BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention

Subject: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 12:12 PM

Michael Moore wasn't invited, nor was he going to be "allowed" onto the convention floor by the DNC. So how did he get in? With the Carter family, who apparently isn't too pleased with the DNC's censorship efforts, so brought him into their skybox. Moore sat two seats down from Rosalind.

Who else is the Democratic National Committee and the Kerry campaign censoring? Well, Democracy Now reports this tid bit today (from their 'Breaking With Convention' DNC coverage):

"As Teresa Heinz Kerry spoke last night, on the floor of the convention, Medea Benjamin from Global Exchange and CodePink unfurled a pink colored banner that read "End the Occupation of Iraq." That apparently was not one of the DNC-approved messages of the night because within moments of the banner being unfurled, police were called in to remove Medea Benjamin.

Benjamin was dragged off the convention floor and thrown out of the FleetCenter. She said that the DNC was asked whether they wanted her arrested and that they decided that would not look good."

And then, there are the 'security measures' designed to exile all political dissenters from participation in the so-called process into the so-called Free Speech Zone, in what has become known euphemistically as the 'protest pen'.

But beyond the so-called Free Speech Zone, there are also thousands of political dissenters fanned out across Boston, who are caught up in the security dragnets everywhere they go. But that, of course, is a story that ALL mainstream media is censoring. Boston Indymedia reports:

"The delegates have been persuaded that it (the Free Speech Zone and police harrassment of dissenters) is necessary. They may be sympathetic, but are they really listening to what people in the zone are saying? The Free Speech Zone is Bad. The cop inside peoples' heads is worse.

I've been astounded at the lack of turnout at these demonstrations. Yes the FBI came to some peoples' homes. Yes there's been people stopped. These things have happened before, and people have come out before.

I have to look at this as a part of the whole "anyone but Bush" insanity. Democrats are more angry at Nader, than they were at the Republicans who disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Black voters. People forget that Clinton's sanctions killed more people in Iraq than Bush's war, and that his administration gave us GATT, NAFTA, WTO and the Crime Bill and Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Acts."

And AlterNet has this to say about the so-called Free Speech Zone:

"The so-called free-speech zone set up by police occupies a narrow stretch of pavement underneath elevated train tracks, which are in some places so low that police have painted girders with orange "Caution - Watch Your Head." The area is further covered overhead by netting, in some places supplemented by coils of barbed wire and surrounded by a 12-foot high chain link fence draped with an translucent black mesh. The overall effect is more reminiscent of the camps set up for interment of Japanese prisoners in World War II, or the prison for enemy combatants at Camp X-Ray. What's worse, say protesters, police did not reveal the full extent of their plans for the area until a week before the convention, leaving little time for a legal challenge."

Finally, there is the hidden Molotov cocktail of the convention: the Iraq war, which NO ONE is talking about from the podium. No one. The true cost Democrats are being forced to pay to support the "Anybody But Bush" campaign strategy: supporting Kerry's position on the Iraq war and occupation.

Yesterday's Boston Globe noted that 80% of the delegates in this convention were opposed to the war when it was declared. Yet The Nation's David Corn reports:

"The candidates had disagreed over the vote to grant Bush the authority to launch the war in Iraq. But that difference did not seem to capture the imagination of most Democratic voters.

Now there appears little taste within the party for a debate over what should be done in Iraq. Some progressive Dems back the notion of expressing a date-certain for a pullout of troops, but Kerry does not. Still, this has not become a pitched fight. Perhaps that's because it's an academic question. Should Kerry win in November, he would not take office until January 20th. Who knows now what will be the appropriate policy then? In terms of big-picture principles, Kerry is for trying to internationalize the mess in order to withdraw U.S. troops. And even Dennis Kucinich and Win Without War, the antiwar coalition, don't advocate yanking US troops without replacing them with forces from elsewhere. But the best "plan" Kerry might be able to offer at this point for dealing with the enormous problem Bush created is the argument that he will muddle through better than the guy who screwed things up in the first place.

In any event, the Democrats are shining, happy people."

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 12:16 PM

Kucinich for President!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 12:26 PM

Kucinich endorses Kerry.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 12:27 PM

Well nobody's perfect.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 12:37 PM

He has already thrown his support to Kerry. The only message allowed this year is unity behind the Democratic Party dictators.

The Rainbow Coalition progressives, the Wellstone progressives, the the Green progressives, the Kucinich progressives, and the Dean progressives, have all silenced themselves and anyone who would dare dissent from the dominant Democratic Party message (brought to you by the special interest money that they all were busy bashing back in primary season).

Again, from AlterNet:

"The DNC opened on a conspicuously military note. The first few acts included: Gen. Wes Clark, an Iraq/Kosovo vet reciting the Pledge, Kerry's "Band of Brothers" from Vietnam, Generals and Admirals from all branches of the military..."

From The Nation:

"
Rosa DeLauro, the savvy Connecticut Congresswoman whom Democratic leaders and the Kerry for President campaign put in charge of drafting the party's 2004 platform, says, "It reflects John Kerry. It reinforces who John Kerry is."

Unfortunately, DeLauro is right.

Instead of a manifesto for change that might attract new support, or at least energize the base, the platform that delegates to the Democratic National Convention are expected to approve without debate is a tepid document largely defined by Senator Kerry's fear of being identified as a liberal – let alone as a progressive seeking to surf what polls suggest is a rising tide of antiwar sentiment."

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 12:46 PM

I guess they ought to rename it the protestor's soapbox and leave it at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 12:47 PM

Please recall where the perversion of "Free speech" by creating cattle zones for its due exercise began (in this country, I mean): it was invented by the current administration.

That the police in charge of the DNC are allowed to extend its use is a shame.

It seems not even the Dems remember how to do freedom right.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 12:54 PM

They didn't want Whoopie Goldberg around either.

Well if they don't want Whoopie, I'm boycotting that damn thing.

I'll only change my mind if they ask me to sing.



(William Shatner chanelling through Ellenpoly while she checks to see whether she remembered to register to vote.)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 12:57 PM

Thank god Michael Moore hasn't endorsed Kerry, at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 12:58 PM

Actually, the protest pen wasn't started on Dubya's watch. It was started on Clinton's.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: kendall
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 01:07 PM

They are all a bunch of self serving liars, democrats, republicans Greens etc. The question is, which ones do the most damage?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 01:09 PM

So was oral sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 01:11 PM

And once again, Kendall gets to the heart of the matter. Right on!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 01:16 PM

So, does Theresa Heinz Kerry have bigger balls than her husband does?

And if Senator Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island) has enough of a backbone to criticize the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, why can't the spineless John Kerry and his Clinton Democrat cronies grow one too?

From today's AP wire:

"MIDDLETOWN, R.I. - Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee criticized the Bush administration on Tuesday for a "host of mistakes" in its postwar reconstruction of Iraq, saying the country is less secure than before and that basic infrastructure is still not working.

The senator, who was the only Republican to vote against the White House war resolution in October 2002 leading up to the invasion of Iraq, said the U.S. effort will fail if the White House does not work more closely with other countries in the region and re-engage itself in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

And from Boston:

Silence.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 01:21 PM

The Democrats and Republicans definitely do the most damage, kendall. No other group/party/individual comes even remotely close to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Nerd
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 01:22 PM

Sigh.

Two options:

1) GUEST is a Republican shill, blaming the Democrats for things that the Republicans do more often and more egregiously.

2) GUEST is a Green, Nader supporter, or other liberal winger, enraged by his own impotence to harm the party that is philosophically further from him, and thus bent on harming the party closer to him instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 01:33 PM

It's THEIR convention, not that of the Greens, the Libertarians, the Republicans, the Nazis, the Facists, the Communists, the Socialist Workers' Party, or anybody else. It's the convention for the Democrats.

As such, it's like a private party: if you aren't invited, you can't come. If you crash it, you can be arrested.

You have every right to speak your mind peaceably, to peacefully assemble, to petition the government for redress, etc.

But it's still the Democratic National Convention, and as such the Democratic Party can and does have the final say on how it's run and who gets to speak.

Live with it, or organize your own convention.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Midchuck
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 01:50 PM

I'm writing in Kendall in November.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 01:52 PM

Sorry Nerd, but I'm not a (spit) liberal. I'm an independent progressive leftist.

I don't give a shit about the Democratic Party, it is true. I care, instead, about what is good for my country and the majority of it's citizens.

I consider the Democratic and Republican National Conventions to be a sham of huge proportions, and don't mind saying so. If that pisses off the Democrats, then surely I've done a good job.

Democratic Party special interest money has bought the silence of the party's grassroots. Democratic Party special interest money has bought the silence of it's political allies: unions, civil rights activists, the environmental lobby, the gay rights movement, etc ad nauseum.

But don't take my word for it:

What's Being Bought in Boston?

Big Business has its Eye on Both Parties; but the Poor have the Ear of Neither

See How They Fund

Raytheon, Citibank, Chase Manhattan and Fleet Boston Help Finance the Most Expensive Convention in History

Party On in Boston: How Corporations Spend Thousands to Wine and Dine Legislators

The Democratic Party is no more my party than the Republican Party.

I'm a patriotic American, not a political party apologist demanding political dissent from the party lines be silenced, like so many Mudcat posters are doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 02:08 PM

I have always maintained that Rhode Island (my birth state) is the best state in the union.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Nerd
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 03:29 PM

GUEST, you and I both know that the word "liberal" has been demonized by the right, and that those who call themselves "progressive leftists" would have called themselves "liberals" twenty years ago. I don't know what you mean by "(spit) liberal" but I assume you have either internalized some kind of self-hatred or are accusing me of trying to "pin a label" on you. Either way, your claim to be progressive to me means liberal. Leftist, of course, also means liberal. And independent merely means you are not in a party. So you're what used to be called a small-l liberal. Deal with it.

I repeat, then, my second possibility:

GUEST is a Green, Nader supporter, or other liberal winger, enraged by his own impotence to harm the party that is philosophically further from him, and thus bent on harming the party closer to him instead.

In this particular election, you have two choices: Bush or Kerry. You can either choose to deal with that reality or not. If you do not, don't complain about Bush's administration during the next four years.

I sympathize with your disillusionment with the parties. Go, be active, campaign in state and local races, get progressives into the system who can run for national office later.

But don't think you can get someone more "progressive" or "leftist" than Kerry into the white house, because it ain't gonna happen in 2004, 2008 or even probably 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 03:29 PM

Rapaire is the one who has it right. If GUEST and those that think like her could get any traction then they would have the support of the people they purport to care about. What really has her jaundiced is that the megalomaniacal candidate she supports has less support this time than last.

Rant on, but it ain't your party.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 03:42 PM

"GUEST, you and I both know that the word "liberal" has been demonized by the right, and that those who call themselves "progressive leftists" would have called themselves "liberals" twenty years ago."

WRONG. But just because you insist on wearing blinders and swallowing the mainstream media mantras doesn't mean I have to play your phony, disingenuous little game there, NERD.

I am proudly, unabashedly, A FLAMING LEFT WINGER!!! Yes, today we use the word 'progressive' often enough to describe ourselves. But you have one thing VERY wrong. 'Progressive' isn't a euphemism for 'liberal'. It is a euphemism for 'radical left'. That is where I am now, where I have always been, and where I shall always remain.

No suprise that Rapaire and Big Mick come down on the same side either.

Jesse Jackson is a Democrat. Paul Wellstone was a Democrat. There are many green leaning Democrats. The majority of registered Democrats (and 80% of the current convention's delegates) are anti-war, and their views are being 100% ignored by the Democratic Party platform that will be voted on and adopted without any debate (which is as poison to the Democratic elite as it is the Republican elite)this week. Kucinich is a Democrat. Russ Feignold is a Democrat. Cynthia McKinney is a Democrat.

Yet the Democratic Party elite have silenced them all.

What Dave Dellinger (may he RIP) said at the 1968 Democratic National Convention is as true today as it was then:

"Our position is that whoever the candidates are, and whatever the platforms, that we must stay in the streets and stay in active resistance or else there will be no peace."

And let's not forget, the Democrats were running against a candidate every bit as evil as Dubya: Richard Nixon.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 03:44 PM

Oh and Nerd--this race isn't about who is in the White House: it is about who owns the process.

HINT: It ain't John Kerry or George W. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 03:45 PM

Oh,oy!! an anarchist Bolshie!! Such tsuris you should have!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 03:46 PM

It is also instructive to point out that GUEST is attempting, either through ignorance or intent, to muddy up the understanding of what the convention is. It is not, in these times, the place that the democracy of choosing occurs. Historically it was, but in the electronic age the caucuses/primaries have taken that over. The convention is the celebration, the victory party, so to speak. Sometimes there is a fight, but it is usually over party platform.

Before old grumpy from the north gets going about how democracy has gone to hell, let's not forget the spirited debates here on Mudcat as the various candidates vigorously debated their agenda. And Kerry won. That, of course, is what really bothers our bitter friend. Her guys got waxed. Nader has reduced himself to a deal with the devil in the use of Republican surrogates to get his petition signed. If GUEST were honest, which isn't the case, s/he would admit that Nader is prostituting himself to the Republicans. And if you don't believe that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, then ask yourself why the Republican machine is putting the money and volunteers into his campaign.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 03:53 PM

vote socialist they stand for the worker.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 03:56 PM

I'm obviously not going to vote, but if I would be allowed to vote I'd have a long look at Kerry and then I'd have a lot of complaints about him and his probable policy. I could write all my complaints and that would be quite a long list. I could name many people I'd like better than him on that job he applies for.

And then I'd have a very short look at the only realistic alternative for that job, the person who at present has that job. This one glance would make it a very easy decision between the two candidates.

They wouldn't admit it in public, but even a sizable percentage of German conservatives would prefer Kerry. But then, McGrath has sometimes reminded us that a European conservative could in the USA be considered to be left of the middle. He has said that half jokingly and half seriously and he's right.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 03:59 PM

Fuck you Mick, you haven't won anything.

People who have been working on long term agendas and profound social, economic, and political change don't really even give a shit about the upcoming election. That is why Nader and Cobb are still in the race. It is their issues they want to see discussed.

Many leftists are, this very week, calling into question the conventional Democratic Party wisdom, including some prominent labor leaders like this article from yesterday's Washington Post points out:

SEIU Chief Says the Democrats Lack Fresh Ideas
Stern Asserts That a Kerry Win Could Set Back Efforts to Reform the Party
By David S. Broder
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 27, 2004; Page A13


BOSTON, July 26 -- Breaking sharply with the enforced harmony of the Democratic National Convention, the president of the largest AFL-CIO union said Monday that both organized labor and the Democratic Party might be better off in the long run if Sen. John F. Kerry loses the election.

Andrew L. Stern, the head of the 1.6 million-member Service Employees International Union (SEIU), said in an interview with The Washington Post that both the party and its longtime ally, the labor movement, are "in deep crisis," devoid of new ideas and working with archaic structures.

Stern argued that Kerry's election might stifle needed reform within the party and the labor movement."

Another leftist thinker (rather than sheep in the fold follower, like yerself there, Big Mick), ZNet's Michael Albert, has this to say about the election hyperbole, and I agree with him 1000%:

"I am constantly asked, nowadays, what should we do about the election? More often, I am told to work for Cobb, work for Nader, or work for Kerry. When I reply, I am often berated as an ultra left loon or a sniveling democrat, as the case may be.

At ZNet I also see a stupendous volume of written election commentary. I see so much that even if most of it wasn't highly fractious and redundant, I would wonder if all the time going to eyeballing, debating, celebrating, investigating, and otherwise hyperventilating the election wasn't reducing attention going to other pursuits...

Holding one's nose and voting for Kerry in contested states is a good thing to do, though I can certainly understand third party votes, even in contested states...

It makes sense to run radical campaigns to build movement infrastructure, raise consciousness, and push mainstream candidates left. To these ends, I prefer Cobb to Nader because Cobb is about movement building and Nader has demonstrated since 2000 that he is a poor movement builder. Still, I can understand someone feeling differently...

The benefits to Kerry of aggressive left support seem so minuscule (if they are even positive) as to make it politically inefficient for people well left of Kerry to move their attention away from long term priority activities toward his campaign.

Indeed, it may even be electoral suicidal to put aside long term work since the deciding factor in the election will likely be elites' perceptions of the probability that Bush can function without disastrous movement and international response and derivative destabilization. Leftists setting aside our antiwar and other activities will diminish rather than increase elite fears. Instead of boosting Kerry we need to provide visible signs that militant opposition is growing.

a self-proclaimed leftist relating to the campaign in a way that implies that Kerry or Clinton or Gore were or are good guys, and that considers any of these Democrats honest much less exemplary, and that fails to reiterate the ills of the Democratic Party, of our system of government, and of capitalism, is something I cannot understand."

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST,2
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 04:07 PM

Blow me guest. You wear your supposed "leftist" hat, but in reality you could care less about the people of this country. You only serve your cowardly ass. You can't think beyond your own nose and see what would be the biggest benefit for the majority of Americans. You are nothing more than a crank with a smidgen of knowledge and a lot of time on his hands. Wake up and look at what is really happening in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 04:08 PM

Yep, there is that vaunted intellect at work again. When one loses, just drop the F*** you bomb and that is that. What you are is angry and bitter. And out of touch with reality. Despite your posturing as someone who cares, as someone of depth, the first time someone takes issue with you, you fall back to the foul language. It is a pity, really, because you could do some good.

Wolfgang, I agree with your assessment entirely. There are a number of areas where I have concerns with Kerry. But in this system one must work within to effect real change. There is no candidate who accurately reflects my views, but this one is close enough and if elected I will then go to work on specific concerns.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 04:28 PM

I swear all the time, so any attempt to score debate points by accusing me of swearing is pretty stupid, even though it is certainly a predictable response from all you 'nice' middle class mainstream Democrat sheep.

Here is more from Michael Albert of ZNet:

"Regarding the two dominant parties, mainstream campaigns of course overwhelmingly disenfranchise and depoliticize people. This is why the media obliterated Howard Dean despite the fact that Dean is no less an ally of elite interests than Kerry is. I don't know why Dean's campaign morphed to the point of threatening to politicize young people and perhaps even poor people, but it did, and since that is the penultimate violation of elite interests in American politics, Dean's campaign had to be derailed, and it was.

Evidencing the same underlying dynamics, Kerry will try to win the election not by contesting the allegiances of the 50% of the population that typically doesn't vote, but instead by fighting to win a majority of the 10% or so of swing voters in each state. In fact, if we count only swing states, this election will probably address primarily 4% of the voters and only 2% of the population.

Now here is the thing. Whatever each person believes about these matters, at this point there is undoubtedly more benefit in his or her doing what he or she finds most warranted rather than wasting time berating other leftists for having a different viewpoint.

By now the berating of other leftists is useless. Pretty much everyone on the left knows where they stand. Few if any leftists are likely to significantly change their approach. The only relevant new information that may surface between now and November will be indications of likely election voting, not positions of candidates or evidence of efficacy of campaigning. So let's just give up the left on left electioneering, is my advice. By doing so, we can collectively save a lot of time and avoid a lot of needless arguing.

I certainly shudder every time our redundant efforts to beat Bush take the form of saying anything remotely nice about Kerry, who deserves nothing other than our steadfast opposition - hopefully when he is President, to be sure. And I shudder as well when our redundant efforts to beat Bush, or to urge others to do so, seem to be crowding out attention to the war, globalization, movement building per se, and so on.

In short, I guess what I am saying is that whatever your electoral inclinations, at this point repetitive, redundant entreaties about Kerry and Bush from leftists to other leftists, and even about Nader and Cobb from leftists to other leftists, and probably also entreaties from leftists to more mainstream citizens about Kerry/Bush, are most likely not the most efficient way to productively manifest our insights and utilize our energies.

So we are down to one debatable disagreement, it seems. In contested states should leftists spend any time trying to increase the vote for Cobb or Nader instead of being quiet or aiding Kerry? This is contentious. Logically, writing and speaking about it could affect people's choices. But I bet those who are for aiding Cobb or Nader are not going to convince those who are against doing so that they should start doing it. And I bet those who are against aiding Cobb or Nader are not going to convince those who are for doing so that they should stop doing it. So what is the point of reams of back and forth debate that can sour otherwise positive relations, I wonder?

At this point, the arguments have been made. So why don't we just do our things, hopefully including non electoral things, leaving one another alone, and letting the results of our separate efforts impact subsequent choices? I bet all sides will be better off for it."

So hey--why don't all you Kerry/Clinton Democrat suck-ups and ass kissers accept the fact that regardless of what YOU think everyone to the left of Attila the Hun ought to do this year, that you can't silence those of us who aren't willing to play along with the rules of the corporate two-party love fests, just to get rid of Bush no matter how much we think he needs to go?

I don't check my conscience and soul at the door, just to do what YOU consider the most politically expedient thing. Hell, I don't even agree with what you define as politically expedient anyway. In my mind, voting for Nader is the most politically expedient thing to do for this election. Other than that, I'm not working for any party or any politicians this year. I'm working on the same issues I have been working on for the better part of the last 20 years, and working on them outside and well clear of the two party corporate political system.

And I actually share Andrew Stern's opinion that a Bush win would be much better for the progressive left movements, for the US and world citizenry, and for the planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 04:34 PM

It's despicable to not invite Moore & despicable to have a protest pen.

But letting Bush stay in power because Kerry is nearly as bad makes no sense at all.

We cannot elect Franklin D Roosevelt, or Lincoln, or Arthur Pendragon this election. This does not mean that we should keep Bush.

I wasn't upset much when Bush got the presidency; I figured we'd just got the lesser of two clowns. I was wrong. To put it mildly. I can't think of anything that the Bush boys have done that isn't destructive, and Gore has made a lot of sense.

Wolfgang & Big Mick have got it right.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Nerd
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 04:44 PM

One thing is clear: this supposed great thinker of the left doesn't know what "penultimate" means. It means, not "intensified-ultimate," as he uses it here, but "second to last," as in the penultimate page of a novel, or "I am about to chew my penultimate piece of gum; would you like the last piece?" You couldn't have a "penultimate violation" unless you were talking about a series of violations, of which you are singling out the last-but-one.

In any case, it is sad that a so-called thinker could trot out such drivel as this:

the deciding factor in the election will likely be elites' perceptions of the probability that Bush can function without disastrous movement and international response and derivative destabilization. Leftists setting aside our antiwar and other activities will diminish rather than increase elite fears. Instead of boosting Kerry we need to provide visible signs that militant opposition is growing.

He is hopelessly obscure about who the "elites" are and what they are supposed to fear, suggesting that even HE doesn't quite know what he means here. But beyond that, it is simply another form of the spurious Naderite argument that "by being anti-Kerry activists we will actually help him win."

Funny how that line of reasoning didn't work the last time, though, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 04:45 PM

"Wolfgang & Big Mick have got it right."

Uh, you forgot to add "in my opinion".

I disagree. I think they are both wrong. I think we need four more years of Bush to radicalize the middle class liberal movement to get their asses out of their chairs, off the internet, away from their cushy middle class jobs, investment portfolios, and gourmet lifestyles, and start taking some risks for what they believe in. We need a militant progressive opposition to wrest control of the country from the corporate ruling elite. Voting for John Kerry will only change the decor at the White House, and lull the middle class liberals back to sleep. The fact that some of Kerry's policy stands are different than Bush's isn't as profoundly relevant as the 'Anybody But Bush' leaguers keep claiming, IMO.

I'm going to vote for Nader, not work on the campaign of ANYONE or ANY PARTY this year, and keep agitating for more militant stands by progressives and liberals, to fight the evil that is corporate domination, globalization, perpetual war, perpetual slavery for most of the world's citizens, and the complete destruction of the planet so my grandkids have a world to inherit that doesn't imprison them or eat their souls.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Nerd
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 04:54 PM

Aah, now GUEST finally comes out and says it: he wants Bush to win because it will move middle-class Democrats to the left!

I got new for ya, GUEST. The left-wing says that every election and it's never worked yet!

Also, you have to ask yourself what the consequences of your actions might be. Given the assault of the Bush administration on the courts, the environment and the consitution, I think you may rue the day you put Bush back in office. You may end up in a prison cell in Guantanamo for your political beliefs, while the US has a whole generation of radical-right court decisions eroding our constitutional liberties, and the earth is placed for good and all on the path to pollution death.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 04:55 PM

I think we need four more years of Bush to radicalize the middle class liberal movement to get their asses out of their chairs, off the internet, away from their cushy middle class jobs.....

That is laughable coming from one who spends so much time on the internet, with a cushy middle class job, and telling us all how ignorant we are. Perhaps one day we can rise to the level you are at.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 05:03 PM

GUEST of the so-called Radical Left:

I heard this shit back in the Sixties. I believed some of it then and I believe some of it now.

But the "Revolution" died on May 4, 1970, in a hail of bullets at Kent State. Some days earlier, a similar hailstorm had occured at Jackson State.

Suddenly, all the "Radicals" realized that hey, those police and National Guardsmen and soliers use REAL BULLETS!!! When they hit you, can be wounded or even KILLED DEAD!!

Suddenly, it wasn't fun anymore.

Yeah, some kept it up for a while afterwards. But it was effectively as dead as four in Ohio.

Others of us decided that if what we believed was to succeed, maybe guerrilla warfare was the way. So we have worked towards the same ends in other ways, avoiding confrontation, slipping in through other doors.

Ever see the results of a .30 caliber rifle bullet, GUEST? I have. It's ugly.

If you want to go to Boston and protest and scream, have a good time. But remember that it's REAL tear gas, those are REAL clubs, and the cops have REAL bullets.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 05:14 PM

"The left-wing says that every election and it's never worked yet!"

Yeah? So what are you so afraid of with Nader and the Greens, then?

The leaning of the courts isn't going to change significantly one way or the other with one presidential term, regardless of who controls the White House. Truly, the much more important focus in this year's elections are the Congressional races, which most of you, just like the mainstream media, is ignoring gleefully in favor of playing these rhetorical games over the import of the imperial presidency.

Kerry has remained silent about the Patriot Act, and his civil rights voting history in the Senate has been lukewarm, at best. So your concerns about the assault on the Constitution rings hollow. Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, remember? He hasn't spoken out AT ALL about the civil and human rights violations being perpetrated by this administration any more than he did during the Clinton administration.

As to Kerry's pet theme, the environment. I have yet to see him make any kind of a stand that is pro-environment that in any way threatens his pro-free trade cronies in business and industry. No progressive could call his positions on environmental protection "progressive". They just aren't as regressive as Bush's.

I'll stand with my union compatriots who are calling this year's entire election strategy, and the "business as usual" agenda of the AFL-CIO and the elite union bosses who are in bed with the corporate bosses, into question this year. I'm voting for Nader because I ALWAYS vote strategically, based upon the way the presidential electoral race is playing itself out. If I didn't think it was important to support Nader and what he is saying, I wouldn't vote for him, or defend his right to run regardless of the impact on the Bush/Kerry race.

Nader represents the best argued, most rational, militant opposition to the Kerry/Edwards ticket, IMO, although I also feel David Cobb and the Greens also deserve to be supported and voted for, for those who have the option. I just don't believe that the "Anybody But Bush" contingency, be they Democrats, Greens, or independents, is pursuing the best strategy for the long term struggle for change in this country. And I'm voting strategically in this election for the long term strategy, not the short term, just to get rid of Bush. I really don't share the views of most liberals that replacing Bush with Kerry will constitute a major improvement in peoples' lives--especially the working poor and poor peoples' lives. I believe that voting for Kerry will truly prolong their suffering, not ammeliorate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 05:19 PM

Rapaire, imagine my surprise that you think selling out is a positive option, because being shot at and teargassed isn't 'fun'.

Just because cowards like you run away when the heat comes down on the protestors, doesn't mean every one on the left does. Besides, you are about as far from being on the radical left as Pat Buchanan, so I'm not exactly going to take your word for shit!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST,2
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 05:34 PM

Guest, you've only seen a protest on TV.   You assume that radical left is something to be proud of, it is nothing more than a mirror image of the radical right.   Selling out? Give it a rest. You live in your own vacuum. No wonder you can't get laid.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST,2
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 05:35 PM

No one is afraid of Nader or the Green Party. We didn't buy their bullshit like you seem to enjoy swallowing.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST,2
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 05:38 PM

... and do some howework. Jackson State happened AFTER Kent State, not before. As if you were even born then.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 05:50 PM

Same old same old.

I'd a helluva lot rather be a somewhat cynical and politically realistic live force inside the Democratic Party, doing everything I can do to steer it in the direction I think it should go than a starry-eyed idealist with not the foggiest idea of how to accomplish things other that to scream and yell and throw things and wind up in a jail cell with my eyes smarting from tear gas (or lying there in the morgue with a bullet in my chest and a tag on my toe), but with my "integrity" intact.

And rather than just sitting around on the outside ranting and raving about how the Democratic Party sucks, or pouring my energies into a third party candidate that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, I can accomplish a helluva lot more working inside the Democratic Party. At least it has a chance of winning in November and ousting Bush. And I don't have to accept the way the party is. I can do my damnedest to change it.

What does your integrity tell you to do? Do nothing but bitch and complain, go down with a lost cause, or actually do something that may fail, but at least it has a chance of accomplishing real change?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 06:12 PM

Interesting claim there, Don. Just how will electing John Kerry president of the United States accomplish real change?

BTW, I don't begrudge any Democrats the right to do what their conscience tells them to do. I do have problems with Democrats telling me and every other non-Democrat, how to vote. Which is what the "Anybody But Bush" leaguers are doing, as Michael Albert of ZNet pointed out.

Democrats like yourself hold no moral high ground above the rest of us who plan to vote against Bush, but by voting for the candidate we feel is the best candidate to represent our interests. Just because our candidate can't win, doesn't mean we shouldn't vote for them, or that we are lacking in integrity.

What I'm saying isn't about bitching and complaining. It is about keeping the progressive agenda alive in an presidential election year when all the conventional, mainstream two party corporate system are doing their very best to kill it off, and silence genuine disagreement and debate of the issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 06:55 PM

GUEST, if you can't see that there is a substantial difference between Bush and Kerry, then I'm afraid your just not paying attention--or don't want to see.

Kerry is not my ideal choice. I was not offered an ideal choice (and no, not Nader, not nohow!). Dennis Kucinich was the nearest. His "Ten Key Issues" statement convinced me of that. Even though I knew he wasn't going to get the nomination, I still voted for him in my neighborhood caucus. I have already voted my conscience. Now, I work for and will vote for the best choice I am offered. The choices consist of Bush, Nader, and Kerry. In making my choice, there is an element of "anybody but Bush." I call that "damage control." I admire Nader for many of the things he has done in the past, but a) even it he had a chance of winning, for several reasons I don't think he would make a good president: and b) I think, especially after what happened in 2000, he's being a spoiler and an egotistical twit. Therefore, I will work for and vote for John Kerry. Not my ideal, but the best of the choices I am offered. And far preferable to either Bush or Nader.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 07:04 PM

. . . and, I might add, once the election is over, no matter who wins, I will continue to work within the Democratic Party. I will do my bitching, complaining, yelling, and pushing and shoving there, along with a whole bunch of others of like mind, to steer the party into a more progressive direction.

It isn't going to happen overnight, and a lot of people are still not going to be pleased, but that is how real change is accomplished.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 07:14 PM

Depending upon the state you live in, you have more candidate options than just Nader, Kerry, and Bush. Because you choose to be dismissive about them because they have no chance of winning doesn't mean they aren't legitimate choices. Any presidential candidate who makes it onto a ballot is a legitimate choice for president, regardless of how cynical and jaded you are about them based upon your 'damage control' logic, Don.

It is fine if you think Kerry is preferable to Nader. It is fine if I think Nader is preferable to Kerry. It is fine if another person thinks Bush is preferable to Kerry or Nader. And it is fine if yet another thinks Cobb is preferable to Bush, Nader, or Kerry.

We are all Americans, and we really aren't as blinkered as the jaded Rove Republicans and angry and cynical "Anybody But Bush" Democrats keep making us out to be.

We didn't get down this rat hole just because of Bush and the Republicans. Clinton and the Democrats are just as much to blame. Voting for Kerry won't do a single thing to change about that power dynamic, despite Kerry being less regressive than Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 07:26 PM

Don, because you think the best way to bring about change is by working within the system, and I think the best way to do it is by agitating for change from outside the system, doesn't make you right and me wrong.

You see, that is the problem I have with the absolutists like you. I think we need people both inside and out pushing for change. Because I choose to take the position of the militant opposition working outside the system, doesn't make me Satan. I am just as loyal a patriot, just as pragmatic and intelligent and thoughtful as anyone working from inside the system. But getting rid of Bush is far from my top priority right now. My top priority continues to be work to bring about the profound changes our society, the world's citizens, and the planet needs if we are to provide anything worth inheriting to future generations. I'm a long view type person. Changing horses in a horse race doesn't have much impact in the long run. I agree it might have a significant impact in the short term. But in the long term, a vote for Kerry or Bush will mean essentially the same thing: a vote to continue on with and protect the status quo and the interests of the global ruling elite.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship at Dem Nat'l Convention
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 07:30 PM

1. Bush, no chance for change. It'll just get worse.
2. Nader, no matter what he tried to do, would be bucking a hostile Congress and would accomplish nothing.
3. Kerry, there is at least a glimmer of a chance.

Better a forlorn hope than no hope at all.

Don Firth