BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'

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