.

Bates goes on to say:

"The value of a vote for Nader in a safe state is obvious: a growing protest vote, or even a steady one in these times, would show that the politics of fear may not be enough to keep progressives in line, and that to win, real policy change may be needed to head off a bigger vote next time.

Let's turn to consider the logic of Dave's position that we should all vote Kerry and reserve our protests for the streets, confining any progressive presidential electoral strategy to working inside the party during primary season. He writes:

"Voting for Kerry is only the first step. Any progressive who casts a vote for this unprincipled, calculating, Democratic Leadership Council member needs to simultaneously take a vow to remain active-no, to become even more active--in pushing for a progressive, anti-war agenda after November 2. A President-elect Kerry must be confronted with a million anti-war demonstrators at his inauguration ceremony. He must face a one-million-member jobs march in April 2005."

But wait a minute. Part of the punch of the street protest is an implied threat: change your policies or we will vote you out of office next time. March loudly and carry a big ballot. Dave would change the deal: We protest what you are doing, but don't worry; we'll vote for you no matter what you do. True, protests exert pressure in other ways besides threatening a politician's re-election. But taking that electoral tool completely off the table-or relegating it to local elections, as Dave is in effect advocating-robs movements of essential thunder.

Dave would confine progressive electoral politics on the presidential level to the primaries. How can any serious progressive argue this on the heels of what the Party did to the platforms of Kucinich, Dean and others? This in effect says: don't worry about the fun we are having in our progressive sandbox in the spring, we will vote for whoever you nominate. As I have pointed out elsewhere, reformers inside the party need progressives outside the party to demonstrate that, if the Democrats don't move left, we will walk. Otherwise, why would the party, drunk with corporate cash, hand over the keys to reformers? The existence of large numbers of progressives working and voting for other options can be used as leverage to pull the Democrats along. It may not work, but without it reforming the party is all the harder."

I'm still saying that a vote for Nader or Cobb IS a strategic vote, AND a strategic vote that sends a very strong message to the Democratic party. It allows progressives to vote FOR an anti-corporate candidate they not only believe in, but actually believe could serve very well as president. A candidate who would take the corporate parties to the cleaners, where they so desperately need to go.

It seems the Democratic grassroots have, in Bates' words "fundamentally lost touch with the power of third parties. Their success does not necessarily rest on winning office, but on applying pressure." Bates reminds us that "From the early labor parties of the 1830s, to the Free Soil Party of the 1850s, to the Prohibition Party of the 1890s, to the Bull Moose Party at the start of the twentieth century, to the Reform Party in the 1990s, third-party movements have forced policies and issues onto center stage and into mainstream political discourse. The result of these third-party campaigns has been the adoption of some of the most significant pieces of legislation in American history, such as the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the establishment of pensions, unemployment insurance, the minimum wage, Social Security, child labor laws, public schools, public power, the direct election of senators, the graduated income tax, paid vacation, the forty-hour workweek, higher civil service standards, the formation of labor unions, and democratic tools such as the initiative, the referendum, and the recall."

What depresses me more than anything about this election, is the way so many otherwise right thinking people, have totally lost touch with that history, and now believe, like so many Mudcatters do, that casting a vote for an independent or third party candidate, when combined with continued activism for progressive causes, is a wasted vote.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 01:46 PM

""Voting for Kerry is only the first step. Any progressive who casts a vote for this unprincipled, calculating, Democratic Leadership Council member needs to simultaneously take a vow to remain active-no, to become even more active--in pushing for a progressive, anti-war agenda after November 2. A President-elect Kerry must be confronted with a million anti-war demonstrators at his inauguration ceremony. He must face a one-million-member jobs march in April 2005."

That makes more sense than the rebuttal posted above. In the wake of a Bush victory the ability of "the left" to organise effectively will be even more weakened than it clearly was last time. In the wake of a Bush defeat you could have the momentum to start moving forward.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: mack/misophist
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 02:09 PM

It appears that the sub text of this is: 'Better a loss than an imperfect win. Better a bush than a Kerry.' Nonsense!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 02:18 PM

Certainly,

Returning the governmnet to the oil lobby because the Left could not get together long enough to counter the votes of frightened evangelicals who believe that Saddam not only planned the 9/11 attcaks but that he magically, using his Satanic powers, flew each of the planes then transported himself back to Baghdad a split second before the planes hit.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Fishpicker
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 02:52 PM

This country needs to have a two party system, not the current sold out republicrat party! A vote for a third party candidate, by those that believe this is important and even though it seems futile at this point, somewhere down the road will give us a choice other than the lesser of two weavils. There is no difference between kerry and beorge gush in the final analysis they are both sold out to big business. Both are tax and spend globalists liars IMO. Ralph Nader has actually done something possitive as a consumer advocate in his long career that we all have benefited from. I am against bush's fourth reich approach as much as kerry's preppy do nothing daddy approach. To get this republic back to something close to what it once was we need to start attempting to vote something other than carpet baggers into office. This doesn't happen immediatly but takes long enough for citizens to become so disgusted with business as usual that they bring about that change. There will be less and less definition between presidential candidtates in the future untill we all step up to the plate and vote these parasites out!


                               FP

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 02:54 PM

As I expected, none of you gentlemen seem to understand that the self-labeled "progressives" pimping for Kerry have already fractured the global and national movements which had mobilized against Bush. The Democrats have very skillfully and intentionally, not to mention successfully, disemboweled the left by demonizing Nader.

We had MILLIONS of people marching against Bush before the sell-outs like Noam Chomsky (in order to protect his cushy academic job, I'm sure) insisted the dissent be silenced, and everyone fall in lock step behind Kerry and the Democratic Leadership Council.

The movements for true social, economic, and political change that had surged and grown dramatically in the wake of the Bush/Cheney election theft of 2000, have now effectively been destroyed by the liberal pimps and sell-outs for Kerry and the DLC.

Regardless of who wins in November now, the momentum that was present to bring all sorts of disenfranchised and disillusioned workers, peace activists, immigrants, single women, progressive blocks of communities of color, etc that were pouring into the streets in 2003 to protest the war and Bush's policies like the Patriot Act, were jailed by the Democrats in Boston this summer, and no one on the left said boo about it.

The strategy of the Anybody But Bush Democrats has been very savvy indeed. They cut off the heads of those movements, and jailed those activists who DARED to challenge their power and supremacy when they showed up in the streets of Boston, in order to insure victory for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 03:36 PM

Nader doesn't represent any cause but Nader's ego.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 03:42 PM

You forgot to add "in my opinion" to your post there, Jack-o.

Nice to see your perspective here, Fishpicker. The All-Kerry All the Time Anybody But Bush camp gets a bit stale with their Nader bashing after awhile.

And oddly, they never talk about how the Democratic steamroller for Kerry has crushed the life out of the movements for change, do they? Apparently the long haul doesn't concern them. Just the instant gratification of getting rid of Bush.

I note these aren't the people who will be picking up the pieces of the shattered movements come November 3rd.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 05:54 PM

Bush has some funny friends these days.

Before a long haul you need to be facing in the right direction.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 06:04 PM

As far as I'm concerned, Bush and Kerry are two rotten teeth in the mouth of the same world-devouring dragon. The Democrats and Republicans are the left and right sides of its ravening jaws. I prefer the left side a wee bit, but that's not saying much, cos you get chewed up and swallowed all the same.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:22 PM

Political commentary using imagery, metaphors and personification. I love it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 09:40 AM

The movements of millions for political change WERE facing in the right direction before they were crushed by the Democrats and the Kerry/Edwards campaign, McGrath. That is why the arguments that we can protest and dissent after the election are so specious.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 10:08 AM

Hitler's rise to power was facilitated by the fact that the Liberals and the Socialists and the Communists were battling it out in the streets and the press. There are times when trying to block a Popular Front is a serious mistake. (And no I'm not identifying Bushism with Hitlerism - that's merely an illustrative analogy.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 10:14 AM

I suspect the chief motivation of our agent provocateur "guest" is to discourage progressive minded folks from voting at all. It's a pretty simple strategy.

You know I'll feel a whole lot better protesting Kerry's actions in the White House for the next 4 years than having to deal with the consequences of Bush getting re-elected.

And I applaud the national Green Party candidates who advocate voting for Kerry in states where the Presidental race appears close.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 10:44 AM

Of course you applaud candidates that say "vote for the other guy, not me". That is because the fear people have of standing up to the Bush/Cheney camp is so strong, that they have lost track of their spines.

And if you think John Kerry has a spine he will use to stand up to the plutocracy, you are seriously deluded. He will represent the interests of the plutocracy, NOT the citizens of the US of A and the world.

I am advocating EVERYONE vote. I just refuse to advocate that EVERYONE vote for Kerry. I don't see Kerry as the messiah that the Anybody But Bush camp keeps proclaiming him to be. I see widespread evidence of a deep and wide reactionary voting pattern amongst people who will vote for Bush or Kerry, because that way they don't need to think about what a Bush presidency or Kerry presidency will mean.

Bush and Kerry are both the products being sold by the two corporate parties, which are just like Disney and Viacom. The duopoly candidates are two corporate entities competing for market share, and selling different brands of the same product.

And I, along with millions of other true progessives, am not buying what they are selling.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 10:48 AM

A leaked page from the Kerry Edwards Democratic Election Colorado Election Day Manual, November 2004:
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc.jpg
"If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a pre-emptive strike (particularly suited to states in which there techniques have been tried in the past).
• Issue a press release
    i. Reviewing Republican Tactic used in the past in your area or state
    ii. Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting
• Prime Minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points
• Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics
• Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls

In other words plant a seed if discontent in the minds of minoritys to make them think the Republicans are trying to take away their right to vote. Cause anger against Republicans if none exists.

If you think these tactics are acceptable, replace the word Republican with Democrat, replace Kerry Edwards with G W Bush, reread the page and see if it still acceptable.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 12:17 PM

Except when it actually is part of a Bush dirty tricks campaign, this kind of squabble is just silly.

The sensible thing to do is organise voter trading, maximising the anti-Bush vote where it is effective, and in the process maximising the Nader and Green vote in other places.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 12:27 PM

Except when it actually is part of a Bush dirty tricks campaign, this kind of squabble is just silly.

The sensible thing to do is organise voter trading, maximising the anti-Bush vote where it is effective, and in the process maximising the Nader and Green vote in other places.

Here's the "VotePair" site. (Though, for Mudcatters over in the States who are inclined to try this, I'd have thought doing it via PMs with Mudcatters you trust to keep their word might make more sense, since trust is the essential feature in this kind of arrangement.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 12:32 PM

You know what McGrath? You don't know jack shit about American politics and electoral realities, but that doesn't stop you from spouting off in these threads as if you were a fount of political wisdom. You ain't. You are naive, blissfully and stubbornly ignorant of facts, trends, history, and tactics which work in the US, rather than your merry olde England.

The ludicrous suggestion that voter trading can even be organized, much less should be, is an excellent example of your bizarre form of "strategic" thinking.

You don't know what the hell you are talking about. You don't live in the US, have no experience doing political and/or electoral organizing and strategizing here, so why not just shut the fuck up and stay out of it?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 12:46 PM

Guest-

It sounds like you DO know jack shit about American politics. In fact, I'm convinced you're full of it. Keep on spewing it out. You may even discourage some Bush supporters from voting.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,US
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 12:57 PM

I hear US voters are geting letters from "prominent" English men such as Steven Hawking.

Englishmen: Fuck off and mind your own business.

Uncle Sam

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 01:05 PM

If I can get even one Bush voter to stay home, I'd be successful.

Politics, especially in this climate, is not for the polite or the squeamish. Which is why, after flirting with voting for Cobb, I decided against it, for the same reason why Nader refused to run as a Green Party candidate this year: the Greens are ready to be a mainstream party. They keep waffling on running a presidential candidate of their own, and even when they do run their own candidate, they waffle and say "but it's OK if you vote Democratic instead."

It is NOT ok to build a party with that spineless sort of waffling. More than anything, Greens, like liberal Democrats, want everyone to like them.

IMO, I and the electorate don't need to personally like the candidates we vote for, but we do need to know they have a strong enough spine to stand strong and tough against special interest pressures, pressures from fellow politicans and lobbyists, and have a strong, clear vision with a strategy for working to realize that vision, for the citizens of the nation and the world.

Politics is a rough and tumble business, especially for honest people like Nader. But I can't think of any politician who has been stronger and tougher than he has over the years, accomplishing a tremendous amount of positive stuff, pushing legislation through a completely hostile (to him & his issues) Congress, executive branch, and judicial branch. Nader is exactly the kind of leader I would love to have in the White House, because he knows how to take the career politicians and lobbyists to task to get the job done.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 01:07 PM

Oops, I should have said "Greens ARE NOT ready to be a mainstream party." My bad.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 01:11 PM

Guest US, I would no more listen to an English celebrity than I would a Hollywood celebrity regarding how to vote. This whole "celebrity endorsement" game is appallingly undemocratic, and just another demonstration of the corporate marketing tactics being used to sell candidates. Celebrities should stick to selling toothpaste.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 01:51 PM

Selling toothpaste and selling a candidate is a very similar process in the prevailing $y$tem... :-)

Did you know that swishing some salty water around in your mouth after brushing your teeth in the evening will go farther to protect them than the expensive commercially sold products will? It will not protect you, however, against a 2-party corporate dictatorship that masquerades as a democracy.

Did you know that shaving foam is a totally useless product? Try using a little lathered shampoo instead. It works great, and the razor doesn't get plugged up with sticky gunk from it either. Way cheaper than shaving foam, and works better be cleaning off oils from your skin and the razor.

Another totally useless product: drinking straws. Pointless.

Another totally useless product: Electric can opener. Ridiculous. People who think they need one should buy a machine to yawn and sneeze for them too, I suppose.

Here's another tip: Fresh human urine kills athlete's foot fungus totally dead. Use your own in the shower, then shower it off and wash it down the drain. Costs nothing, unlike the expensive anti-fungal creams and other remedies you are encouraged to buy at the drugstore.

A pity that one can't achieve the same clean sweep of resident vermin and parasites by peeing on the political $y$tem, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,US
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 02:00 PM

Excuse me it was not Steven Hawking but Richard Dawkins.

Do you Limeys need any advice? OK then Fuck off and mind your own business.

Uncle Sam

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Fishpicker
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 02:06 PM

Little Hawk,


"Resident vermin", Great! I hope you will allow me to add that one to my repertoire without having to send you a royalty check.

                        FP

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 02:20 PM

There is a speculation that Nader is been unduly influenced by Fred Newman's cult political group, New Alliance for America from which he receives financial support. He also receives money from the RNC.

Nader is simply not presidential material and a vote for him is a vote for four more reckless and unprincipled, irresponsible shenanigans in the White House.

The Left really needs to rethink and reframe it's position. It has a history of factionalism, rancor, and reaction. Not all Lefties agree and often vehemently disagree. In the meantime, the Wrong-wing is walking all over us because they are in lockstep. Many are the advocates of a demented so-called president who offers religious Crusades instead of sound policy. The Left can't fight that with Nader regardless of all the chest pounding and rage they offer.

First, get this religious fanatic out of office before he starts a scorched-earth policy in the Middle East to bring about his delusional Rapture. That's the only reason Bush supports Israel. That's why Karl Rove is whistling "Onward Christian Soldiers". It's not about the "facts" or "policies" anymore folks. It's about religous fascism taking over our country. Nader would do well to speak to that.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 02:31 PM

Was that GUEST response to my last post actually from the same person as the other GUEST posts? If so, my gut feelings that there's something dodgy about this "progressive" are very much strengthened. That kneejerk xenophobia sounded sincere, and it's a tone that's pretty characteristic of...
................................

Quite a lot of American voters will be getting letters from people in this country, I believe, mostly from non-celebrities. The Guardian is pushing the idea quite hard - Letters to Clark County. I am inclined to think it's probably not a great idea, because people can get touchy about that kind of thing. (If I was sending a letter to a total stranger in that way, I'd be very tempted to urge the person I was writing to back Bush, in the expectation that this might make them think twice about doing so.)

However the point is, in a very real sense the man elected in November isn't just the US President, but also the nearest approach to the President of Earth. God help us. It's no wonder that people outside the USA get concerned about what's going to happen. It's our future that's likely to be screwed up as well.

I imagine it must have felt a bit like this for people living out in the Roman Empire watching the in-crowd in Rome and its environs sorting out who was to be Emperor. The Romans generally got it wrong too, and they sure did squabble about it...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 02:39 PM

You are full of shit Frank, and mouthing the propaganda of the Anybody But Bush Democratic Leadership Council camp, about supposed Republican funding and signature gathering for Nader. How about we talk about the anti-democratic initimdation campaign the Democrats have waged against Nader? The Democratic party's lawsuits to keep Nader off the ballot in 20 states? The knocks on the doors in the middle of the night of signature gatherers for Nader, threatening them with legal action if they "illegally" accept a voter registration from someone who isn't eligible to vote?

You are completely out of step with the times. The groups that are coalescing together on the left are leaving your generation's fractured tendencies behind, and uniting under a new unified banner. We aren't the lame ass AFL-CIO angry white men anymore.

We are united as never before against war, racism, exploitation, and in defense of civil liberties and civil and human rights. We aren't beholden to corporate power or corporate unions like the AFL-CIO, which has actively campaigned to stop today's Million Worker March.

Why the attempt to stop union members from participating in today's march? Simple: the Kerry campaign told them to oppose it. We know damn well whose side Senator John Kerry is on, and it most certainly isn't the workers, especially the unorganized working poor of this country. John Kerry has said it over and over and over again: he is working for the middle class, not the working class and the poor.

We know which side our bread is buttered on, thank you very much.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 03:19 PM

BTW, here is MY union's response to the AFL-CIO's decision to help the Kerry/DLC Democrat's attempts to crush our movment, BTW.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,US
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 02:03 AM

I suppose all you union members are the ones whining about jobs leaving the US and blaming it on Bush when unions and lawyers are the ones running the jobs away.

All that marching shit just wears out your shoes faster and supports those off shore shoe makers.

Uncle Sam

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 01:28 PM

Guest,

Nader has taken $8,000 from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth which he hasn't returned. These are the smear group that is headed by John O'Neil and financed by members of the RNC and billionaires like T. Boone Pickens. This is the group that is illegally airing the "Stolen Honor" smear-umentary on John Kerry for Sinclair. That shows you something about Nader's integrity.

Kerry has said conclusively in his campaign speeches and in the debates that he is in support of the Middle and the Working class in this country. Edwards has been specific about this as well. Kerry is being supported by many labor unions.

The problem is that when you tell a guy that he's full of shit, it weakens your argument. It's a problem the fringe Left has had for a long time and makes them vulnerable to a kind of weakness. You can't yell down those who you disagree with and expect to win anything. Decent language is the only way
to a reasonable dialogue unless Naderites have dispensed with dialogue and just enjoy yelling.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 01:54 PM

Where is your proof that Nader took $8,000 from Swift Boat Veterans, FranK?

Answer: you don't have any. You are falling victim to the urban legends the left has circulating, especially on the Internet, about this election. Another urban legend of this sort: that Bush had a device under his jacket in debate #2, and Karl Rove was feeding him his lines through an earpiece.

Telling someone they are full of shit weakens arguments for your generation, maybe, but certainly it doesn't for younger generations. Also, labeling people who have disagreed with you strongly as "fringe" is also a tactic that most people see through also. Trying to demonize the opposition with statements like you make in your last paragraph--people are wise to that too.

Kerry has repeatedly said he is working for the middle class. Here it is straight from his website. Middle class, Frank. Not the poor, not the working poor, not the working class.

Did he endorse yesterday's Million Worker March, which had the backing of Rev Jesse Jackson, Martin Luther King III, etc? No he did not. And he made sure the AFL-CIO, who is supporting him, along with many of the other internationals, didn't support it either.

Nader, however, did.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 02:03 PM

Frank:

Who is Klor de Alva? A. A billionaire from Brazil who is trying to influence the Colorada election.

Who is George Sorros? A. A billionaire who said that he would give up all of his money if he could guarantee a loss for Bush.

Who supports Edwards' campaign? A. More than half comes from lawyers, lawyers' families and employees.

Who is full of shit?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 02:06 PM

Mouthing off against an opponent does bugger all to convince that opponent, no matter what generation they are. It never did.

Much better to save it for the occasional situations where it can be useful enough, for example as a way of generating group solidarity.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 02:06 PM

You too are full of shit Old Guy. Full of Republican shit.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:28 PM

Spoken like a true old man who is completely out of touch there, McGrath.

What's this, the Sunday school marm standard of rip roaring political argument? Chastising for use of curse words? Give me a break. You guys must really be desperate.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:30 PM

GUEST/NaderRaider and friends--

I have a lot of trouble with these statements:

>And oddly, they never talk about how the Democratic steamroller for Kerry has crushed the life out >of the movements for change

>The movements for true social, economic, and political change that had surged and grown >dramatically in the wake of the Bush/Cheney election theft of 2000, have now effectively been >destroyed by the liberal pimps and sell-outs for Kerry and the DLC.

for the simple reason that I don't see how any real political movement could be so easily destroyed--

I don't have much disagreement with "progressive" issues (unless you count Nader), but I think that 'progressives" like GUEST don't really understand how to work in the political system-

First--when you act anonymously, you are a non-entity, even to people who agree with what you might have to say--people follow people, not abstract ideas--

Second--issues don't create political power--organization creates political power--you can use an issue to rally the troops, but you have to have recruit and organize the troops first--

Third--Compromise is critical to extending political power, because all political power comes from building coalitions--and you can't consolidate without reconciling differences--

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:52 PM

Well, you are dead wrong on #2. The millions who demonstrated against the Iraq war around the world weren't organized. They responded to the issue, and their feet followed. There truly was no global recruitment campaign that organized the demonstrators in advance, beyond the same organizing that gets done for all major demos. That is what is meant by "mass movement". No one organizes those. They just reach critical mass, like they did when the no-nukes movement stopped nuclear power in it's tracks in the wake of Three Mile Island.

The big difference? The issue, and how strongly millions of people feel about it.

Compromise is not critical to extending political power. There are so many movements throughout history which have proved that, from taxation without representation, to slavery, to women's suffrage, to ending apartheid, etc etc.

You don't compromise on the big stuff, and when you are trying to force the issue, you don't either.

Compromise in conventional governmental politics is merely a buzzword, and really only meaningful in a legislative context. Politics encompasses much, much more than that. When agitation and forcing issues to a higher place on politicians and governments' agendas from outside the system is the goal, you never compromise.

I agree that coalition building is good for the process. But you have to remember, coalition building is also what corporations and their lobbyists do.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:58 PM

Spoken like an old hippy, who knows a bit about how to argue with political opponents. And an awful lot of movement people I've worked alongside never managed to learn that. Maybe if they had, we wouldn't be in quite this situation after all these years.

The only time you ever set out to annoy an opponent is when you have some reason to think that this will put them off their balance, and that this will help you. For eample, it might push them over the line, so that they lash out. That clearly doesn't arise in a forum like this, so it's a waste of words.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: michaelr
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 09:07 PM

Blah blah blah

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 01:07 AM

Anonymous guest:

An anonymous guest accusing a non Republican of being full of Republican shit is full of shit.

Now, being so full of shit tell us

Who is Klor de Alva?

Who is George Sorros?

Who is Harold Ickes?

Who is John Sperling?

Who supports Edwards' campaign?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 10:04 AM

You know what McGrath? You don't know jack shit about American politics and electoral realities, but that doesn't stop you from spouting off in these threads as if you were a fount of political wisdom. (17 Oct 04 - 12:32 PM)

I 'love' it. When 17 Oct 04 - 12:32 PM feels (s)he's losing an argument on the level of content (s)he's either declaring that the opposition is full of shit or that they don't know shit. Your xenophobic tendencies, 17 Oct 04 - 12:32 PM, and your display of jingoistic feeling of superiority is just as unpalatable as the same stuff from U(ncle)S(am). You may come from widely different political positions, but you are much closer to each other in other respects than you would like to admit.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 12:53 PM

You may come from widely different political positions

But I wouldn't be too sure about that. It's very easy to put on a front on the Internet, and easier still when, as a nameless GUEST, you don't have to be too careful about letting the mask slip.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 01:18 PM

"Where is your proof that Nader took $8,000 from Swift Boat Veterans, FranK?"

Article in the New York Times.

"Telling someone they are full of shit weakens arguments for your generation, maybe, but certainly it doesn't for younger generations."

A generational gap is rely a specious argument. Not all "younger generation" people fall into lock-step and agree.

There are "fringe" groups that do more destruction than good. There were the Weathermen in the Sixties for example. They can be recognized by their
name-calling, violent solutions to social problems and their blind adherence to ideological leaders. Fortunately, they are not represented by any "younger generation".

If you have been following the Kerry stump speeches you would find that he does mention the "working class" as well as the "middle class". The emphasis he gives to the middle class is because it is deteriorating as the dispararity between rich and poor grows. At one time in our history, the working class was the middle class.

As for the Million Worker March and Jesse Jackson, I don't know why or if he didn't endorse it but it may be that he did. There is no proof that he didn't.

Nader is not going to win the presidential election. W (God forbid) might.
In short a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 04:50 PM

Honored GUEST has, on a number of occasions, accused me of being brainwashed or being incapable of thinking "outside the box." First of all, I am not a member of any political party, nor have I ever been. And second, it's a bit difficult to brainwash someone who has followed this business as closely as I have over the past several decades. Because I am not a member of any political party, that does not mean that I don't have a political philosophy. I do. It is what most people would call "liberal" or "progressive" (despite the fact that some people regard those terms as swear words).

I have studied up thoroughly on the candidates—all the candidates—and in the light of my political philosophy and in the light of political reality, I have made my decision. My first choice was Dennis Kucinich, and I voted for him in my precinct caucus. When it became obvious that he wasn't going to make it, I favored Howard Dean. When the thing finally shook out, Kerry was the front-runner. I'm quite sure that if either Kucinich or Dean had become the front-runner, GUEST would be turning his/her vitriol on them.

I will be voting for John Kerry.

This does not mean that I am completely smitten with him. Far from it. But considering the apparent political philosophy of George W. Bush (if, indeed, he has a cohesive political philosophy, but his advisors, e.g., Cheney, Rove, Rice et al certainly do), along with his litany of bad decisions, mistakes, deceptions, and downright impeachable offenses (all far worse that Clinton's little peccadillo, which affected neither the nation nor the world, and resulted in the death of no one), another four years of the Bush administration is simply unacceptable.

There is ample justification for the "anybody but Bush" position.

And anyone who knows anything at all about Kerry—beyond the usual Republican and third-party rhetoric—know that he will be a far more competent president in all areas domestic and foreign than Bush. [By the way, did anyone watch Frontline last week?] And in any case, even if he turns out to be as bad as GUEST tries to make him out to be, he can't possibly be worse than what Bush has been—and if Bush actually gets elected this time, he will undoubtedly regard that as a mandate. If you have the courage, think about that for a while!

Too many people (including former supporters) are angry with Ralph Nader for playing the spoiler yet again, and no one can realistically believe that David Cobb will be elected when very few people have ever even heard of him—and the same goes for Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party, only even more so. No one in his right mind doubts that when the smoke clears and the blood gets mopped up after November 2nd, either John Kerry or George W. Bush will be president-elect of the United States.

Like it or not, the art (or is it "mud-wrestle?") of politics demands compromise. Always has; always will. Sometimes the only reasonable choice is to vote for a front-running candidate you are not particularly enamored with, but who a) has a realistic chance of winning; and b) reflects your political philosophy better than the other front-running candidate. One can refuse to compromise, vote for a candidate who is closer to one's political philosophy than either of the front-runners (even though one reflects it better than the other), and then, while the real bad guy gets elected and the whole world goes down the tubes, sit back and feel smug and self-righteous about one's "uncompromising integrity." But that's small beer. At best, that accomplishes nothing. At worst, it's totally selfish and self-defeating.

Also, like it or not, this is primarily a two-party system. Anyone who seriously believes that there is going to be a great popular movement in which the people will rise up and put either Nader or Cobb into office this election probably also believes in the Great Pumpkin. Not that it can't happen sometime. But when such things are in the offing, they invariably give some indication, and there is certainly no indication that anything like that will occur this time around.

If one is seriously interested in altering the political system in this country, there are two ways to go about it: one is outlined HERE; the other is to join or start a movement to institute Instant Runoff Voting. It wouldn't hurt to do both.

The anger that GUEST exhibits toward those who disagree with him/her reminds me very much of some of the more militant pacifists I met during the Sixties. If you didn't accept every last tenet of non-violence that they espoused, they would be perfectly willing to take you out in the alley and beat the crap out of you.

And speaking of crap, wait 'til after November 2nd. Then we'll see who's full of shit around here.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 05:08 PM

Looking at this map and the poll figures behind them, it seems pretty obvious that anyone living in those states which are shown as dark red or dark blue could happily vote for anyone they like, in the knowledge that this can't make any difference to the result one way or another.

And that's the rationale behind vote swapping - because you can cast that vote for someone you wouldn't normally vote for, on behalf of someone in a marginal state where that vote might make a difference. All it needs is mutual trust, which of course is quite a tall order. But I know people I'd trust in a similar situation, and I'm sure most people do.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 06:35 PM

Tell Ralph Nader to Send Back the Dirty Swift Boat Money!
Five major donors who have given $13,500 to the right-wing, discredited Republican group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have also given Ralph Nader's presidential campaign $8,000.


http://www.thenaderfactor.com/petition9/

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:50 PM

Guest,

I want to set the record straight. I am for the Million Men March on Washington. I support the raising of the minimum wage. I am on the side of the American worker. I agree with some of the ideas of Nader and Jesse Jackson whether or not I like them personally. (I'm still smarting over the "Hymietown" slur.)

Here's the bottom line. If Bush gets into office on November 4th, 2004, it will not make any difference what Nader, Jesse, you or I think. Why? Because we will see the rise of a new kind of fascism in the U.S. with a Crusader in charge of each branch of our government. He has threatened to put his heel on Kerry's throat. Shouldn't that tell you something? He also has made some interesting Freudian slips in his speeches.

1. That he will stand up for terror.
2. That he favors a draft.
3.   Sept. 4th, 2001 was a significant date for him. Could it be possibly that 9-11 was planned and he knew about it while reading "My Pet Goat"?

It may be that his slips reveal the truth more than any statement he makes on the stump.

As Garrison Keillor so elegantly recommends, if you like Nader, wear his clothes, his perfume or whatever but when you get into the voting booth, please do the right thing for our country and oust the Terminator Crusader who wants to make the Mid-East his "Sudatenland".

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Nerd
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 02:11 PM

As Garrison Keillor so elegantly recommends, if you like Nader, wear his clothes, his perfume or whatever

Am I alone in thinking, "huh?"

(But I agree with Frank in general)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: M.Ted
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 06:00 PM

Most disconcerting is that Bush seems to feel that he has been ordained by God to run the country--Check out the first couple paragraphs of this article from the New York Times Magazine--I'd post a link, but it won't work, because you have to register for the Times before you can access it--

Without a Doubt
By RON SUSKIND

Published: October 17, 2004

Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.

''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . .


''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis...."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 07:22 PM

The article M Ted refers to is well worth reading. In fact, I finally bit the bullet and registered with the NY Times so I could read the whole thing. It's painless, and you don't have to give any more information about yourself than you do when you register at Mudcat.

A couple of the most telling—and scary—paragraphs in the story:

         In the summer of 2002, after I [Ron Suskind] had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
         The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
         Who besides guys like me are part of the reality-based community? Many of the other elected officials in Washington, it would seem. A group of Democratic and Republican members of Congress were called in to discuss Iraq sometime before the October 2002 vote authorizing Bush to move forward. A Republican senator recently told Time Magazine that the president walked in and said: ''Look, I want your vote. I'm not going to debate it with you.'' When one of the senators began to ask a question, Bush snapped, ''Look, I'm not going to debate it with you.''

I'm in the process of reading a fairly hefty book entitled The Closing of the Western Mind: the Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason by Charles Freeman. It deals with how the mingling of early Christianity and neo-Platonism—combined with the Roman emperor Constantine's becoming a Christian and thereby lending the power of the state and the force of law to religious dogma—suppressed the advance of earlier faltering but promising steps in Greek scientific thought (per Aristotle: observe, experiment, and think, the method of people such as Aristarchus, Achimedes, Heraclides, and Hippocrates) and precipitated the Dark Ages in Europe (which did not happen in the Middle East. The Dark Ages finally ended with the importation of "new" knowledge by returning crusaders and the rediscovery of Aristotle, eventually leading to the Renaissance and the rebirth of scientific discovery (this is my oversimplification, but it is essentially true).

Those same dynamics of mysticism and praying and looking inward for the truth rather than looking outward for evidence are at work among some of the nation's leaders. This accounts for their simply dismissing what is obvious to much of the rest of the world.

"If the policy is not supported by the facts, change the facts."

Can we afford four more years of this? I think not.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 07:57 PM

Re: Noam Chomsky

How about--Noam Chomsky, in contrast to you, courageous Ghost (you're no "Guest") is showing powers of logic you sadly lack.


We go back to the old house-on-fire analogy. First put out the fire, then discuss renovations.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 09:30 PM

Cheney got a flu shot BOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Hillary got a flu shot YAYYYYYYYYY
Clinton got a flu shot YAYYYYYYYYY


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 03:42 PM

Bush thinks he is on a mission from God to wipe out the terrorists.
Kerry thinks that terrorism is a nuisance and a legal matter
Nader want to pull all troops immediately and negotiate with them.

Given the three positions, I can live with Door # 1.

PS: Have you noticed the change in Putin since the children massacre in Russia?   Now all he talks about is terrorism and confronting it. I hope we don't have to go through another massacre in the USA to remind us about terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 06:06 PM

I got a flu shot, and so did anyone who might possibly need one here. But that's England for you.
..............

Change in Putin? Not in the way he's behaving. He's still one of the world's leading masters of terror. He just doesn't do his killing on prime time television.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 06:06 PM

I've been to the New York Times website Frank, and can find no mention of any article that proves Nader took money from Swift Boat Vets, just an article that says Democratic party operatives are accusing him of accepting funding from them, and other Republican sources, which Nader has consistently denied.

Now, if a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush/Republicans, then what was a vote for Jesse Ventura? It is widely known that Jesse Ventura split votes off from both the Democrats and Republicans to win the Minnesota governor's race. But the more significant thing he did to win the election was to bring in voters that hadn't been voting to put him over the top.

PBS has been the only network that has dealt with independent and third party candidates. In it's most recent program on the topic, Crashing the Parties 2004, Jesse Ventura said several intersting things. First, about Nader, he absolutely dismisses the charge that Nader was a "spoiler" in 2000. As Jesse pointed out, Al Gore would be president today if he had won either his own home state, or the home state of Bill Clinton. In other interviews, Jesse has also pointed out that the only constituency that continues to accuse Nader or any other third party/independent candidates of being spoilers, are the Democratic party and it's hysteria mongering sycophants.

Jesse also pointed out that all any candidate has to do to win an election these days, is to pull in roughly 1/3 of the regular voters, and 20% of non-voters, to slide to an easy victory. He questions why neither the Democrats or Republicans seem to be able to do this.

The problem with believing that Kerry is a genuine alternative to the status quo despite him being part and parcel of the status quo the Chomskys, et al keep claiming they are fighting to defend by ousting Bush, is that most people who will vote for Kerry will also have convinced themselves of his goodness as a candidate AND as a president, despite their own beliefs to the contrary during the primaries. Already people in Mudcat who opposed Kerry back in the primaries, are showing signs of this sort of muddled thinking. Why do people do this? Because when you rationalize and justify voting for one of the bad guys by saying what a good guy he is, there is a psychological disconnect in most people.

My belief is that most people who have turned their backs on Nader this time who supported him last time, is that they are making a hard turn to the right politically, and that they will likely never return to the progressive values they once professed to hold. Which, of course, turned out to be fashionable empty rhetoric.

There are battle lines being drawn. But most of the Greens and progressives who are going along with the appease the Democrats strategy, will never be on the front lines of the battle again. That will be left to the younger generation they have betrayed, who will soon be tearing it up in the streets again like they did in Seattle.

It is the future generations the appeasers have sold out with their Anybody But Bush rationalizations. Our young people won't forget this betrayal of progressive values by their elders, I assure you.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Nerd
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 09:01 PM

"the only constituency that continues to accuse Nader or any other third party/independent candidates of being spoilers, are the Democratic party and it's hysteria mongering sycophants"

This is easy for GUEST to claim, because anyone who makes this complaint and is not a democrat is simply defined by GUEST as a hysteria mongering sycophant. All it says is "I define the the people who do this as hysteria mongering sycophants, therefore the only people who do it are hysteria mongering sycophants."

Well, what if we define the people who DON'T call Nader a spoiler "Head up their ass dimwits?" Then I can truthfully, and just as meaningfully, say "the only people who don't call Nader a spoiler are head up their ass dimwits!"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 10:45 PM

Larry K--

No, as usual, you're wrong. Re: your post 22 Oct 3:49 PM---Kerry does not think terrorism is a nuisance and a legal matter now---just that we have to get to the point where it can eventually be in the background--not an all-pervasive fear as Bush is now making it----stoking fear (while piously and hypocritically appealing to voters to reject "the politics of fear')'-----in order to assure election. How much more Bush drivel can you swallow before you choke on it?

Why don't you ever do research before shooting from the lip?---or do you like regurgitating Bush's smarmy idiocies?

I refer you to Ebbie's post of 12 Oct 2004 12:01 PM on the Terrorism as a Nuisance thread----where the offending word "nuisance" was used in context-----she quotes exactly what Kerry said.

If you have any sense of logic, you will agree that reducing terrorism to a level that is not threatening the fabric of your life is not only a worthy goal, but essential to preserve sanity. In fact that's precisely what the UK has done regarding IRA terrorism.

Kerry is not alleging that terrorism has been reduced to a nuisance, just that this should be our goal. The main disagreement between Bush and Kerry on terrorism is how to get to the stage where terrorism is in the background----unless of course Bush really believes that , omnipotent as he is, he can eliminate terrorism worldwide for the first time in history.

In this case he is either even more of a megalomaniac than I thought, or more of a dim bulb. He himself even said at the time of the Republican convention that the war on terrorism could never be won----then of course retracted that statement--lest he be caught making sense.

So, as a result, his perfect record of nonsense is preserved.

Of course, since you're a staunch Bushite, I don't expect you to have any sense of logic. I continue my search for a thinking person who would vote for Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 03:39 PM

Guest,

Whether Nader is taking the Republican money or not, I tend not to take his denial as a meaningful source of proof that he didn't.

Jesse Ventura didn't last long. He was a diversion because of the humorous idea of having a wrestler in government. Also, he represents the values of the Republicans in that he represents the classic Schwartzenegger figure.I find it very difficult to take what Jesse has to say seriously. As to Al Gore, he is the president of the US. The Republicans managed to steal the election in 2000. So Jesse didn't get it right.

The reason that neither party can pull in enough votes for a landslide is simple. Bush is a Divider, not a Uniter. Polarity in the electorate is greater today than it has been in some time. It has little to do with facts or policies but is a "culture war" between hard-assed dictatorial Republicans and Progressive Liberal Democrats who oppose that manner of behaving.

There is no candidate however that walks on water. Kerry's references to Iran are disturbing. We don't need to be going into that country. However, next to Bush, he is an angel. When he is in office, we can put his feet to the fire. Democrats aren't saints. I don't know any rational person who believes that. But they can recognize a "spoiler" when a crazy guy in the White House
threatens the stability of our country with his sabre rattling, fear mongering and sanguinary platform of international policy and someone interferes with the process of ousting him. There is no psychological disconnect here.

The premise behind the Nader support is that Kerry is going to be just like Bush and turn Republican for some reason. That's specious thinking. Kerry is not a compromiser. He has his own opinions, many with which I agree but not all.

There is nothing wrong with the passion that some young people feel who are disgusted with the status quo.   If it were McCain vrs. Kerry or even Bush Sr. vrs. Kerry, the Naderites would have more traction. But we are in a plane of reality that says that another four years of Bush will be a disaster for our country. He is not only incompetent to lead but is emotionally disturbed. Nader has to see that and know that his time is not yet here. If we are fortunate in the development in our democracy, that time may yet come.
I think a three, four or whatever party system is a healthy thing in normal times. But in this election, the whole notion of democracy and representative government is in peril. We are in danger of a kind of new fascism.

Future generations will go through the same kind of disillusionment that spark their idealism in the political jungle. The idealism, however, is a great thing for our country and needs to be respected, but what will your future children say if you allowed Bush another four years? It would be betrayal to allow this.

Nerd,

What Keillor said was to paraphrase, in this election, worship anyone you like but when you go into the voting booth vote for the Man. He didn't mean Nader or Bush.

Frank

.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Old Guy
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 10:58 PM

Larry K:

Well said but note that the terrorists think they are on a mission from God to wipe out the infidels, us.

All this crap about Nader and swiftboaters is a side show. It causes us to take our eyes off the ball and let Kerry get away just when we have him cornered and closing in for the kill.

Nerd:

As usual you sound like a package of fire crackers going off and leaving nothing but smoke and chaff behind. Try to put some style into your posts, not just noise.

Old guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 11:14 AM

First off, maybe you, Frank, are living in "not normal" times, but I'm not. My life is just as normal now as it was on 9/10/2001, and in October 2000. The election of Bush and 9/11 did nothing to change my life one iota. So, I consider any Democratic sycophant claims that we are living in "not normal" times because Bush is president, to be just as ludicrous, disturbing, and frightening as the fundamentalist Christian claims that Bush is their apocalypse president because he will usher in the end times.

I see no difference between the hysterical Democratic "not normal times" fear mongering and the hysterical Republican "end times" fear mongering.

Both sides are delusional in that regard, and the Democrats and self-proclaimed progressives for Kerry frighten me every bit as much as the Bush Republicans do.

However, I am not frightened and disturbed by Democrats who are honest about their support for Kerry or Republicans who are honest about their support Bush, when they simply say "that is the candidate that best represents my political worldview" without demonizing the other party's candidate as if he were Satan. That is just despicable, and there are plenty of people posting here in Mudcat who are doing that, and doing it all the time.

It isn't just enough for you to demonize and villify Bush and Nader though. The Kerry as Messiah group (or angel, if you prefer your choice of words) is an unbalanced, hysterical group of people I don't wish to have any association with, thank you very much. And that includes you, Frank. And Amos. And Jack the Sailor. And Don Firth. And Nerd. And Ron Davies. And McGrath, even though he can't even vote because he isn't a US resident.

As to the accusations that Nader is accepting Republican money, I think we all know that sort of thing is a typical dirty tricks tactic. Kerry supporters aren't going to believe that myth, the same way that the Bush supporters believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. You don't want to know, nor will you accept, the truth or the facts of the case about it, because it would result in cognitive dissonance for you.

And when I read the threads here about the "separate realities" of the Kerry and Bush camps, I sit back and howl. Kerry supporters are just as delusional, just as biased, and experience just as much cognitive dissonance with their candidate as many Republicans do with Bush. Yet the conclusion of the Kerry camp is that ONLY Bush supporters suffer from this. How about Kerry's anti-war supporters? How about Kerry's universal health care advocates who are now supporting him? Plenty of cognitive dissonance there, Frank, because Kerry isn't on their side of the issue any more than Bush is.

The anti-Bush fear mongering Kerry supporters keep saying things like "The premise behind the Nader support is that Kerry is going to be just like Bush and turn Republican for some reason."

You just don't get how arrogant it is of you to presume to state what MY premise is for supporting Nader. You are absolutely, 100% wrong in YOUR premise about Nader supporters, Frank. But that doesn't stop you from engaging in this arrogant, patronizing bull shit game of demonizing Nader.

And I really have to question why Kerry's supporters would keep doing that at this point. The Democratic army of lawyers has succeeded in keeping him off the ballot in nearly every battleground state. You should be happy now, and just get on with it. But you can't. Your viciousness and bitterness and rancor is still driving you. It is every bit as ugly as the Bush supporters viciousness, bitterness, and rancor. The closer the election gets, the worse the Mudcat Kerry supporters' foaming at the mouth gets. You've become what it is you claim to hate and despise so much: irrational, hateful, fear mongering dividers.

Nader is not now, and never has been your enemy. Your arrogant dismissiveness regarding Jesse Ventura only demonstrates what a partisan worldview you hold. Jesse wasn't merely a humorous diversion, no matter how pathetic he looked. The man does have some intelligence and his insights into the partisan wars are fairly astute. But because of your closed minded, partisan worldview, you can't objectively judge when Jesse is making an astute, accurate observation, and when he isn't, because your partisan blinders don't allow you to think objectively, and even more importantly, critically about politics.

I won't follow any group that is so blinded by their own partisan prejudices, and the Kerry supporters are every bit as blinded as their Bush counterparts. Kerry's supporters are so blinded by their hatred of Bush, that they are no longer rational, logical, critical thinkers. They just swallow their party's lines and lies hook, line, and sinker, because it is so easy. So black and white. So certain. So safe for them and their bigoted, partisan worldview.

There are only a handful of people willing to work above the partisan divide in this election, and who will be prepared to heal the divisions between Bush's America and Kerry's America when it is all over. Those people are most certainly NOT Kerry Democrats and Kerry progressives. I absolutely do not believe that the Kerry Democrats and Kerry progressives will hold Kerry's feet to the fire. They have collapsed, accepted the politics of appeasement, and will never rejoin the movements for social change they abandoned to support Kerry.

I know of not one single Nader supporter who believes Kerry would be the same as Bush. Not one. That is a Democratic myth. I live in a neighborhood where in 2000, Nader lawn signs were everywhere. Today, they have been mostly replaced by Kerry/Edwards signs. I have no problem with that. But I wish the Kerry supporters would stop harrassing me for my Nader lawn sign. They get very vicious. More than one Kerry supporter has bullied and threatened us for supporting Nader, by coming to our house, ringing our doorbell, and screaming in my face when I opened my door. I have been verbally abused by Kerry supporters in the parking lot of my coop. I have colleagues at work who aren't speaking to me because I am supporting Nader.

That is how out of control the Kerry people are. Out of control, anti-social, irrational to the point where I feel like some of these nut cases could actually do me and my family physical harm.

Back during Gulf War I, we put a gigantic peace sign in Xmas lights on our house. We lived in a very Republican area at that time. I was somewhat fearful then, that we or our house might be attacked/vandalized by Republican gung ho types. Seriously was fearful of it. But nothing ever happened, except that the Republicans who went as far as to mention it to me, politely disagreed with me, or vigorously debated my views with me.

But the Kerry supporters have actually bullied and harrassed us, at home, at work, and out in the community where we conduct our daily lives. I am, at this point, much more fearful of you Kerry types than I am of the Bush supporters. Not more fearful of a Kerry presidency than a Bush presidency. But more fearful of Kerry's supporters and their fascist tactics of bullying and intimidation.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:05 PM

Guest,

Bush is different.   Encroachiing fascism is something that many have a hard time getting their head around.

I don't share your view of Democrat's hysteria. I see the Democrats as a party of hope and optimism. "Hope is on the way".

Progressives for Kerry are nothing to be afraid of. Being frightened and fearful is what the Republicans want for us. Kerry offers a different view.
He has been criticized for being restrained in his anger. I consider this a plus for any President. He is not frothing at the mouth in frustration but calm and measured in his approach. He is for building consensus and community and not muckraking or taking a negative bashing position.

Demonizing is a political ploy. But it is fair to criticize a world view that is based on rigid, authoritarian, selfish and violent policies.

I think you are mistaken when you assume that I am vilifying Nader, Bush or anyone else. I am referring to their world view and their policies that result from them. I don't think it's constructive to take a victim stance which many on the fringe of the Left are prone to do.

Nader is an obstructionist. It really doesn't matter if he is taken Republican money or not. I have no cognitive dissonance regarding Nader. Many of his policies are good. But his action in this time of encroaching fascism in our country is reprehensible.

Kerry is not perfect but he's not a religious fanatic or a world dominating
hegemonic fascist. He is a militarist which bothers me a great deal but I believe that what I know of him, he will be sensitive to the world community and not promote military solutions in lieu of sensible policy decisions.

I'm not at all worried that Kerry will turn out to be like Bush. I have never said that Nader said that.

You say, " But that doesn't stop you from engaging in this arrogant, patronizing bull shit game of demonizing Nader."

I'm not the one doing the demonizing. I have stated that I believe that some of Nader's policies are valid. The bull shit as you have decided to call it is not coming from this quarter. To dismiss my view as bull shit doesn't give any weight for support to Nader. It reinforces the anger and the passion which is not a bad thing in itself but is misguided at a time when the Bush Administration has elected a policy of world domination through building military bases in the Middle East and embarking on a Holy Crusade against the Muslim world.

I have noticed that those who ascribe shortcomings such as close-mindedness, arrogance and other vituperative statements to others generally are used as a smoke screen to deny those aspects in themselves.
Karl Rove has used this technique effectively.

I don't consider Nader an enemy. I think it is however unfortunate what he is doing and no amount of anger or ad-hominem arguments can change my mind or any other person's mind. I don't deny that Jesse has some intelligence. My comment is not on the man but the image that he conveyed which made him electable. Arnold, the same way.

I don't believe Kerry is perfect but Ralph is not presidential at this point because he doesn't grasp the reality of another Bush four years. As a matter of fact, I am of the impression that Ralph would welcome it in order to shake the country up believing that the public would rise up against Bush and support him. I think that's a pipe dream.

I don't agree that all Democrats have caved in to special interests or to the Bush view. There are plenty of feisty Dems out there such as Rep. Barney Franks, John Lewis of Georgia, Barak Obama of Illinois and others who will keep Kerry's feet to the fire if need be.

As to the abuse of Dems to Naderites, I can't comment because this has not been my experience. There is however a sense of urgency in that Nader has taken votes away from Kerry which portends a Bush re-election.

I personally think it's reprehensible for anyone to pull up signs, threaten or harass anyone for political gain. I do feel, though, it's all right to state what I think is appropriate about any political candidate based on my views. As an American, I cherish that right. Again, to be told that I am full of shit weakens the argument from anyone who uses that type of intimidation. I suspect a Karl Rove approach is operative here.

I came out one morning to find one of my Kerry/Edwards lawn signs crumpled in the neighbor's garbage. Was it a Bush supporter or a Naderite? Don't know. Chances are that it wasn't a Democrat. So my experience has been different from yours.

I believe that it's important for Progressives not to assume a position of victims and keep reaffirming the positive values that have helped us in the past, that of community, fair play for all, tolerance, economic fairness, helping those who need it through government programs, paying taxes as dues for living in a civilized society, protecting Social Security for our elderly, and being judicious in foreign policy and not go off half-cocked with a crazy Reactionary anger. This would apply to Naderites as well as Bushies.

Frank












------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Translate Page From:  Translate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to Thread

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Old Guy
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:08 PM

Guest:

Please don't mention the word fear here. It is now a hot button for the Kerry extremists. They push it whenever any government agency attempts to do their job or whenever the current administration mentions that national security is at risk.

Perhaps the term "the of lack of a feeling of security" would avoid the wrath of the Kerryites.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:20 PM

Who has ever said Kerry was "an angel"?

And apart from posting in the same thread on the same site, in what way are any of us "associating" with this particular unamed GUEST, who may or may not be the same as various other unnamed GUESTs who post here from time to time?

The suggestion that we are somehow supposed to avoid taking an interest in what happens in elections outside our own countries is a bit hard to justify. More especially when what the outcome of such elections has a major impact on our own lives, and on the lives of people who are important to us.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:22 PM

"Kerry extremists."

Wow, Old Guy, that's a real doozy! I guess we can add that to the list of other labels, like "liberal," "progressive," and other such dirty words.

Dismiss it by slapping a catchy label on it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Old Guy
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:30 PM

Don:

What would you call the people that attacked the guest that posted above?

Zealots?
Maniacs?
Storm Troopers?

I think extremists is rather complimentary in consideration of their actions.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:57 PM

You are all entitled to your opinions, and I am entitled to mine. I am voting for Nader, and with a clear conscience. As I said in another thread today, I realize there are consequential differences between Bush and Kerry, but I will not vote for either candidate, as a vote for either one of them is a vote to maintain the systems of capitalist empire I have worked my entire life to change.

In other words, I am both sticking to my principles AND doing the right thing. I don't participate in the politics of capitulation and appeasement. Encroaching fascism in US politics is a given at this point, and has been present in our political system for well over 20 years now. It is not suddenly a potential only if Bush is elected. It is the beast we are attempting to slay, here and now, and have been trying to slay for over 20 years. Reagan enshrined that fascism in the US at the same time Thatcer nailed it down. Neither Clinton or Blair did anything to change that course, and both Clinton and Blair nailed desparately attempted to nail the lid down on the coffin of progressive socialism. Kerry is ready to step into place, and keep on hammering.

Not all of us have fallen for the Democratic Party tactics being used to regain power and control of the political establishment. The Democratic Party isn't working for thebenefit of the working class and poor, any more than it is working for universal health care, the environment, human rights and global justice, world peace, or an end to militarist capitalism and empire.

Anyone who believes John Kerry will bring the working class and poor universal health care, a clean environment, human and civil rights, peace in the Middle East or anywhere else, an end to the economic "volunteer army" drafting of the nation's poor men and women, or an end to the domination of the US political system by the military capitalists, is seriously deluded.

John Kerry is every bit the status quo candidate as George Bush. A vote for either is a vote to maintain the status quo Kerry's supporters claim they are against. Which in my book, makes all of you Kerry supporters claiming otherwise a bunch of hypocrites and liars.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Old Guy
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 03:21 PM

Spot on.

Except for the voting for Nader Part. It is like shooting your last bullet into the air. Like the lemmings jumping into the sea. Like the financiers jumping out of tall buildings when the market crashes.

I hope that someday a popular candidate will come along that can start a trend toward getting money out of the election process. It seems impossible but maybe McCain can get it rolling.

I nominate McCain / Lieberman for 08.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 03:47 PM

SOme of us wish they were running in '04.....

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Old Guy
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 04:58 PM

Where is Amos?

Is he in Church or out beating up Bush supporters?

I miss sparring with that old Kerry droid.

He's like a vending machine with one flavor. No matter what the input is, the output is always the same.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 05:08 PM

Guest--

"hysterical, unbalanced"----proof, please.

i.e. quotes

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 05:45 PM

I haven't read any posts here or come across anything in the media that suggests anybody thinks that Kerry, if elected, is going to do things like "bring the working class and poor universal health care, a clean environment, human and civil rights" and so forth.

I suppose there may be some of Bush's crowd saying that he's a leftie and all that, and Bush came out in one of those debates with some crap about him being on the left - but obviously enough anyone who thinks that is true would indeed by "seriously deluded".

As I understand it, as a spectator (and being a spectator has its points when trying to make sense of what is going on in a roughhouse), the reasons "progressives" give for seeing a Kerry victory as desirable are that this would make for a much better environment for building a movement to achieve those kind of things; whereas a Bush victory would make it far harder to build such a movement, as well as entailing enormous additional costs for poor Americans, and risks for everybody.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 06:18 PM

We already HAD those movements built. This presidential election and the partisan warfare surrounding it, have effectively destroyed those movements by hushing and crushing any and all dissent from the Democratic party line or criticism of Kerry.

The progressive movements in the US have been very effectively and successfully crushed by the Democratic Party and the Kerry/Edwards campaign. All the resources of the left have been recklessly dumped into this presidential campaign, mostly into the coffers of the Democratic party to boot.

The waste of this criminal. Absolutely criminal. People will most definitely suffer and die as a result of this recklessness and disregard shown by the progressives, in this messianic quest to unseat Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:16 PM

That's what elections almost invariably do, everywhere. They are a break with real politics, which only takes place between elections. But the elections determine the circumstances in which the real politics can take place.

Basically it's a matter of choosing between two steps forward and one step back, or one step forward and two steps back.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:57 AM

According to an article in the Nation, Nader is "in bed with the ultra-sectarian cult-racket formerly known as the New Alliance Party". This isheaded by Fred Newman who also heads other front organizations and is referred to as a "guru". CultNews has reported about the Newman machine which has been linked to Micheal Bloomberg, Charles Schumer, George Patacki and Rudy Guiliani.

If Nader is so together, why have Studs Terkel, Barbara Erenreich,Bonnie Raitt, Tim Robbins and Noam Chomsky left his campaign?

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: M.Ted
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 12:04 PM

In case anyone missed it, Old Guy is a member now, instead of a guest, so let's welcome him--he looks like a good addition--he joined a little bit passed sundown on Saturday, and worked the threads well into the wee hours, then, after a bit of sleeping time, picked up again on Sunday morning--don't overdo it, Old Guy--pace yourself, like Kevin and Amos do, or you'll run out of things to say, like Catspaw--

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 12:15 PM

Welcome to the Cat, Old Guy!!

As for voting for Nader, it may be principled in some abstract way, but not in a way that makes a real difference. Guest has dismissed Kerry as a militarist, ignoring the incredible character he demonstrated when standing up to the whole Nixon war machine.

Kerry is as principled and moral a man as has ever occupied the White House, in my opinion.

I am sure many disagree, but I call 'em as I sees 'em.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 04:43 PM

Eric Alterman in the Nation (Oct 4, 04) had a few points to make about Nader.
1.He has "virtually no support amoung African-Americans, Latinos or Asian-Americans.
2. Nader met with the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and it ended in a shouting match. After, Texas Representative Sheila Jackson said,"This is the most historic electionof our lifetime, and it is a life-or-death matter for the vulnerable people we represent. For that reason, we can't sacrifice their vulnerability for the efforts being made by Mr. Nader."
3. The Detroit Free Press in September reported that 45,000 of the 50,500 peetition signatures submitted on Nader's behalf in Michigan wer submitted by Republicans. In Florida, Kennth Sukhia who represents Bush was in charge of Nader's access ballot.
4. Phil Donahue, Jim Hightower, Susan Sarandon, Howard Zinn and Cornel West are urging support for Kerry and not for Nader.
5. No national labor unions are supporting Nader.
6. Carl Pope of the Sierra Club when asked by Nader for support said, "No thanks."
7. Nader is polling at 2.74 percent of Americans, high enough to tip the swing states for Kerry.
8. Nader doesn't have the support of organized Gay groups either.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 07:40 PM

Christ Frank, give it a rest, will you? If Nader is so damn "cultish" why did so many people support him in 2000? What is so "cultish" about Jewish Marxists and African American socialists anyway? That they aren't Kerry Democrats?

Lenora Fulani was the first African American to get on the presidential ballot in all 50 states in 1988 as the New Alliance Party candidate, and she did so with a lot of support from African Americans who had supported Jesse Jackson's 1984 run, but didn't like Jackson being so closely aligned with the Democratic party. Fulani has also worked with Rev Al Sharpton, a candidate in this year's Democratic primaries.

In 1994, Fulani joined the Patriot Party, which has ties to Ross Perot's Reform Party, with whom Nader was working this year to get on the ballot as their nominated candidate in a number of states.

So why shouldn't Nader be working with these former New Alliance Party activists? The New Alliance Party was a socialist party made up of working class African Americans, Chicanos, Arab, Jewish, GLBT, and feminist activists looking to expand their base beyond the International Workers Party. The New Alliance Party has plenty of people of color, Frank. And Nader doesn't need the endorsement of the extremely conservative Congressional Black Caucus, because their politics are very far to the right of Nader's and his progressive supporters.

What the hell is wrong with that? New Alliance Party activists would be natural allies with Nader, as would Ramsey Clark and International ANSWER, who organized and led the biggest anti-war demonstrations in the US prior to the Iraq invasion. Or the Million Worker March which was completely ignored by your man Kerry. Nader/Camejo at least endorsed the march.

Andy why on earth wouldn't Nader seek advice and support from the New Alliance Party or ANSWER or any other socialist and progressive individuals and organizations that are his natural political allies?

What you are doing Frank, is using the incredibly vicious and filthy political smear tactic of guilt by association, and trying to paint these people, and Nader by association, as bizarre cultists that All Red Blooded Patriotic Americans should fear and loathe. What you are doing is despicable. You sure are looking like you've joined ranks with the modern day McCarthyites, calling the New Alliance Party a cult, instead of a communist front. You were there in the 50s Frank, so you know just how it works. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, stooping to this despicable level.

I undertand that to conservative Democrats, only the extremely conservative Congressional Black Caucus will do for African American electoral support. After all, they are just as opposed to the GLBT agenda as Kerry, the Democratic Leadership Council, and the Republican Party is. I'm not afraid of radical African American, Jewish, Arab, Chicano, GLBT, or feminist political activists who aren't working for the Democrats Frank, but apparently you are.

As to citing The Nation, don't make me laugh. The Nation has been one of the leading liberal journals trying to discredit Nader this year. For a more balanced account of Nader running this year, try some journals that aren't tied quite so closely to the Democratic Party (ie steer clear of Alter Net, Common Dreams, Working Assets, New Republic, The Nation, Mother Jones, ballot-access.org, and the other liberal mainstream journals).

Try CounterPunch, New Left Review , Democracy Now, IndyMedia, or lefthook.org instead.

The Democratic drive to discredit Nader is fueled with large amounts of unregulated money, much of it funneled through the National Progress Fund, an ostensibly independent group led by Toby Moffett, a former Democratic congressman who is currently a partner in a largely Republican lobbying firm called the Livingston Group.

National Progress Fund and other so-called independent 527 organizations (named for the section of the tax code under which they incorporate) were operating openly at the Democratic National Convention. They held meetings to discuss the best strategies and tactics to push the Nader-Camejo ticket off the ballot and they raised money from Democratic fat cats to accomplish their goals. It is evident that these "independent" groups are actually not independent but working closely with the Democratic Party.

In addition, chair of the Democratic Party of Maine, Dorothy Melanson, testified under oath in a public hearing before Maine's secretary of state that the national Democratic Party is funding efforts throughout the country to stop Nader-Camejo from appearing on ballots.

These ties with Democrats don't prevent the 527s from accepting help from entrenched corporate interests, or even Republican quarters, to finance challenges of the signatures we have collected to meet the requirements of ballot access. According to reports filed with the Internal Revenue Service, Robert Savoie, president of Louisiana-based Science & Engineering Associates, donated $25,000 to the National Progress Fund in June. A month before, Savoie gave $25,000 to the Republican National Committee.

As for Nader using signatures gathered by Republicans to get on the Michigan ballot, Democrats challenged more than 45,000 of the 50,500 signatures submitted on Nader's behalf claiming they were collected by the Michigan Republican Party.

The state appeals court ruled the board had overstepped its authority and dismissed challenges to the petitions. Nader got on the ballot despite the Democratic challenge. Nader isn't a Democrat and nor are his supporters, so why should any of us care if Nader was able to get on the Michigan ballot by playing the Republicans against the Democrats? Nader has been fighting both Democrats and Republicans his entire career, and both parties have been harrassing his campaign ever since he got into the race. It doesn't bother me one iota that Nader used the Republicans, but I'm sure it bothers died in the wool Democrats like you, Frank.

The Congressional Black Caucus thing was idiotic. They yelled at him to quit the race. He said no. They yelled some more. So what? And if you think your list of list of celebrity dilettantes is going to convince any of Nader's supporters to change their votes, or should, you are seriously delusional. Why the hell should ANYONE give a damn what Phil Donahue says about Ralph Nader? Those pathetic liberal sellouts for Kerry have crushed the progressive agenda and movements, and now think they can come to us at the 11th hour to save Kerry's ass in Michigan and Wiconsin? I think not!

Despite all those Democratic efforts to keep him off the ballot, Nader is still holding his own, and may end up doing as well as he did in 2000, despite the unprecedented legal harrassment campaign being waged by the Democrats to keep him off the ballot. Here is the progressive answer to Noam Chomsky, et als' 11th hour call the progressive left to arms call, Frank.

Deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 08:02 PM

aThere might even be a time for a cll to arms, but it's not now.

To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 08:43 PM

Tell it to Kerry's military wing, McGrath.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 09:05 PM

Nader has too many connections to the Bushites this time.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:16 PM

Amos: Nixon war machine

Have you ever heard of LBJ?

He is the Democrat that started that war. It got handed to Nixon, a Republican, and he ended it.

Nixon BOOOOOOOOOOOOO He's an evil Republican

LBJ YAYYYYYYYYYYYYY He's a good old Democrat. From Taxas too. Good guys come from Texas. They swagger and speak with a twang.

"Many Democratic liberals resented his friendly association with the Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower; others considered him a tool of wealthy Southwestern gas and oil interests."
http://www.libraryreference.org/johnson.html

Houston, we have a problem.

Remember the NASA facility that opened in 1961 in Tejas after LBJ he was elected VP in 1960? The Johnson Space Center? I wonder why it was built there.
"Civic leaders and congressmen from other states doubted that Houston and environs met all of NASA's official criteria, at least any more than their towns did. They inquired about the roles of Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson,qv chairman of the high-level National Aeronautics and Space Council, and Representative Albert Thomas,qv also a Democrat and Texan and chairman of the Independent Offices Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, in the choice of the Harris County site. Webb and other NASA officials denied all charges and suggestions of political influence"
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/LL/sql1.html

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:31 PM

Dear God, OG, are you asking for a fight about the morals of Lyndon Baines Johnson? The man who had more peckers in his pocket than any politician since All the King's Men?.

Not from me.

But Richard M. Nixon was as foul a fellow as you are ever likely to meet and he prosecuted the war and exacerbated it until public pressure forced him to rethink his position.

One of the major forces behind that decision was the Washington Mall camp-in by the Vietnam Veterans against the War, led and spoken for by a decorated vet named KErry.

Lyndon Johnson, my tush.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 10:56 AM

Christ Amos, why can't you just admit LBJ was as bad as Nixon when it came to the war, and let it go?

LBJ and Nixon were worlds apart on the economy, on social issues, etc. We aren't idiots. LBJ was the president who escalated the war when he shouldn't have. It resulted in Nixon promising to end the war if elected, which he actually didn't intend to do unless Kissinger could win it in a cake walk at the peace table. They didn't. Nixon then escalated the war further.

Some of us aren't suffering from Democratic amnesia Amos, and know our history too well for you to be able to get away with spreading this sort of information.

Vietnam Vets against the War DID NOT have anything to do with bringing the war to an end. The perpetual escalations of troop levels, expansion of the war into neighboring countries, loss of life, and the economy going south are what brought the war to an end.

The US lost the Vietnam War, and left Vietnam in disgrace, just as we will lose the war on Iraq, and leave Iraq in disgrace. Whether it is Bush or Kerry as commander in chief.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 01:04 PM

Thank you, anonymous GUEST, for clarifying something that, for some reason, you have not been clear about, and that is simply that you are not and have never been a "progressive" Democrat in anyway, but are, in fact, an old line Leftist trying, once more, to crash the party--

The leftist view, and, coincidentally, the Nader view, is, we know what is good for the people, and they will recognize it and rise up, with one voice, casting off their consumerist, materialist, American shackles and embrace our New Progressive, leftist values--

The thing is that to lead the people, you must listen to the people--

Nader doesn't, which is why, though he claims to be a populist, he has no popular support--If he truly spoke for "the people", at least the ones who feel disenfranchised, disillusioned, or disgusted with the electoral process, he would have support at the level of a Ross Perot or a George Wallace--instead, his support is dwindling fast--

Both the Old and the New Left never listened--which is why they are never a factor in American politics for more than a few years at a time--

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 01:17 PM

Vietnam Vets against the War DID NOT have anything to do with bringing the war to an end.

I think you're seriously mistaken. But it won't resolve with the data available here. I also think you misheard what I said about LBJ -- I was indicating he was an immoral SOB, and you seemed to agree with that position.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 01:23 PM

Nader a populist? I don't THINK so MTed, but thanks for the laugh!

MTed, there is the popularity of maintaining the status quo, which is the superficial, fleeting change brought about through electoral politics. Then there is the politics of agitating for fundamental and lasting change, which sometimes, though not always happens when pressure is brought to bear upon the political establishment through positions taken by the political vanguards. Left and right doesn't have anything to do with it, it just reinforces your antiquated beliefs about how politics works. That antiquated thinking makes you either a conventional, status quo Republican or a conventional, status quo Democrat.

Political change never happens by voting in one political party instead of the other political party. That maintains the status quo, and doesn't change anything fundamentally. Nader has been in a political vanguard position his entire life, and he is quite comfortable there. He, along with others like Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, and other mavericks in THEIR political vanguard movements, are agitating for a fundamental sea change that many of us believe the majority of Americans want, but just don't know how to go about getting it yet.

It is our job to help them learn how to bring about the fundamental sea change. It will take the political vanguards in all directions, not just left and right, to come together, reach critical mass, and bring about fundamental constitutional change in how elections are held in the US. If it is going to happen, it will happen because the outsiders bring pressure to bear upon the insiders, to force the change. It will take years. But I am convinced THAT is the change people are longing for, not just the superficial change that will occur if Kerry defeats Bush next Tuesday.

It is your conventional Republicrat worldview that is dying, MTed. Even though we have no way of knowing how all of this will work out, I at least am optimistic enough to believe the sea change is already happening. It may take another generation to manifest, but the status quo your narrow, partisan, conservative worldview is embracing MTed, is definitely on it's way out. The new wave hasn't even begun to gather the power of the populace yet, but it is most definitely building. The thing is, you see Nader and Ventura and Perot as isolated nut cases, rather than different aspects of the same political phenomena.

I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 02:10 PM

Political change never happens by voting in one political party instead of the other political party.

And that's largely true, assuming that by "political change" you mean desirable political change. But voting in one political party instead of another can certainly bring about undesirable political change, and can bring desirable political change to a shuddering halt. As witness, for a prime example, Germany in 1933. (And that doesn't mean I'm saying that Bush is a clone of Hitler - if I don't put that in, someone is bound to claim I said that.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 02:37 PM

No McGrath, I don't think qualifying adjectives has anything to do with it.

Hitler was brought to power by a nation. You can no more blame Hitler alone, without the support of his nation, for the Holocaust, than you can blame Bush/Cheney alone, without the support of this nation, for the war on terror, Iraq, Palestine, etc.

Democratically elected leaders that do despicable things, do it with the blessing of enough of their countrymen, and the capitulation and acquiesence of most the rest of their countrymen, to make the nation itself culpable.

That is what happened in Germany in 1933, and that is what is happening in the US in 2004. Enough Americans agree with Bush, and most the rest of those who disagree with Bush have capitlated and acquiesced to his agenda, including John Kerry and the Democrats.

They may well be coming for us Naderites soon enough, whether Kerry or Bush is elected. Because that is the mood of enough of the US citizenry right now.

Americans are very afraid right now, for good reason, and in a way that most Europeans aren't. Afraid for their jobs, their health, their housing, their ability of their families to afford to stay warm in winter and get to work driving the distances many Americans drive to get to their jobs, their children's ability to get a decent education, or even survive to their 18th birthday if they are African American or Latino and male, or beyond it if we see a draft. Afraid that when they can't work anymore, that their pension money will be have been disappeared by the government, to pay for the reckless oil wars. Afraid that when we can no longer work, no one will take care of us when we become ill, or will house us, or even give us food.

Most Europeans, while the economy does effect them, just doesn't have this perfect storm of capitalist oppression bearing down on them the way Americans do, which is why it is so easy for them to oppose Bush. Most European countries haven't gone to these capitalist extremes the way the US has. They still have at least some vestiges of socialist governance protecting them, at least so far.

It isn't that easy to oppose Bush here. It is, however, pretty easy to appease and capitulate to his agenda, as Kerry and the Democrats have consistently demonstrated.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 03:01 PM

You guys are leaving out the projection of what happens if a decent human being is elected to office.

It has happened before and it has done good. How much depends on the situation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 03:20 PM

Most people in Germany in fact voted against Hitler, as you should know. However not enough people saw stopping him as the most important thing, they were preoccupied with other significant, but in the upshot, much less important, differences.

They blew it, for themselves,and for everybody else.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 03:42 PM

They capitulated and acquiesced, in other words.

And lest we forget, the majority didn't vote for Bush, either.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 03:44 PM

Precisely.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 04:20 PM

So don't tell me I am being too strident -- you see what happens when people get complacent???

:D


A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 04:27 PM

If you are voting for Kerry, you already have capitulated and acquiesced. He supports the war, and plans to escalate it by sending more troops, involving EU & NATO, etc.

When I see you protesting against Kerry the president as stridently as you have been campaigning for Kerry the candidate, then we'll talk, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 04:55 PM

GUEST--You apparently don't know your own candidate's political affilations--In Maryland, Nader is the candidate for the Populist Party--Maryland State Board of Elections

The Druse divide the faithful into those who know, and those who think they know--politics is like that, too--

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 04:57 PM

The only way to get people protesting against Kerry, which will almost certainly be avery good idea, will be to elect him.

Here's another maxim: "The best is enemy of the good" Or indeed of the not-that-good.

If Gore had won last time, the "Progressives" would have been far stronger today than they were last time, having gathered support in opposition to his Administration. If Bush wins, in four years time they are going to be far less effective than they are even today. That's how these things work.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 05:13 PM

McGrath nailed it. And that's why I'm voting for Kerry.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 05:35 PM

Guest,

The New Alliance Party is mentioned on CultNews. From what I've read, it doesn't strike me that they are particularly objective in their views. It's another case of a fringe Left group shooting itself in the foot. According to your argument, any criticism of a group that has an intense ideology is McCarthyism.
On the contrary. There is nothing holy about The New Alliance Party. Criticism of it's tactics is in order in a free country.

I am questioning Nader's judgement in alligning himself with an ideological group when trying to represent the American people. I reject your characterization of my criticism as McCarthyism. I consider that a knee-jerk reaction rather than a legitimate point.

I don't agree that the Black Caucus is extremely conservative. They are representative of many African-Americans and to assign them to this category
is disrespectful. But respect for other viewpoints is obviously not a Nader trait as exhibited by your assaults on my character.

You don't know what I'm afraid of or not. Reactionary knee-jerk assaults do not make a viable argument or do much to convince people that Nader is worth
supporting.

The Nation is a well-thought out intelligent journal. It has been in business for many years and I give it far more credence than a diatribe from a disgruntled Nader supporter.

I see nothing wrong with being tied to the Democratic Party, particularly when we stand to lose an election to a Reactionary demagogue who will gut our
government programs such as public health, the public school system, Head Start, Affirmative Action, protection of the environment, and separation of Church and State.

The Left has always had a problem with disunity because lefties continually call each other names and tell each other that they are full of shit. This is a self-defeating strategy that only makes the Republican Reactionary laugh.
Legitimate discussions without name calling is desirable. Legitimate criticisms of candidates is not McCarthyism. That in itself is a "label" that can be erroneously used to avoid a real discussion of the issues.

It's OK to be idealistic, and it's OK to present a point-of-view but it is counter-productive to go off half cocked foaming at the mouth and railing against someone you don't agree with.

Wear Nader's perfume and clothes if you must but if you want to really do something to claim our country back, vote for Kerry and get rid of Bush.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 09:38 PM

You read about it at CultNews?

And you're lecturing me about credibility?

You're right, I don't know anything about you. But people who are talking the same talk as you, ie constant haranguing about Bush/Cheney et al, and persistent voicing of intense, irrational fears of a Bush victory, makes me think some of you Kerry supporters really can't stand being around people who don't think exactly like you do. To the point of being intolerant of Republicans, conservatives, progressive independents like Nader, or anyone who isn't stridently in your candidate's camp, period.

My way of looking at the world means that if Kerry wins, we live with Kerry, if Bush wins, we live with Bush. But I'm not going to vote for either of them because I think my guy is better. But hey, best of luck to you and your guy. I mean that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 01:59 AM

Now that would be irony for sure.

Bush starts a war. Kerry gets elected. He withdraws in disgrace and looses the war.

Kerry goes down in history as the arrogant asshole that lost the war.


Haw Haw Ho Ho


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 09:17 AM

One possibility people seem to ignore is that there actually is a reasonably fair election in Iraq, and the winners say "Sod Off".

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 12:38 PM

"Is the Bush administration willing to accept the fact that the Iraqis might elect a government that they don't want them to have?"
                                                                   --Congressional Representative Jim McDermott (Dem.), Washington State.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 12:51 PM

So, are you really Martin Gibson, Old Guy, or are we blessed with two stupid, illiterate jerks?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 01:13 PM

Not counting any of the variegated (nameless)GUESTs who might qualify.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 04:58 PM

One of the journals that I respect the most is the magazine, The Nation.I It has endorsed Kerry. Also, the New Yorker.

One thing about cults is that the people who are a part of them tend to be vehement in their defense of their "guru" to the point of becoming insulting when their cult is questioned.

CultNews does a service in exposing those such as "Alliance for New America". There is nothing wrong with supporting a candidate that you believe in. Where it becomes problematic is when a legitimate criticism of that candidate is dismissed as "shit" or "lies". This is the way most Republicans deal with Kerry and it's this kind of ad-hominem arguments that discredits the candidate they espouse. It's a pattern and I see it
in action regarding the proponents of Nader who refuse to offer a logical argument to support theirs, that there is no difference between Kerry and Bush. In fact, there is a world of difference between both candidates and most reputable representatives of a Liberal left-wing point of view do support and see the difference. This is why Naderites feel so marginalized. It's a blind submission to a faulty premise.

I don't think that John Kerry is a "guru" but I think that he would make a good president because he has been consistent in his point-of-view.
He supported the authorization to go into Iraq because he believed Bush at his word that he would not use a pre-emptive strike while the UNSCOM inspections were working. Kerry supported those inspections and recognized their value. Bush lied to the American people by justifying his war. Kerry has been consistent in criticizing the way it was done by Bush. If he were president, there is every reason to believe we could have avoided this war by keeping any weapons of mass destruction out of Saddam's hands through UN inspections.

I am nervous when Kerry talks about Iran and Israel but to say that he is the same as Bush is absolutely ridiculous and this is Nader's contention that must be answered and has been by reputable Liberals, Progressives and those of the Left.

Frank