BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?

Subject: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 08:53 AM

The majority of registered Democrats never got the chance to choose the nominee. The party royalty has chosen it's king, another empty suit. The grassroots activism begun with Dean, is now being silenced in the party and among the punditry. Dean's name has barely been mentioned in any news reports this week.

So, it is a timely question. The grassroots progressives have been locked out of the party by the elite interests AGAIN.

So what will the progressive wing of the party do? Will the Deaniacs work for the Kerry ticket? Will they vote for Nader? Or will they stay home and not vote once again, because the Democratic party continues to ignore and belittle their issues and their legitimate needs as citizens and a large constituency in the Democratic party?

Ever since the Reagan victory of 1980, the Democrats have abandoned their strongest constituencies. Union members numbers have been dwindling for decades, and since 1980, unions can no longer be counted upon to deliver their members as a solid voting block. And the union members of bygone eras were some of the most politically and socially conservative members of the Democratic party anyway, which caused the party to lose the support of many progressives alienated by the Republican wing of the Democratic party.

So now, with a supposedly "centrist" candidate who voted with Bush and the Republicans on every major piece of legislation since 2000 (ie, the Patriot Act, war on Iraq, No Child Left Behind, Medicare, the Bush tax cuts, etc) it is clearly apparent the Democratic Leadership Council has annointed another Republicrat for the nominee.

And not just any Republicrat, but a Republicrat they don't even need to develop a new media strategy to defeat, as they can dust off the one used by Bush I to defeat "Massachusetts Liberal" Dukakis.

It is mind numbing, to say the least, to believe one's eyes as we watch the Democratic party make the same stupid mistakes AGAIN, that resulted in them being defeated in 1988 and 2000, but there you have it.

So, what do people think will happen now that Kerry will begin his move to the right to capture the sacred "NASCAR dads" and independent "centrist" voters?

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

Firget the NASCAR dads. Thay aren't worth the expense in dollars and time to try to woo away from Stroker Ace, Jr.

I'm going to aassume that the Democratic base will vote for Kerry. The blocks that Kerry will have to get on board will be Hispanics, single women, and young folks. Too bad that John Edwards doesn't speak Spainish or he'd be a shoe-in...

As fir this ol' Greenie. I'm still up in the air as to weather or not I'll actually work for Kerry because I find little in his voting record that resembles anything progressive *but* I'll definately vote for him and should he win, go back to needling the Dems.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 09:32 AM

There seems to be a lot of "Anybody But Bush" sentiment out there. Even among some of the Republicans.

Kerry's going to be labeled a Liberal, which he isn't, by the Republicans, partly in an attempt to bring disaffected Republicans back into the fold.

Wouldn't a Kerry-Edwards ticket, with Wesley Clark as Sec. of Defense, be interesting?

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 10:29 AM

Good one, guest! An veritable screem! If inspiring doubt was a virtue... Snap out of it. The only way to get there from here, is one step at a time. If you want to be beamed up, get a star trek video.

It's 2004, Bush is president, Many civil liberties are but a faint memory, the courts are stuffed with partiality, the economy has been gutted, and is on the opperating table, earth IS in the ballance. The media has been bought off, and most Americans haven't realized that it is their own individual 'free thinking' that has been disqualified... and we have to stop the pendulum

What is, is.

The staus quo is our point of departure. Let's get out of here...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 11:41 AM

Voting for Kerry isn't going to change the courts, nor the Patriot Act legislation, or overturn the Bush tax cuts, or repeal the Medicare bill or the No Child Left Behind act.

Anyone who believes that ousting Bush/electing Kerry will result in these things being overturned is sadly and dangerously naive or downright disingenuous. A vote for Kerry is a vote for the status quo. President Kerry is a desirable alternative, only because the contractors in Iraq MIGHT change, or that less regressive judicial nominees MIGHT be approved by a Republican controlled Congress IF they are even nominated.

Those aren't scare tactics or attempts to sow doubt--those are facts, Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 12:42 PM

Well, GUEST, I'm about half in agreement with you but I think one good thing could come out of a new face and that is the US's relationships with its allies which Bush as so badly bungled. They might be a little warmer and receptive to a new face and, God knows, if the US doesn't get back to having real converstaions with the international community like real soon, it's gonna find itself a more isolated and mistrusted.

As for particulat policies, I believe that Kerry will attempt to roll back the tax cuts and if he uses the White House as a bully pulpit, could very well push a Republican led Congress to begrudingly go along, much the way Bush painted the Dems into a corner with his tax cuts...

As for anything else to speak of, Kerry isn't too much af an alternative voice...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Janie
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 12:45 PM

Hell yes, I'll vote for him. As the bumper stick says "Any other Whore in 2004"

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 01:44 PM

Any other Whore in 2004

I like that - - summarizes my inclination quite well - -

Think I'll write my lovely bride's name in again - only person I'd trust up there -

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: DougR
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 01:47 PM

There's always Nader of course.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 01:50 PM

DougR, knock it off. No-one is going to vote for Nader.

Your murderous, mendacious, evasive autocrat is going to be facing a fairly unified wave of discontent in November.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Frankham
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 01:52 PM

I don't support or agree with much that has been said about
Kerry. I worked on his campaign. I got to hear him up close,
not through Republican sound-bites or disgruntled Dean supporters.

I'll say this. Kerry can beat Bush if he doesn't get sabotaged
by negative sour grapes from the opposition to Bush.

A vote for Nader or a write-in by Democrats will mean a vote
for Bush.

I don't agree with everything Kerry says but he's not the simplistic
"establishment" figure that some here are trying to make him
out to be. Following this "party line" will ensure Bush's victory.
I believe he is thoughtful, not quick to act impulsively, speaks
without "talking down" to people like Gore, absolutely sincere
in his convictions and the fact that he's not quite the smooth
campaigner that others are is a point in his favor. He's staying with the issues.

Frank

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

What are you suggesting, GUEST? That we give up and vote for Bush? No, thank you, I don't think so.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 02:46 PM

Look, I'm voting for Kerry. But who we vote for isn't the point, because a vote doesn't constitute support from the grassroots.

The question is whether people will vote for Kerry in the "any whore in 2004" logic, or whether the progressive grassroots will decide to sit out yet another election instead of voting AGAIN for a Democratic candidate that ignores their needs as citizens.

This race won't be decided by who votes for whom, it will be decided by whether the Democratic grassroots base will vote at all.

As a former Democrat and current independent voter, I am leaning towards not voting for the first time in 30 years. I voted for Nader in 2000, and in 1988, 1992, and 1996 I didn't vote in the presidential race. The Democrats haven't been interested in promoting the agenda that is my agenda--fixing Social Security for the boomer generation that will be retiring in a couple more years, universal health care, increases in the minimum wage, support for mass transit, increasing wages for workers, like child care workers, nursing home employees, etc. who are now required to have more and more education to do their jobs, without any corresponding increase in wages and benefits, affordable housing initiatives.

Those are all issues that neither party is addressing on the domestic front.

On foreign policy, neither party has done anything on the issues that matter to me, including reform of the weapons industry, working to prevent nuclear proliferation, seriously addressing the need for a legitimate Palestinian state, working on the Kyoto protocols, approving treaties like the landmine treaty, joining the world court, etc--the list is really to long to go into here.

So, since neither party can be bothered addressing the issues that are most important to me, there is no reason for me to support either party, now is there? One is as bad as the other, and continuing to vote for the Democratic party only perpetuates the problems.

The time has come in the US to overthrow the Democratic party, or at the very least, split off a progressive party that will address the issues, needs, and concerns of low and middle income progressives who believe the political system does nothing for them--the people who routinely don't vote.

Kerry's voting record is out there, and he voted mostly with the Republican majority in Congress since 2000. He voted that way because he had presidential ambitions, and wanted to hang onto his senate seat if he didn't make the presidential run.

There is only one senator who is deserving of my vote as a progressive, and that is Russ Feingold, the only US senator to vote against the Patriot Act. John Kerry should have voted against it, Paul Wellstone should have voted against it, Tom Harkin should have voted against it, John Edwards should have voted against it, but none of them did. They didn't vote for it because they all wanted to protect their political asses in the seats of Congress. The Patriot Act was bad, bad legislation pure and simple, but only one US senator had the guts to vote the right way on it.

If we can't count on the so-called "liberal" Democrats to vote against the Patriot Act, then why continue to engage in the charade? They aren't voting their consciences, they aren't voting with integrity on these sorts of controversial issues. They are voting to protect their jobs.

Outsource Congress, and outsource the presidential campaign, I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 02:59 PM

GUEST, I think grassroots progressives are pretty hip to how dangerous Bush is and will rally around anyone--SpongeBob SquarePants, if need be--who can get Bush out of there. It's called "damage control." But once Bush is out, you can't just sit on your butt and whine if the new Democratic president is not different enough to suit you. You have to stay politically active. If you're really interested in changing things, the time to get really active is between elections.

Remember, there are going to be Senators and Representatives up for election also. You have a lot better chance of getting their ears than you do the President's.

If you aren't politically active, and if you don't even vote, you don't have much basis to bitch. You're part of the problem.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 03:10 PM

Guest... I think you are trying to fracture the party.

It's Kerry. Get on, or get out of the way. The only way we can look ourselves in the eyes, is to get rid of Bush. Once he's history, It will take years, if not generations... to repair the damage.

Then we can talk about ideals... ok?
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 03:17 PM

As a conservative, it is my opinion that most democrats are supporting Kerry no because they like John Kerry, but because they want anyone other than Bush. I don't think that is a very ringing endorsement or bode well in November.    We know that Kerry is against anything Bush ever did or said.   The question is "what is Kerry for"?   He has yet to articulate any real message or vision.   What are his policies going to be- all we get are sound bites so far.

So all you Kerry supporters out there- answer me this question.   In 1991 he voted against the War in the Gulf even though Iraq had invaded Kuwait and there were proven rape rooms and mass murders.   After the war he than said that he supported and approved of what we did.   Last year he voted for the 2nd war in the gulf even though there were only suspicions of WMD's, and now says he was against the war.    So why does he support wars he voted against, and is against wars he voted for?   Is a puzzlement!

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 03:41 PM

Puzzles are my specialty. Kerry is/was a Senator. A Senator from a well informed and involved state, politically speaking... Bush was a governor of the 'most conservative' state... In the position Kerry was/is in, he is particularly beholden to the changing tide of public opinion (which looses direction in times of illogical and undemocratic leadership), and is sworn to reflect it, or be voted out. Bush's 'top down' management as governor of Texas, preferable to conservatives and the uninformed alike... is more acceptable to the electorate of 'the most conservative state' and has molded GWB's profoundly undemocratic approach to leadership.

Kerry speaks to the ever changing concerns of the American people... and Bush speaks to the neverending domination of corporate greed over the needs (and the rights) of the struggling American citizens...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 04:30 PM

There's an old saying, "Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them". The person who is in the best position to make sure Bush doesn't get elected is Bush, and he's doing very well at bringing about that happy outcome, from what I've read and seen.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: DougR
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 04:54 PM

Don't be too sure McGrath. You may only be reading or listening to media that support your point of view. I think it will be a hard won election but think Bush will be re-elected. Why? There are more voters who believe as I do than voters who believe as you do.

Amos: I wouldn't kiss Nader off so quickly. He still has a lot of supporters, and from what I gather, the Democrats settled on Kerry because they thought he was the best of the bunch running, and had the best chance (in their opinion) to beat Bush. No one yet has convinced me that they are supporting Kerry because they feel he has even been a good senator.

If they had truly wanted to field a candidate that probably would have given Bush a run for his money,though, they would have insisted that Hillary run.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 06:03 PM

DougR... May I remind you... More people voted for Gore, when GWB's hopes were very high... Now he's made a lot of enemies, made a financial mess, started wars without any experience, and generally displayed strategic incompetence... ie. played dumb, while his dad's connections in the antiquated military industrial complex 'go for broke' before they are outmoded by true humanitarian progress...
ttr

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

The Democratic party has been saying "anybody but Reagan/Bush/Bush for over 20 years now. It ain't getting us anywhere, except for more Republican with every election.

Anybody want to know about the supposedly most Democratic and progressive states in the union, Massachusetts and Minnesota, the bastions of the Democratic party?

Both now have Republican governors, and Minnesota elected a Republican senator too in 2002.

So just how is that voting for a losing Republicrat election after election is getting us to the promised land? Hell, it isn't even getting rid of the Republicans, and keeps electing more and more right wing conservative Democrats.

That ain't progress, no matter how you measure it.

Frankly, I don't see how voting against both Democrat and Republican, or not voting at all, is any different than voting for one or the other because nothing changes after the inaugurations anyway. Just the same old shit.

I'm more optimistic about the shareholder revolt at Disney changing the status quo for the better than I am the presidential elections, which don't change a fucking thing or makes them worse.

Not all of us considered Clinton an improvement over Bush I, you know.

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

Ye Gods ! will you Americans never learn !

A fractioned party will NEVER win.

European and US of A histrory is littered with the corpses of shattered ideals. Killed by internal squables of left wing personality conflicts, and the inability to unite around a common cause.

Unite and Fight. Bobert, this means theee as well !!!!!!

Squables on the left meant that we in the UK had to suffer 19 years of Conservative Government.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Nerd
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 07:36 PM

Larry K,

I have not always been Kerry's biggest supporter, as Frankham and others will tell you. But I think your statement that "all we know is that he's against Bush" says more about your own lack of curiosity than about Kerry. Kerry has made many speeches and statements, and has a website full of position papers that will tell you what he is for.

The US media has become a real obstacle to Democracy. They are not interested in informing us about what different candidates think, they're interested in saying "Dean is too angry, and Edwards is too young and naive, and Kerry is too stiff but he may be electable anyway." So we often have to find out what a candidate is for by using our own initiative.

One thing I can tell by the fact that I've met you here: you have internet acces. Go forth and inquire!

I for one will be voting for Kerry in November.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST,MarkS
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 07:53 PM

Amos - I will vote for Nader again this time, and write his name in if he does not get on my ballot in New Jersey, only because that is a better alternative than leaving the top line on the ballot blank and making a choice in the local contests only.
I will not agitate for him this time around, since all that seems to do is cheese off fellow 'Catters!
But at least I will have the satisfaction of knowing that I voted for somebody who I really would prefer to send to Washington, rather than holding my nose and flipping a coin between Bush or his fraternity brother.
All elections have winners and loosers. This time, as usual, the loosers will be us.
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 08:05 PM

And here is that Kerry website - John Kerry

Just to be fair, here's the Resident's one as well - Bush/Cheney

Why people rely on truncated and distorted media coverage when they can elongated and distorted stuff from the candidates direct is a bit of a puzzle.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Alice
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 08:55 PM

Democrats will vote for Kerry because they want Bush out of the White House. Voting for Kerry will unite the party and also, hopefully, bring more Democrats into other offices - the coat tail effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 10:30 PM

Gareth--Democrats love split ups, that's what unites them.

Our above Guest seems to think that Democrats hve no choice now that that majority of the delegates are spoken for. I'll remind Guest that it would be the sam for the Republicans as well if we didn't have a Republican sitting president. What I would have liked to have seen would be a serious Republican challenge to Bush in the primaries.

Will the grassroots join in? I am and I certainly welcome any that can come out and work. But, mark my word, two hard working Democrats are worth more that a dozen tepid ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: kendall
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 08:36 AM

So, Guest, the democrat party is no longer doing what you want done. Ok, is the Bush mafia doing it? Stay home, that will fix them! But dont piss and moan when that lying pandering phony gets elected(for the first time) I have no patience with those who complain and dont vote.

The party "royalty" defeated Dean? rubbish! he shot himself in the foot too many times. Dean defeated Dean. Angry and arrogant does not fly too well in this country. In the beginning, I supported Dean, I sent him money, but after that outrageous performance after Iowa, I dropped him like a used condom, and it was my choice, not the party royalty. (Whoever they are)

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 08:58 AM

kendall, apparently you haven't seen the film footage of Dean after the Iowa caucus--the so called "Scream" speech.

The news media routinely cuts out the sound of the crowd on video feeds, so the person on the microphone can be heard. ABC News, a week after the Iowa caucus, actually came clean about it, and broadcast the speech without the sound of the crowd removed. Dean was completely inaudible, due to crowd noise. You couldn't hear him at all.

Dean wasn't angry at all in that speech, but he was fired up and so was the crowd cheering him on. He was yelling to be heard in the room, where the sound of the cheering crowd was deafening. But by cutting out the sound, and making Dean appear as if he was going off the deep end, the media effectively nailed the coffin shut for Dean.

Nader is now running at 6% in the polls, with Bush and Kerry in a statistical tie at 45%. It seems that no matter how the Democrats rant about third party spoilers, independent and disgruntled voters will only hear it as so much whining because they aren't getting their way--a temper tantrum if you will.

I'm prepared for four more years of Bush, if that is what it takes to get the Democratic party to recognize it's progressive and grassroots constituencies, and act like an opposition party to the Republicans.

I will vote for the candidate that best represents my interests in the upcoming election. If Nader is that candidate, which looks quite likely from these months out, then I will vote for Nader, even if that means Bush wins. I will vote for Nader with a clear conscience, knowing that if Bush wins, Nader was no spoiler, but the supposedly "most electable" Democratic nominee, in fact wasn't electable at all. That isn't Nader's fault, it is the fault of people whose voting pattern for decades has been to settle for the lesser of two evils. You get what you vote for, when you vote for "anybody but the other guy".

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 11:39 AM

Boo hiss, mark your miss
Nader's but a ploy
Wake up, tip your cup
Kerry we'll enjoy

Four years, fearful cheers
Bush's hollow head
Bankrupt, terror sup't
Imports unhealthy dread

A kerry in hand is eschewing the bush

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 12:18 PM

Would people who vote for Nader (if he hasn't pulled out at a strayegic moment, which is my prediction) people who woudl otherwise have voted for Kerry? Or are they people who would otherwise have sat on their hands and abstained or spoiled their vote, not seeing anytone they feel like voting for? The latter seems much more likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: DougR
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 12:37 PM

Horrors! McGrath said something I agree with, and so did Kendall!

I think the majority of Nader voters would not have voted had Nader not announced he would run for President (McGrath), and Kendall is correct when he states that Dean sunk himself.

I agree with GUEST also regarding the infamous Dean speech after the Iowa Caucus. I didn't feel he was angry, just charged up.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 01:24 PM

This is ghastly! I find I'm agreeing with Doug!

Well, except on the matter of Nader. I know several people who voted for Nader in the last election who would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't been there. Not just my conjecture. They said so.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Big Mick
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 01:34 PM

For an anti war activist, our GUEST sure doesn't act with any kind of conviction. Let's get this right. You would rather have four more years of the man who took us to war, than John Kerry and the Democrats so you can make some silly statement. Does pragmatism enter into your ivory tower thinking at all? You are willing to send another several millions of our industrial jobs offshore rather to make a statement about principal? This is why folks that sit and pontificate and awe us with their intellectual prowess, instead of getting out and seeing the faces, being in the homes, and experiencing the hopelessness, piss me off. This isn't about your view of how it should be. And it isn't a game. There are real consequences in our actions.

You are right about one thing, though. The Democratic Party needs real change. But real change comes from within. Dr. Dean showed you how to do it. He showed the Party that they don't need corporate interests to raise the dollars needed to win. He planted a seed that will sprout and return the Party, eventually, to its roots. He has my undying gratitude for that. It won't come as a flash of lightning, but rather it will take root and sprout. Real, meaningful change takes time,and it takes working from within. All your complaining and pontificating will change nothing. And voting for Nader won't do anything to effect the change you want. But then ...... what would you have to rave on about? It is apparent that you vote every time, but you clearly want to waste it.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 01:37 PM

That was last time, Don.

An option for people to vote "none of the above" would make a lot of sense in all elections. With a requirement that, if that came in first, they'd have to run the election again, but with a different bunch of candidates.

I guarantee that would cause a significant rise in the number of people who went to vote. And after all, those politicians are always saying how much they want that to happen. Like hell they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Big Mick
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 02:03 PM

Kevin, it's comments like "those politicians" that seem to defy your normal intellectual approach to these things. It is such a over generalization, that it leads to the types of attitudes we see from our GUEST. I know many politicians that are driven by an ethic, a code. We may not see eye to eye on certain issues, but I know them to be honorable and trying to do the best within the system to effect positive societal change. There are dirtbags, and self serving jerks too. But the system roots them out eventually. I am concerned lately with what I see as a loss of confidence in the ability to make change. I know that we still can, if we are ready to jump back in and work with honorable intent. It still comes down to one person, one vote. When that is being abused, we need to act. I just don't see Don Quixote approaches as the way to do it. I thought Dean showed the way. I may not have liked him as a candidate to beat Bush, but that man has my greatest admiration for shaking things up, and breaking the inertia. I pray that he stays with the process and remains a force for positive, internal change. I believe he represents the best chance the Party has, if he remains a player.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Nerd
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 02:17 PM

McGrath,

As you may know, things are not standardized in US elections. The ballot I see in Philadelphia looks nothing like the ones in Maine or South Carolina. So I don't know for sure that I'm speaking for everyone. But MY ballots always HAVE included a "none of the above" or "no vote" option; this is so you can vote in some races but abstain in others while using the same ballot. Makes sense to me...

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 02:19 PM

Social change is never achieved through electoral politics, so to expect it to occur by presidential voting seems a bit silly.

I voted for Nader in 2000. Had I not voted for Nader, I absolutely would not have voted for Gore. I would have left the presidential part of the ballot blank, as I had done for the previous three elections. My entire inner city neighborhood was full of Nader lawn signs, I'm rooted deeply in this community both socially and politically, and I can tell you that very few of the hundreds of households with Nader lawn signs would have supported Gore in the absence of Nader as a candidate.

Finally, I don't believe Nader only took votes away from the Democrats, any more than I believe that the Greens or Socialists only take votes from the Democrats. Third party voting and voters who have declared themselves independent of any party, are a complex voting bloc. For instance, I know two Libertarian Party members who voted for Nader in 2000. I also know several Republicans who voted Nader and a good handful of Republicans who voted for Gore.

The majority of voters in some states like South Dakota and Arkansas are neither Democrat or Republican, but independent.

Democrats are looking for someone other than themselves to blame for their electoral failures of the past 20 or so years. Guess what? Nader isn't the reason the Democrats keep losing elections everywhere in the country. Democrats are the reason Democrats keep losing elections everywhere in the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 02:20 PM

Mick... you are especially lucid today! Thanks!

Voting 'All of the above' would be even more interesting!
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 02:24 PM

Fair enough, Mick. But what I have in mind, and what "those" meant there, are the ones who make a show of trying to raise the proportion of people voting, by gimmicks such as polling booths in supermarkets, or unreliable novelties such as electronic voting machines and extensive postal voting - but who rigidly refuse to do anything about what seem to me the real reasons why people turn away from voting.

By that I mean, dodgy voting systems that mean that, for most people, they know that their vote can't make any difference at all, and also that minority positions can't get a look in; and especially in England, centralisation of power so that no matter how people vote locally, the central government make the decisions.

Attitudes summed up in such sayings as "no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in" and "of voting could really change things, they'd abolish it".

All of which said, I'm hoping Americans resist the very reasonable scepticism they must feel, and vote for whoever can get rid of Bush, which looks like Kerry. And I think most people around the world would share that hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Big Mick
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 02:45 PM

Gothcha, Kevin. And I agree with you.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 03:39 PM

we all hope that Bush will go but .....

If he doesn't, perhaps it will be the beginning of a grassroots revolution. I don't see how the U.S. will be able to survive (domestically) another four years of the status quo. Maybe, for any real change to happen, it will take another 4 years to push the public into realizing that the threat is internal and not external. Maybe its a crisis that is necessary for real change.

Voting for Kerry is not likely to change much at all.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Frankham
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 03:50 PM

Kerry definitely has the African-American vote. They will support him. Dean didn't seem to reach much into that community.


Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: artbrooks
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 04:57 PM

I'm not sure what "grassroots Democrat" or "progressive" means, but I have the impression that GUEST (and maybe others) mean people who are generally to the left of the New Deal when they use those terms. But then, I really don't know what Republicans and others on the right mean when they use the word "liberal" as a curse either.

I do know a lot of life-long registered Democrats, and individuals who are not party members but who usually vote that way who are pretty middle of the road. These are people who don't much care if individuals own guns (except maybe assault rifles and machine guns), but who also don't see any reason not to register them; people who don't care what somebody else does in the company of another consenting adult, of either sex, in private, and doesn't understand why they can't be married if they want; people who see a reason for laws and think they should be obeyed; and so on. My opinion is that most people are in the center.

I like Kerry, and will support him, because I see him as being in the center. Yes, he has changed his position on issues over time, and I'd say that almost everyone else has done so as well. Granted that there are some individuals who made up their minds on everything when they were eighteen and haven't had a new thought in forty years, but I've never met one of them who was worth the powder to blow them to hell.

GUEST 2:19 PM says that he/she supported Nader last time, and that a vote for Nader in 2000 wouldn't necessarily have been a vote for Gore in Nader's absence. Perhaps the same is still true, but one set of polls I saw had Kerry 4 percentage points ahead of Bush the day before Nader declared, and the two tied with 6 percent for Nader the following day. Like Nader or not (and I personally don't), all indications are that a vote for Nader is a potential vote against Bush that is thrown away.

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

To say that a vote is "thrown away" enrages me. Absolutely enrages me.

How dare anyone tell another citizen who makes time and effort to vote, that their vote is worthless, because they have voted for a candidate they don't like!

God, the arrogance of some you Democrats is just appalling.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 05:25 PM

To bring the discussion back to the original question, here is a brief excerpt of the article that got me thinking along these lines, from Salon.com:

Will Deaniacs pull a Nader on the Democratic Party?
Some of the insurgent's supporters say they're going to take their idealism and go home --- but most of them will probably get over their bitterness and support the nominee.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Michelle Goldberg

Feb. 4, 2004 |

On Jan. 30, three days after Howard Dean came in a disappointing second in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, posters on the late-night open thread on the Dean for America blog excoriated John Kerry. "At first, I was in the ABB [Anybody But Bush] category, but I refuse to be cowtowed [sic] by the corporate-controlled media and vote for a gutless democrat who rolled over and played dead for George Bush or one who helped draft the Patriot Act," wrote Sydney Platt, a 42-year-old from Houston. Another poster castigated her, but many more supported her sentiment. One wrote, "I have decided that perhaps America must lose everything to value something. That may be what it takes to actually get our country back if Dean goes down."

If this sounds familiar, it's because some of the rhetoric coming out of the most disillusioned quarters of the Dean camp recalls that of the Ralph Nader campaign. Among parts of the Dean movement these days, there's much railing at the corporate-dominated Democratic Party, plenty talk of rejecting the "lesser of two evils" approach to politics and abundant slandering of front-runner John Kerry as "Bush-lite." So as it grows increasingly likely that Dean won't be the Democratic nominee in 2004 -- and that Kerry will be -- some are wondering, and worrying, whether all the devoted legions of activists that Dean brought into the Democratic fold will stay in the party, spoil the race or just stay home. If Dean goes down, will one of the greatest grass-roots movements in Democratic history go with him -- a rerun of the Nader fiasco four years ago? Or will Dean supporters decide that beating Bush is more important than remaining true to their man and their principles and support the Democratic nominee, whoever he is?

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: artbrooks
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 05:50 PM

GUEST 5:09 PM: the person I voted for in 1980 received 6.7% of the popular vote. Perhaps, depending on how the electoral college swang, Reagan wouldn't have won if 5.7 million votes hadn't been spent on a forlorn hope. Be enraged if you want, but please don't call me a Democrat.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 06:07 PM

Agreed artbrooks, I shan't call you a Democrat. But I'm still calling you out on the appalling arrogance of suggesting that someone who shows up on voting day and casts a vote, regardless of who it is for, is "throwing their vote away".

If you feel so strongly that this is the way it works, why not just dispense with the election sham altogether, and install a dictator?

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 06:39 PM

Democrats insisting that progressives enter the Democratic Party is a co-opting strategy as old as the Populist/Democratic fusion campaign for William Jennings Bryan that killed 19th century populism.

The overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress voted for Bush's tax cuts, his military build-up, his assaults on civil liberties, and his regulatory and tax favors to corporate interests. But now, according to the "Anybody But Bush" Democrats, we should rely on these same Democrats to provide the resistance!

Cynthia McKinney, a Democratic Congresswoman who did resist the Republican Right agenda, is a good example of what the Democrats do to their progressives these days. When the right (including the Georgia's Democratic Senator Zell Miller and the Democratic Leadership Council) targeted her for defeat, she was abandoned by the state and national Democrats, from Andrew Young and Maynard Jackson to Terry McAulliffe and Bill Clinton.

We can't fight the far right by supporting the moderate right. The left did that in Germany in the 1930 elections and the moderate right they helped to elect soon handed power over to Hitler.

The Democratic Party has been the graveyard of every progressive insurgency since the populists died there in 1896. Reforming the Democrats has been the dominant strategy of liberals, progressives, and even most radicals since 1936. Inside the Democratic Party, the left lost its independent voice. Its analyses and policy proposals disappeared from public debate. The left ended up doing the trench work for candidates who were bankrolled by and indentured to the dominant corporate wing of the Party.

Wake up people! If you don't see that the Democrats are just as culpable as the Republicans for driving the nation to the right, then you aren't paying attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Gareth
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 07:03 PM

The question is -

Do you want GWB Jnr Out, or waste divided efforts on 57 (Pun) brands of pureism !

Kerry - perhaps not the idealist's choice, but when you think of the alternative !!!!!!!!!!!!

Gareth

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

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

Go ahead, fly into the flames.

Mick

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

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

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

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frank

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree.

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

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

Yeah, right!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

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

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

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

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

"I admire your idealism."

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

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

By the two parties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seamus

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

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

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

THAT's his big broken promise?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mick

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

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

Shall we all stop responding to the troll now?

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

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

ABC/Washington Post Poll

To quote from that article:

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

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

I think the answer is yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mick

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

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

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

SRS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That last sentence answers McGrath's question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mick

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

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

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

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

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

A cupla more excerpts of interest to note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mick

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

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

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

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

I want no part of that sort of political reality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They want to shake up the system...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) the Reform Party candidate

b) the Green Party candidate

c) an independent

d) all of the above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone But Bush Increases Lead Against Undecided

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

GUEST,

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

I respect your right to vote your way, however.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here I am the outsider, again.

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

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

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

Take your pick.

d

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

Nerd, I agree with you completely.

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

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

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

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

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

Frank

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I keep asking but nobody seems to have an answer.

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

d

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: RichardP
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 07:57 AM

Oh what a Humpty Dumpty world this thread reveals. It is impossible for someone on the eastern side of the Atlantic Pond that both joins and divides us to give credit to the short-sight and misleading use of language that has kept it going.

To take a recent aspect, Nerd responds to a request for left-wingers in government by listing people who are admitedly in the legislature but are in the opposition to the government.

Secondly, there is an undferlying assupmtion that the USA is a democracy. Yea? Then how is Prsident Gore performing?

It is certainly true that the foundation of the USA in 1976 was much more democratic than the then current British constitution, but the rest of the world has moved on.

Face facts. The answer to the basic question of this thread, and of the actual discussion within it (which is normally Should Dem grassroots support Kerry rather than wiil they), must be different for different states.

Given the American voting system it is absolutely certain that the way an individual votes in 40 of the 50 states will not alter the decision, either because the state is incapable of switching to
its abnormal party support except in a landslide year. In those states it is not self-indulgent to vote purely to further a long-term objective. In the few swing-states voters ought to consider the possible consequences of their actions and should normally avoid quixotic gestures in favour of the common good. On the other hands if the preference for a third-party no-hoper is so strongly felt that you are unconcerned with the common good you have the right to vote for any old fool you like.

Richard

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 08:58 AM

"His (Nader's) daughter became a very successful academic, and this I think is no coincidence."

Ralph Nader has a love child?

Richard pointed out what I would have--there are no leftists in government. There are a handful (and I do mean on two hands, max) of House reps who are left of center, but as Richard points out, they aren't running the government (the executive branch does that, remember?)

"Finally, GUEST, Nader has "accomplished more genuine change for the better than all the politicians presently serving in our nation's capital combined." Come on! Some of these people worked on Civil Rights, on Medicare, on social programs of all kinds, created the endowments for the Arts and Humanities, etc, etc."

You know Nerd, it is becoming increasingly apparent that you don't know much about government, politics, current events, or recent history.

No one on the list of people you mention--not one of those politicians--has been involved in anything that rises to the level of change that has been brought about through the efforts of Ralph Nader. Not one.

It is the Members of Congress duty to work on Medicare, social programs, create endowments, etc. as that is their business.

It is another thing entirely to work outside the system to change the system, which is what Ralph Nader did. And THAT is why Nader rises so much higher than the rest. He brought about authentic, meaningful, important changes and none of the people you mention has been able to do that.

If you want change in Washington, elect someone who knows how to bring it on, not someone who makes you feel better because they redecorate the West Wing in a way that suits you better than the former tenant's taste in decor.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Big Mick
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 06:08 PM

Our GUEST makes some pretty good comments, but ..... and it is a big but .... thinks that the enemy is the Democratic Party. I admit begrudgingly that I admire the progressive stance, but I believe that if one followed her path, we would end up with a more conservative government and further away from the goals she wants to reach. Perfect examples? Nader cut his teeth on consumer protections. Due to a lack of cohesiveness and common ground coalitions, we have actually moved further in the hole than we ever have been. The environment is under worse attack now than ever, even after all these years of activism. Civil liberties are curtailed in ways they never have been before. This is the danger in this philosophy. In order for progressive minded people to form an effective coalition and advance their causes, they must seek to find the issues/allies they can agree enough with to form that coalition. Otherwise they will continue to split us just enough to win.

GUEST, I understand and even admire your position. But I think your inability to understand the nature of coalition building and finding areas to agree on, is dangerous and will doom us to another four years. And unlike you, I think that is very dangerous. We must defeat this man, or at least take away his perceived "mandate" by taking a number of seats in Congress.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: RichardP
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 06:50 PM

Both GUEST and Mick have gone part way to recognising only part of my points.

GUEST is right in recognising the difference between the executive and the legislature. However he should also have recognised that the names he referenced are not only in the legislature, but they are in the legislative minority.

At least as important as who is voted into the White House is who is voted into the majority in each chamber. In those elections you are much closer to true democracy. In house elections you get remarkably close to everyones vote being equal. The senate is peculiarly uneven {How many Californian votes equate to one Alaskan vote?}. But even Senate elections are such that most people's vote makes a real contribution to the general election result.

Will the Dem grassroots elect a Democrat Congress?

Richard

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 06:56 PM

As a matter of curosity, what, exactly, has Nader done in 30+ years of activism other than to get the Corvair off of the streets? What legislation has he sponsored, laws gotten passed, wars ended, etc.? Somewhere close to the number of positive accomplishments of Louis Farakan, David Duke or Jane Fonda?

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 07:11 PM

Richard,

I think there is a basic difference between how Americans and British people refer to government. From my perspective, a legislator is in the government, not the opposition to the government. We don't have such a thing. We vote for the individual, not the party, and Chakha Fattah was personally elected to congress, as a member of the government of the United States. He is in the minority party right now, but that doesn't change his status.

GUEST, you're making it pretty apparent that

1) you are a blowhard with a hardon for Nader

and

2) you're kind of a Jerk.

statements like this:

It is the Members of Congress duty to work on Medicare, social programs, create endowments, etc. as that is their business.

show how little YOU know about our government. None of these things would exist if not for legislators who thought of them, crafted the language, argued them, and voted on them. They are the creative work of legislators, not some pre-ordained fate that would have happened anyway. There is no constitutional imperative to provide health insurance, any social programs, or arts funding, or for that matter consumer safety laws. Legislators do it because it is their moral duty, and because we the people want them to, not because "it is their business." Many go into government IN ORDER to do this.

Congress is a team effort. Even though you personally don't know what each legislator has contributed to each law, the fact is that the country has changed FAR MORE based on the actions of our congress than based on the actions of Ralph Nader.

So we should kiss Nader's ass because he went the long way around and did effected change from outside the government? Answer me this: if it's so much better for him to working from outside, then why should I vote for him for President?

Sorry, Laura Nader is Ralph's younger sister, not his daughter. Guess I'm not in the Nader fan club or I would have had all that straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 08:13 PM

Just some legislation passed because Nader got it through:

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act

Consumer Product Safety Act

Freedom of Information Act

As the nation's premier consumer advocate, he founded Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), the Center for Auto Safety, Public Citizen, Center for Women's Policy Studies, Connecticut Citizen's Action Group, the Disability Rights Center, the Pension Rights Center and the Multinational Monitor magazine.

It is Nader's doing, more than anyone else's, that the federal bureaucracy includes an Environmental Protection Agency, an Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and a Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Nader is responsible for the existence of automobiles that have seat belts, padded dashboards, air bags, non-impaling steering columns, and gas tanks that don't readily explode when the car gets rear-ended. He is therefore responsible for the existence of some millions of drivers and passengers who would otherwise be dead. Because of Nader, baby foods are no longer spiked with MSG, kids' pajamas no longer catch fire, tap water is safer to drink than it used to be, diseased meat can no longer be sold with impunity, and dental patients getting their teeth x-rayed wear lead aprons to protect their bodies from dangerous zaps.

We've all heard the argument before, in one form or another, that Nader put Bush in the White House, and no one but Nader (not Gore, not the Democrats, not the millions of voters who voted for Bush) is responsible for the Bush presidency.

But for a number of reasons there is no way to calculate the impact of Nader's candidacy then or now. We can say that democracy has never been defined as a two-party system, even in this damaged republic where the Left was destroyed almost a century ago. We can also say that discouraging the number of candidates and parties (if we must have political clubs) is the practice of dictators and not of free peoples.

Ralph Nader's central thesis is that corporate influence on lawmakers is a greater danger to democracy than a second Bush term. There are many people who agree with that assessment.

There is no need for Nader supporters, of which I am one, to avoid the fact that Ralph acted badly in the last several weeks of the 2000 campaign. He shouldn't have campaigned in swing states, especially since he had told so many supporters that he wouldn't. Nader made some serious mistakes, and Gore made far more serious ones, and a rational analysis of the 2000 election requires acknowledgment of the deficiencies of both candidates as well as both of their virtues.

None of those facts, however, contradicts the fact that Nader was articulating the frustration and pain of millions of Democrats who felt abandoned like never before by the presidential nominee of their party, and that Nader was raising vital issues such as poverty, corporate influence on government, and the drug war which were completely absent from the Gore and Bush campaigns. Nader's errors in 2000 may tarnish his credibility, but he is still a towering moral figure in American politics whose actual accomplishments outstrip those of most elected officials.

So I hope that answers your question, artbrooks, since you apparently are having a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between Nader and Louis Farakhan for Nader and David Duke.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 08:28 PM

Oh? So Nader was in the US Congress and proposed the laws that created these bodies and regulations. I never realized that.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:24 AM

In fairness, GUEST is right that Nader was a significant force in creating those good programs he talked about.

However, none of it would be law without Congress.

To say, "Nader accomplished more than Congress" is absurd. Most of his accomplishments he accomplished only because Congress helped him do so.

Also, to say "Congresspeople's accomplishments count for less because it is their business to accomplish things," which is what GUEST said in his post of 11 Mar 04 - 08:58 AM, is absurd. By these standards, anyone has accomplished more than a Congressperson!

Finally, GUEST likes to redefine the terms of an argument so that he always wins. Two examples:

"There are no leftists in government. There are a handful (and I do mean on two hands, max) of House reps who are left of center, but as Richard points out, they aren't running the government (the executive branch does that, remember?)

So from one sentence to the next, the question has gone from "are there any leftists in government?" to "are there leftists in the executive branch, which runs the government?" Change the question after you ask it and my right answer becomes wrong. Big deal.

And by the way, GUEST, the executive branch does NOT run the government. No one branch "runs" the government. That's the whole point of having branches. Honestly, are you from some other country that has a different system? Why don't you know this sixth grade citizenship lesson?   

Second example:

First you said that:

Nader "accomplished more genuine change for the better than all the politicians presently serving in our nation's capital combined."

Then when in answer to your stupid challenge I mention some leftists who, no matter what your twisted logic can come up with, ARE in the government, you first change the rules as I pointed out above, discounting them because they're in the wrong branch of government, and then say:

"No one on the list of people you mention--not one of those politicians--has been involved in anything that rises to the level of change that has been brought about through the efforts of Ralph Nader. Not one."

Once again, first you claimed that Nader had done more than ALL OF THE CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT COMBINED, then claim you are proven right by making a claim that NO SINGLE LEFTIST has done more than he has.

Even if you are right about no single leftist (which I will not concede as yet, though it is possible) you are wrong about Nader having done more than the whole government combined.

Sorry GUEST, your rhetorical mumbo-jumbo won't work on me.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 03:39 AM

I guess if nobody can tell me what Kerry has done to improve the lives of Americans, maybe its because he's done nothing.

This is for the common good?

d

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 06:33 AM

That's an interesting distinction Nerd made about the meaning of the expression "the government" in the USA which is different from how it's used in other places (I think the UK is pretty typical on this). In a way it's an institutional equivalent to the old anarchist slogan "whoever you vote for, the government always gets in".

RichardP's level-headed summary of the situation, pointing out that for most of your country this issue, about how voting for Nader helps Bush, is not in any way relevant. Unless you are voting in a state where the vote is close enough for the result to swing from one party to another, there is no reason why anyone should feel any obligation to vote tactically. It's not exactly difficuly, but so many people seem to miss the point. (They do it here as well when it comes to analogous though different distortions in our electoral system.)

Unless - and here is the point people should surely be focusing their attention on - people cooperate in different part of your country to make the system work more democratically.

The sensible way to respond to this distortion in your electoral system, which makes it virtually pointless for most people to vote at all in the Presidential election, is to start organising more effective ways of pairing your vote with someone in another part of the country.

If all the would-be Nader voters in swing states were to arrange a pairing arrangement with someone in a non-swing state who would otherwise be voting for Kerry, that really could make a significant difference, helping get rid of Bush, and upping the overall vote for Nader across the country as a marker fro the future. If you'd done it last time Bush would be a forgotten footnote in history.

But instead, if this thread is any evidence, you plan to keep on cutting each other's throats. And everyone else's.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 11:20 AM

The main problem, IMO, is the mainstream and "practical" sorts of people, or the "Anybody But Bush" contingent, are limiting their horizons to a new president. Period. They aren't willing to lock under the Kerry rock, to examine how we got Bush in office to begin with--they just want Bush out and a Democrat--any damn Democrat will do--in.

The rest of us, whether we are supporting Nader, or whether we are Dean, Kucininch, Mosley Braun, or Edwards supporters who are still undecided as to the best way to move forward now that Kerry has the nomination sewn up, are being villified by the "Anybody But Dean" camp for not jumping on the Kerry bandwagon RIGHT NOW.

Which will, of course, blow up in the "Anybody But Dean" movement's faces. Guaranteed. Anytime you have one really moralistic group of people trying to dictate to the rest of us what we "should" do, you are steering the ship straight into the reef.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 12:22 PM

McGrath,

the dfference between the British "The Government" and the American "The Government" is not merely rhetorical. It arises because the executive branch and legislative branch of government are far more separate here. Here the party which controls the legislature does not appoint a "Prime Minister" to run the administration, so in most years we could not have for example a "Labour Government."   We are as likely to have a Republican Presidential administration and a Democratic Legislature; indeed it quite usual here for the legislature and the presidency to be in opposition, which cannot by definition happen in many parliamentary systems.

Every two years there are elections in which some congressional seats usually change hands, and the makeup of the legislature therefore changes at the start and in the middle of every presidential term. Therefore, Bush may start out with a Republican legislature, then have to deal with a Democratic legislature, then revert again (if he serves a second term). There are also, as in Britain, two houses of congress, one of which represents people directly (one congressperson for every so many citizens) and one of which represents the States (two Senators for each State). These also may be dominated by different parties. In this system, it would be very clumsy to refer to "the government" as a way to generalize about both the presidency and the congress. Throw the Supreme Court into the mix and things become even more confusing. If the President is a Democrat, the House is Republican, the Senate democratic, and the Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees, which is "the government" and which "the opposition?"

Because of this, we refer to the presidential administration as "the Administration" and to the two houses of congress as "Congress" or "The Hill," etc. We refer to the House of Representatives as "The House" (or sometimes wrongly as "congress") and the Senate as "The Senate." But we do not talk about "the Government" and "the opposition." If someone is in congress, he is in the government.

Right now, we have a very unusual circumstance, which looks superficially like a parliamentary system: the president and both houses of Congress are dominated by the same party. Thus Richard was left with the impression that we have a "ruling party" and a "loyal opposition." But this is a temporary circumstance and does not reflect the way our government usually works.

GUEST--your post of 12 Mar 04 - 11:20 AM was essentially correct (are you the same GUEST?) I would not be a Kerry supporter except that I feel we are in a national emergency. I am particularly concerned about the environment, which I think may be irreparably destroyed by four more years of Bush. So once he sewed up the nomination, I gave Kerry my support.

I think if a more progressive candidate splits the left-leaning vote and we get four more years of Bush it will be a disaster. Except for this, I'd say, "what the hell, four more years of Bush may energize the progressives," which is logic that usually doesn't work, but what the hell? This time I just think it's too dangerous to do that.

But as I said before, I respect the rights and the reasoning of people who question JK. That is, until they start making ridiculous and grandiose claims, and changing the terms of the debate in mid-discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Frankham
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:41 PM

OK Dianavan, here's what Kerry has done. He protested against the Vietnam War when it was found out to be a lost cause. This in the
face of Johnson's stubborness.

He led the effort to stop drilling in
the Alaskan wilderness.

He blew the whistle on the Bank of Credit and
Commerce which financed the drug trafficking Contras during the Reagan years.

In Massachusetts, he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act which would deny Federal benefits to same-sex couples. He said, "I am going to vote against this bill...because I believe that this debate is fundamentally ugly, and it is fundamentally political....This legislation was meant to devide Americans. If it
truly were a Defense of Marriage act it would expand the learning experience for would-be husbands and wives."

In 1997, he was the only one of five original sponsors of the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act to provide for full public financing of Congressional elections. This measure would take out special interest money for House and Senate campaigns.

He was also a backer of McCain/Feingold.

He did all of these things with courage when it was politically disadvantageous for him to do it.

Kerry has guts.

This might not have helped you personally but it did a lot for our country.

In the meantime, everyone is becoming more aware of the Radical Right-wing Revolution that has made itself apparent in the government. The only way to take back America from this pseudo-religious para-military takeover is to stop supporting Nader and kicking the front-runner who is nothing like George W. Bush. To suggest that he is... just plain stupid.

Nader has been a great Public Citizen in his consumer protection but
as a politician he is a failure because he will keep Bush in office
for another four years which will be disastrous for our country.

Alan Greenspan needs to be retired as well.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:51 PM

I appreciate that about the US system, Nerd - but the impaqct it has on how people use the term "the government" hadn't really clicked. And I'm sure the reverse applies for the way the term is used in countries where the system is more like in tye UK.

This means the term conveys a different meaning in different political systems. I imagine "Down with the Government" might sound quite extreme to Americans. In the UK at most times being against the Government is a majority position, with nothing extreme about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 03:08 PM

Exactly, McGrath. Here many people would likely say "Down with the Administration," but "down with the government" is much more radical.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 04:52 PM

Yeah, Kerry is all for campaign finance reform until it applies to him. He isn't accepting any federal money, so he doesn't have to live by the McCain Feingold act.

Nothing hypocritical about that. I know, I know. He HAS to do it because Bush is doing it.

Except you know, if that is the true state of affairs, the entire country is being run by crooks, Kerry and the Democrats are just as big crooks and hypocrites as Bush and the Republicans.

And then there is that other Democratic end run around the McCain Feingold act--the 527 organizations, like MoveOn.org, Media Fund, et al.

To think of the millions and millions and millions of dollars these crooked white men are spending, just to get us to pay attention to them.

Imagine what my inner city school district could do with some of that money. Or the wage increases and benefits it could buy for the impoverished health care workers in my mother's nursing home.

Just think.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Frankham
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 12:37 PM

I think that the asssesment that the whole country including Democrats are crooks is so off the mark that it needs to be addressed.

Lobbying is a fact of life. I don't care if it's Ralph Nader or the NRA. It should be curbed but Bush isn't going to do it. Kerry will
try. His record in the Senate shows that. Unfortunately, it's the
only way a president can get elected today. There is no evidence
to the contrary.

It's a case of the disgruntled rads throwing the baby out with the
bath water. They bitch and moan and don't vote and someone like
Bush slides in. Or they support Nader and undermine any chance that
the Democrats have because they equate Dems with the Republicans.
They just haven't done their homework and they are a kind of reactionary. A pro-active view of the election process would be if
they listened and read what the candidates had to say and based
their decisions on that instead of taking their marbles and going home.

If they don't believe any candidate at his/her word then the Bushes will continue to run the country. And they can take the responsibility for that.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 12:52 PM

I disagree. As most political progressives today see things, we are living in an era of unprecedented greed, graft, and corruption. It is all around us, everywhere we look. Our public institutions are being carved up and raffled off to the highest "private sector" bidders.

Our social safety net has been outsourced by both Democrats and Reublicans. Kerry will no more attempt to put an end to the rule of the nation by K Street lobbying than Bush will. Kerry's record in the Senate DOES NOT SHOW a record of ending political graft and corruption, it shows a record of waffling about it, followed by a cave-in to his special interests. His record as a presidential candidate in this regard, is abysmal.

When Dean eschewed federal financing, he at least had the guts to stand up to the Washington lobby, and raised his money the old fashioned way--by earning it honestly from voters, $25, $50, and $100 a pop. Kerry, on the other hand, stole his wife's checkbook and mortgaged the mansion just to stay in the game.

God Frankham, I can't believe how disingenuous you are being in your support of Kerry.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 05:22 PM

Did anyone say that all Americans were crooks, Frankham? I missed that.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 05:45 PM

Atole his wife's checkbbook?

My impression was that she was happy to give it to him.; Are you drawing conclusions from facts, or fantasies here?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 06:00 PM

I used a colorful euphemism for "his wife is helping fund the campaign" and little poetic license, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Gareth
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 07:09 PM

"But instead, if this thread is any evidence, you plan to keep on cutting each other's throats. And everyone else's."

Now take a deep breath, sober up, get off yer high 'orse, stop trying to proove how radical you are and repeat slowly and clearly :-

The People united, shall never be defeated

Kerry may not be perfect, he may not be ideal, but when you consider the alternative can you sit back in your seats and say that you would not work for a democratic victory ?

Gareth

PS This type of petty secetarian squables gave the UK 19 F******G Years of Thatcher and Major !

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 08:05 PM

I'm sure that Mr. Kerry would be willing to use his wife's money, with her permission, but he apparently cannot legally do so. More here.