BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 09:39 AM

Rejection of the Democrats and Republicans = Marxism?????

How in God's name do you figure that?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 10:38 PM

It's also possible that Republicans are giving to Kerry since they've realized what a disaster Bush is for the country---and possibly the world.

However if they give to Nader, and some, close to the Bush campaign, are definitely doing so---it's obvious why--------and it's not to elect Nader-----unless Ralph is about to score a rather dark-horse victory, to say the least------but given your grasp on reality, I suppose that's what you have in mind.

We can discuss your warmed-over Marxism on November 3.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 04:52 PM

Are you actually surprised that the big corps will pay both sides in a race as tight as this? All they want is a friend in high places, and they don't much care how they get it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 03:28 PM

Some recent excerpts by Ricardo Levins Morales, an artist from the (local to me) Northland Poster Collective, published on ZNet this week, Ricardo is a very smart guy, so I thought I'd share some of his most recent writing about this "mother of all elections":

Soon enough we will have to come to terms with a new, post-election, reality.

The Left will emerge from this election as we enter it: divided on analysis, strategy, and even objectives. I mean, like, way divided! At one end of the spectrum we have the "lesser evil" advocates (including Democratic Socialists of America, the Communist Party and a large swath of the labor movement) who point to the policy areas (choice, the environment) where Kerry propounds a more progressive stance than Bush. Another current (Kerry Haters for Kerry, Lizard Strategy, Progressives and Independents to Defeat Bush) calls for independent organizing to elect Kerry for a variety of tactical reasons without conceding any qualitative differences between the candidates. The Green Party seeks a vote for its slate in states where either major party has a "lock" and (implicitly) for the Dems in contested states. The Nader/Camejo campaign is rallying supporters on the premise that the two parties differ so little that staking out an anti-corporate pole is more important than worrying about which politician wins (the Libertarians take a comparable position although grounding it in different politics). Others, including CounterPunch support the notion that elections are not all that important. Another contingent--unorganized but nevertheless present--argue that a Bush victory would be preferable since it would be an easier target for mobilization.

As we approach the post-election period there are a number of things that the left, particularly the radical left, should consider:

1) No matter who wins the election there will be people on the left who in some way contributed to that outcome. We should resist the temptations of the blame game and consider the conditions we find ourselves under. The different strategies we have pursued going into the elections were based on differing assessments of what we are up against. Time may (or may not) tell us who was right. We should avoid a repeat of the hand-wringing of 2000 when even progressives obsessed over Nader's small share of the white vote rather than the massive re-introduction of Jim Crow voting manipulations. The initiative by Philadelphia-based Training for Change in creating a post-election "Where do we go from here" strategy workshop is a positive step that might be replicated in other cities.

2) This election will not mark a major change of direction in imperial policy. We do, however, need to assess how the terrain has been changing,. The end of the Cold War has encouraged the corporados to embark on a world wide feeding frenzy that threatens the survival of many people, the destruction of communities and the devastation of the tattered ecology of our planet. Movement activists must take seriously the need to develop strategies aimed at removing these people from global dominance. Piecemeal advances by isolated constituencies are not good enough.

3) Fragmented movements can and will be used against each other. A unified movement requires a common vision. Since the decimation of radical movements under the guise of anti-communism, the Left has been timid about offering an alternative moral stance. To collectively articulate a unifying principle such as "no one gets seconds until everyone has had firsts" could revolutionize the public discourse. That people are hungry for a moral alternative to shallow consumerism is a lesson that we can well learn from the evangelical Right.

4) There is by all appearances more organizing happening now than was the case 35 years ago at the height of the mass movements of the 1960s. Much of it is smarter. An asset present then that is missing now is that then our work was considered part of one movement whereas now we work in many "movements" (often mediated by "non-profit corporations"). We need to be a movement again, able and willing to make each others struggles our own.

5) The electoral cycles will continue to witness the erosion of democratic public space unless we can build a strong, independent movement in the streets, shop floors, schools, places of worship, prisons, and other places where people congregate. This movement must develop the capacity to materially disrupt the military, economic, and cultural operations of the system or it will be irrelevant.

6) Over the past thirty five years counterinsurgency has morphed into social control. The overseers of public order were badly frightened by their loss of control of the cultural and political landscape of that time. Massive state resources are devoted to keep poor people of color in a constant revolving door between the streets and the prisons. Drug, immigration, and quality of life laws are today's Black Codes, geared to prevent an oppositional leadership from gaining a foothold and a following. Building a viable opposition requires protecting and supporting the most targeted segments of the population so that they can get the oxygen needed to take their struggle.

7) Paradoxically, elections become less significant the more we invest in them. If we build a powerful movement outside of the electoral arena, then we have weight that can be felt directly or indirectly at election time. If we spend our time working within the parameters of the voting system then when the elections come we will have little leverage (and what we have can be guided into harmless channels). It is interesting to note that when we have had powerful mass movements the elites have been desperate to bring us into the electoral system.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 02:20 PM

Kerry took a whole lot more money from the Republicans than Nader did, Jack the Sailor. But apparently you didn't read the information linked to in the original post that shows that Kerry is taking WAY more money from Republicans than Nader has even raised from all his sources combined.

So, since Kerry has taken WAY more Republican money than Nader, and even the Center for Public Integrity says so Jack, you going to switch your vote to the TRUE progressive candidate?

Or just blindly pull the lever and vote for Citibank? Because a vote for Kerry OR Bush is a vote for Citigroup, UBS Financial Services, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

BTW Jack, Morgan Stanley is now one of Bush's "top career patrons" replacing Enron.

Isn't it funny that Kerry accepted $100,204 of that Republican tainted money too, putting Morgan Stanley in Kerry's top ten too?

Oh, and BTW, Nader's BIGGEST top career patrons to date donated a whopping $33,020 for Nader's entire career, not just this election. Compare that with the Bushie Boy contributors to Kerry--the smallest of which is $100,204.

Sorta makes you go "hmmmmmmm...".

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 01:58 PM

Nader took money and help from paid Republican provocateurs to put him on the ballot in many states.

You flaming hypocrite. Don't talk to me about "true progressives"!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 01:56 PM

While we are ridiculing each other's rhetoric...

You win the prize for being a thick headed boob.

Good luck to Nader you naive twit.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 01:55 PM

Does Nader have a chance for what? Winning? Winning what? The presidency? No. He does have a chance at maintaining a toe hold for the true progressives in the US who will come rushing back to the left, wringing their hands, once the election is over and the war escalates, a draft is instituted, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 01:50 PM

The difference is wide, deep and obvious to antyone who cares about who is doing what inthe WHite House.

Your question is essentially a rhetorical trolling device.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 01:43 PM

Do you really think Nader has a chance?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 01:33 PM

Jack the Sailor, you win the prize so far today for most obfuscatory language being used to cover up your candidate's inadequacies and lies.

OF COURSE IT MATTERS if both sides are being bankrolled by the same ruling oligarchy. It means THEY ARE THE SAME RULING OLIGARCHY.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 01:02 PM

The corporations are just hedging their bets.

The main difference between them is that Kerry is thoughtful and Bush admits to relying on his "gut" without even properly informing himself.

Another major difference is that Kerry has demonstrated moral and physical courage throughout his life.

Bush has never demonstrated either.

Bush has always been inclined to look for shortcuts and to take big risks, betting everything he has on risky ventures like the several oil companies he ran into the ground. People, including, disturbingly, the Bin Laden family, constantly bailed him out.

He took a big gamble on the Texas Rangers wihich did pay off, but even in that case, his only skill was fundraising. An increase in Taxes was what made his success and as usual, Bush relied on his begging skills rather than his leadership skills.

Another thing he is famous for is saving his own skin and letting others hold the bag. He did that by joining the Texas ANG. He did that by quitting the Texas ANG. He did that at several oil companies by violating SEC regulations by pulling his money out without proper disclosure.

Kerry has always taken responsibility. He's always made the braver choice: by volunteering for The Navy; by volunteering for Vietnam; in winning his Silver Star; in winning his Bronze Star; By protesting the Vietnam war; by making peace with Vietnam on behalf og the MIA families; by voting against his party to raise taxes to reduce the deficit.

Do you want stubborness or thoughtfulness?
Do you want courage or selfish expediency?

The choice is clear.

Subject: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 12:41 PM

According to The Center for Public Integrity:

"Presidential Candidate John Kerry has received increasingly more donations from employees of companies that have historically made large donations to President George W. Bush's campaign.

In fact, Bush and Kerry now share four of the same 10 largest donors this election cycle, all of whom are financial corporations, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity."

Bush has outfundraised Kerry. Bush's biggest contributors are financial corporations. Kerry's biggest contributors are big media. But for the first time ever, they now share now share four of the same 10 largest donors this election cycle, all of whom are financial corporations.

If the big money boys don't see any substantial differences between the two candidates ideologically, why should we?

Answer? We shouldn't. No matter how much money Nader's contributors gave, this news is enough to make anybody Ralph!