BS: Anybody But Bush?

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 08:54 AM

Not to worry brucie. It started out as a political thread. Now it is a bash the anon guest thread. Which means the discussion is over.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 12:32 AM

Sorry. Seems I phoced up. This is a political thread and I mistook it for something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 12:29 AM

Cast your aspersions on the sea, and they shall be returned to you tenfold. Pretty good, huh, for an ad for homonyms?

Wow, ya gotta love Latin for Beginners.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 12:22 AM

Break!

Years and years ago, perhaps in junior high school, one of my teachers used to recite the Reader's Digest good vocabulary rule: "use a word ten times and it is yours."

However,
ad hominem has been used ad nauseum in this thread. GUEST, here are a few others to sprinkle into your discussion:
defamatory, malicious, vilifying, reviling, disparaging, derogatory. For two word complaints, try "cast aspersions."

Okay. Back to the discussion. . .

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: John P
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 11:59 PM

Guest,
I started to read the article, and stopped after several paragraphs when I got sick of the unsupported suppositions about what voters think, what "the media" thinks, and why things have happened the way they have. While I support the world view the article was putting forth, the writing and the logic were drivel.

As are yours. No, I am not stooping to ad hominem attack. I'm saying that your writing and your logic are drivel because you don't respond to a lot that gets said, you are consistently condescending and insulting, you seem to think that no one else has thought any of these issues through for themselves, and you post anonymously. I know everyone is sick of complaints about anonymous posters, but you really have to be put in the same camp as anonymous letters to the editor (which don't get printed) or crack phone callers (who get hung up on). Real people who want to be taken seriously in real discussions, at least by me, use their names. I don't really care what forum or medium is being used. I can learn as much listening to the neighbor's dog bark as I can arguing with someone who doesn't know how to debate and hasn't the face to sign their name.

The reason this thread has lasted so long is because you acted sort of like you might have something worthwhile to say, in spite of the basic problem of your posting anonymously. I think you've pretty much blown any good will you may have accrued, though, by being sort of a jerk.

I'm hanging up now.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Frankham
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 04:04 PM

Ghost,

"Anyone But Bush" is a slogan based in fear and in the past, rather than a vision for the future."

This statement doesn't hold water. The future with Bush is entirely
clear. He will wreck the economy and civil liberties and undermine
education, the environment, health and welfare and increase the drug
trade. He will pull us into other Bush Wars and sacrifice more of
our young men and women in the armed services. He will support the
special interests of big business such as Enron. (Where is Tom Lay?)
The future is abundantly clear and the vision that Bush has is based
on fear. Anyone for a red alert? Watch out for Social Security when
it becomes traded on the Dow or Nasdaq. It could go the way of dot coms. Baby Boomers, beware.


The vision for the future is clear. With Bush is it bleak. With
Kerry, there's a chance. To see a vision for the future, go to
JohnKerry.com.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 03:21 PM

Oh, Don, you da manly man!! :>))

Well said.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 03:17 PM

Not only have I read the article, but I have downloaded it and printed it out. It's an excellent article and it bears repeated reading. Thank you for referring us to it, and if others have not read it, I highly recommend that they do. It's quite long, but it's well worth it. It comes very close to reflecting my own beliefs and it outlines the kind of world I would very much like to see.

But there are a few problems.

Every time I pick the article up to re-read passages of it, my immediate response to much of what it says is "Yes, exactly!" It paints a shining picture of what the world could be and should be. And then . . . I hear the strains of the Beatles singing "All You Need is Love." Well, I've been here before, GUEST. I wasn't just a kid during the Sixties, I was an adult. I'm familiar with the route.

I'm not so cynical that I believe this sort of world could not actually come about. However, I am not so naïve as to think that it is something, that can happen overnight, no matter who gets elected in November. And it's going to take a huge change in the thinking of a lot of people, and that change is definitely not going to happen between now and November. It's very idealistic. So? I'm very idealistic. In the precinct caucus I attended, although I knew full well that Kucinich didn't have much chance of being elected (for a whole list of reasons I could outline), he did come the closest to reflecting my own ideals, so I voted for him. You can't fault me for not following my ideals. Now, I wait to see what happens. After the Democratic Convention, I will be presented with a candidate who will run against Bush. Probably Kerry. I will vote for him.

I will not vote for Nader because 1) although I admire his work very much and have done so for years, I don't really think he would make an effective president; and 2) by voting for a candidate that I'm sure can't win, I would be throwing away a vote for Kerry, who would make an effective president and who could win. And in the wild and crazy possibility that Nader did win, I still don't think he'd make a very good president. He's most effective being a gadfly on the outside.

There is no one on the docket or even on the horizon that reflects the ideals outlined in the Tikkun article. Not even Ralph Nader. If any of that is ever to happen (and I passionately hope that it does, and soon), the Bush administration is the major block. One must do the best one can, so I will vote for the Democratic candidate.

"All you need is love?" The Beatles were wrong. You need brains, too.

So don't give me any guff about not having thought the matter over pretty damned thoroughly.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 03:03 PM

Guest-
Which issues do you think we'd be better off on with W as prez? I wasn't a fanatic until well after the election/appointment.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 03:00 PM

To quote the friend I mentioned earlier--a day or two ago--, when he heard of Nixon's victory, he said, "Once again the American people get what they deserve. But why do I have to keep getting what they deserve?"

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 02:51 PM

artbrooks, I'm not disputing the historical facts. What I'm saying is, nearly exactly half of all the voters in 2000 voted for Bush.
Or are the "Anybody But Bush" supporters suggesting we ignore that fact, shut up and vote for Kerry without debating issues, strategies, or tactics, and hope for the best?

With half the voters in 2000 voting against the Democrats, I'm not willing to just shut up and vote for the Democrat. Without debate, without discussion, without vetting the issues, Kerry stands a very good chance of losing, due to the arrogance and presumptions of the "Anybody But Bush" fanatics.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 02:26 PM

Short term, yes I would agree that any cure is better than none.

Unless the cure kills the patient, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: artbrooks
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 02:24 PM

As a matter of historical fact, Mr. Gore received over half a million more votes than did Mr. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 02:21 PM

I'm a fervent ABB believer. I'm not mightily impressed by Kerry, and I think that Nader (with whom I've had professional dealings) is a monomaniacal zealot, but I'd vastly prefer either to what we have now.

If you have cancer, it's not easy to dispassionately consider all the possible cures--and any of them is apt top be better than the disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 02:09 PM

A better question to be asking, IMO, is how did a candidate like George W Bush end up with half the votes in the last election?

In other words, how much has voting for the lesser of two evils contributed to the current mess we find ourselves in.

So long as we just keep voting like that, we'll keep getting the government we deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 01:56 PM

GUEST: You said something very important: You referred to Bush as an easy target. Indeed, he is. Why would that be, and how much did he contribute?

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Cruiser
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 01:30 PM

"When the ship is sinking, the smart thing to do is to plug the leak first. Then you can argue 'til hell freezes over about your port of call."

Good phrase Don Firth.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 01:18 PM

So Don, what did you think of the article in Tikkun?

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 01:11 PM

GUEST, you're a real piece of work.

Up there a bit, you chide people for "stooping to an ad hominem attack." And just above, you say, "I guess that sort of discussion is beyond the abilities of some here, who just keep parroting the reactionary 'Anybody But Bush' mantra." That assumes, rather arrogantly I would say, that those who hold the "anybody but Bush" position have not thought the matter through. Not true! And it's ignorant and supercilious of you to keep insisting that this is so.

Have you ever met any Democrats? I have. Among a number of others, I've followed the activities of my local Congressional Representative, Jim McDermott, and believe me, when you say that there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, you don't know what you're talking about.

Granted, a large wad of Democrats tend to be pretty centrist, but that's a helluva lot better than far-right, and as long as there are progressives such as Jim McDermott and Dennis Kucinich in the party, we have someone working their tails off for us. If Kerry gets in, McDermott (and many others) will be on his back every inch of the way. And Kerry will listen. He'll have to. Bush, on the other hand, considers McDermott a traitor because before Bush launched his pre-emptive attack on Iraq, McDermott went there to see things for himself, and came back saying that he was unalterably opposed to the war. Bush won't listen to people like McDermott. Kerry will.

When the ship is sinking, the smart thing to do is to plug the leak first. Then you can argue 'til hell freezes over about your port of call.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 12:49 PM

The thread is continuing this long because you're trying to communicate and discuss intelligently, which is hardly ever the grounds for attack around here, as far as I can see. So folks are going out of their way top respond in spite of your anonymity. That doesn't make it any less malodourous, just being tolerated out of courtesy.

But what I don't quite get is why you think spending a vote on a non-starter of high principle is a good idea, as opposed to spending the same vote to influence the actual outcome. Seems to me you're trying to spend your vote to maximize benefit and minimize harm through the whole next Presidency. Throwing it after a virtuous but low-in-the-poll person like Dean or Kucinich is romantic but not realistic -- or am I wrong about that? How?

A

Is it just to register the intent, regardless of election?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 12:30 PM

And on the third hand, it could be this guest is fed up with ad hominem attacks on an easy target, instead of critical discussion of the issues.

And spare us all the lectures on anonymity. If people had that much trouble with my anonymity, the thread wouldn't active for long.

No, the trouble here is people are willing to discuss one solution, and one solution only: vote for Kerry.

I also have my doubts about "the vast majority of voters" being content with Kerry. That may eventually turn out to be the case, but right now, that is nothing but propagandistic hyperbole. A majority of voters isn't even content with Kerry right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 12:24 PM

On the other hand it is possible some who might be able to discuss it are unwilling to engage in discussion with narcissists and sardonic egocentrics.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 12:05 PM

So JohnP, your opinions on the article? For those of you who are unaware of what this thread is about, allow me to refresh your memories. The front cover of this month's Tikkun magazine (a bi-monthly magazine critiquing politics, culture, and society
from a Jewish perspective) challenges us to think about "Anybody But Bush: The Unbearable Lightness of Liberal Politics".

As I said, the article is long, complex, and thought-provoking.

I guess that sort of discussion is beyond the abilities of some here, who just keep parroting the reactionary "Anybody But Bush" mantra.

Sorry I dared mention it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 10:27 AM

Falls right in there with ECHELON.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 10:21 AM

SRS:

Thanks for the alert. THese guys are such sleaze!

Guest was also making a slightly different point, one that did have some merit, even if it sounded condescending. SOlutions to conditions are not simple, and the more focus you put on them the more effective your push (whatever its for) is going to be.

This assumes you can name the problem correctly in the first place, though.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 09:41 AM

P.S. GUEST--consider this more of the "writing on the wall," why "anybody but Bush" has to be in there to put a halt to this kind of stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 09:39 AM

Today a story has quietly appeared about what Bush, Cheney and Big Brother Ashcroft have been up to for quite a while. This comes from a news page that isn't a durable link so I'll post it so you can keep up with it:

AP: Privacy Protecting Programs Killed


March 15, 2004 02:52 AM EST

WASHINGTON - Two cutting-edge computer projects designed to preserve the privacy of Americans were quietly killed while Congress was restricting Pentagon data-gathering research in a widely publicized effort to protect innocent citizens from futuristic anti-terrorism tools.

As a result, the government is quietly pressing ahead with research into high-powered computer data-mining technology without the two most advanced privacy protections developed to police those terror-fighting tools.

"It's very inconsistent what they've done," said Teresa Lunt of the Palo Alto Research Center, head of one of the two government-funded privacy projects eliminated last fall.

Even members of Congress like Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who led the fight to restrict the Pentagon terrorism research, remain uncertain about the nature of the research or the safeguards. He won a temporary ban on using the tools against Americans on U.S. soil but wants to require the administration to give Congress a full description of all its data-mining research.

"We feel Congress is not getting enough information about who is undertaking this research and where it's headed and how they intend to protect the civil liberties of Americans," said Chris Fitzgerald, Wyden's spokesman.

The privacy projects were small parts of the Pentagon's Terrorism Information Awareness research.

The project was the brainchild of retired Adm. John Poindexter, who was driven from the Reagan administration in 1986 over the Iran-Contra scandal. Some 15 years later, he was summoned back by the Bush administration to develop data-mining tools for the fight against terrorism.

Poindexter's new software tools, far more powerful than existing commercial products, would have allowed government agents to quickly scan the private commercial transactions and personal health records of millions of Americans and foreigners for telltale signs of terrorist activity.

Partly to appease critics, Poindexter also was developing two privacy tools that would have concealed names on records during the scans. Only if agents discovered concrete evidence of terrorist activities would they have been permitted to learn the identities of the people whose records aroused suspicion.

One privacy project worked with Poindexter's Genisys program, which scanned government and commercial records for terrorist planning. The other was part of his Bio-ALIRT program, which scanned private health records for evidence of biological attacks.

Late last year, Congress closed Poindexter's office in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, in response to the uproar over its impact on privacy.

But Congress allowed some Poindexter projects, including some data-mining research, to be transferred to intelligence agencies. Congress also left intact similar data-mining research begun in the fall of 2002 by the Advanced Research and Development Activity, or ARDA, a little-known office that works on behalf of U.S. intelligence.

The research sponsored by ARDA, called Novel Intelligence from Massive Data, is so similar to some work done for Poindexter that Lunt offered to adapt her privacy protection software. ARDA and other agencies weren't interested because Congress had killed the original projects.

"When I went to talk to them, ARDA made clear they don't want to get into any area Congress doesn't want to fund," Lunt said.

It's not clear what, if any, privacy research is being done by ARDA or by the surviving remnants of Poindexter's program.

Last fall's Intelligence Authorization Act approved continued research on the type of powerful data-mining Poindexter envisioned but said "the policies and procedures necessary to safeguard individual liberties and privacy should occur concurrently with the development of these analytic tools, not as an afterthought."

ARDA said it obeys all privacy laws and hasn't given its researchers any government or private data, but it declined to say whether it is sponsoring any research on privacy protection.

Lunt, a former DARPA program manager, was developing privacy protection software for Poindexter's Genisys program. Her software shielded identities in the records the government reviewed, restricted each intelligence analyst to only the data he or she was authorized to see and created a permanent record to track cheaters.

Professor LaTanya Sweeney of Carnegie Mellon University was the principal researcher developing privacy protections for the Bio-ALIRT project. An early version of Bio-ALIRT was used to help protect President Bush's 2001 inauguration and the 2002 Olympics before Sweeney developed her privacy software.

She also presented her work last fall to officials of various agencies and said she was told they "might want to continue the work. But they came through with zero dollars."

The bio-surveillance system monitors symptoms of patients at emergency rooms and doctors' offices and such less-obvious sources as increases in grocery store orange juice sales and in school absenteeism in hopes of detecting a biological attack. Names are concealed until evidence suggests victims need to be treated.

Sweeney said DARPA paid to develop the privacy software but didn't pay for a public field test. "The tool just sits there unused," she said. "People think they have to sacrifice privacy to get safety. And it doesn't have to be that way."

What you wanna bet there's a lot more going on with this story in the Bush White House?

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: John P
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 09:25 AM

Guest,
Too bad you didn't respond to the part of Thomas the Rhymer's post that speaks directly to the subject of the thread, the part where he said:
"We are voting for the man that is so popular, that mainstream Americans (the vast majority of voters) will be more or less content with him. ... This is the cumbersome voice of the people... speaking very clearly."

If I may add to this: As much as I would like to see Nader or Kucinich elected, achieving that would mean that more than half of the country would feel completely unrepresented in the White House. I am probably farther left than either Nader or Kucinich, and I would revel in having either of them for a president. But it would be undemocratic, since a vast majority of the populace is somewhere to the right of me, and of Nader. In order to represent the country in the best way possible, we should elect a centrist president. Kerry is much closer to that than Bush or Nader.

I felt that you were being somewhat condescending when you said:
"I recommend that people stop voting for the lesser of two evils, for starters. I recommend that people start contributing to the public debate and saying these things in places where politicians hear them.

"Raise and debate these issues in public and in private. Public demonstrations. On cable access channels. Talk radio. Precinct caucuses. City council meetings. Testifying before state legislatures. Writing letters to the editors.   And ESPECIALLY talking to friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, people you stand in line with at the grocery store.

"START TALKING ABOUT THE PROBLEMS AND THE SOLUTIONS."

I do most of those things already. I can't really start talking about the problems, since I never stopped talking about them. There seems to be an implication in your post that people who aren't with you don't really care about the issues and aren't doing anythng about them. If I'm reading something into your words that isn't there, I apologize. But with my apology comes a request that you take more care to be more clear about who you are talking to and why you are saying what you're saying. You sound like you know the answer and everyone else is blind. If you don't really feel that way, you should pay more attention to the tone of your words.

And I'm not voting for the lesser of two evils -- I am voting against a really big, dangerous, deadly evil. Returning the country to the center seems like a prudent course to me, even though I am way far left.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 08:43 AM

No need to apologize for stooping to an ad hominem attack, when it appears the argument is going against you Thomas the Rhymer. And you are entitled to your opinion, silly though I find it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 01:17 AM

Hows abouts "anybody but guest?"

Sorry guest... I think you are a flame. a troller. an insincere troublemaker. i believe your adgenda is dead set on getting bush reelected, and you are probably being paid to disrupt the move towards Kerry. I do not sense democracy in your posts, and your elitism has the same foul aroma that the last 'election' (read 'appointment') had.

We are not voting for 'anybody but Bush'...

We are voting for the man that is so popular, that mainstream Americans (the vast majority of voters) will be more or less content with him. This is all about ending Bush's radical presidency, and restoring the pride we once had in our democracy. An intrenched demagogue is not easy to uproot. We'll simply have to pull together... and the only way to do this, in a democracy, is to relax our polar tendencies, and lean to the middle. The American public is on to Bush's antics, and splitting the massive opposition to 'George' is 'George's' only hope.

I repeat... Kerry is anybody but Bush. This is not some blind stab in the dark... by an ignorant and stupid 'liberal conspiracy'... This is the cumbersome voice of the people... speaking very clearly.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 12:30 AM

...but I liked the bonobo better than I like the chimp.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 12:28 AM

I think we did...

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 12:02 AM

How about Chongo Chimp? Let's put an ape in the White House!

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 11:28 PM

I reckon any vote for Kerry is a vote against Bush; and that's the first order of business. You have to stop digging the hole before you start thinking about climbing out. That means changing the guy at the top. Sometimes what is effective and what is most "right" are the same choice; more often they are not and you have to maximise your effectiveness while doing the most good possible.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 11:23 PM

I hear you, Clint. But, there never hasn't been an election that wasn't crucial. My feeling is much like yours, however. It's one thing to say it on the computer, and another to do it in real life. I think I'd be as nervous as you. (In fact, I am.)

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 11:18 PM

"Voting for the lesser of evils means, ultimately, voting for evil."

That's always been my argument, but I feel like this is a special case. Maybe I'm losing my nerve.

And I just now realized this is the same dilemma my Grandfather faced in 1932. Grandpa Keller was a Socialist blacksmith, a Eugene Debs/Norman Thomas socialist, and a man of principle. He always voted straight Socialist.

But he also knew the country couldn't take any more of Herbert Hoover, and practically speaking, that meant Roosevelt had to win; there was no chance Norman Thomas would ever be president, and a vote for Thomas wouldn't do anything to take us out of the depression. He didn't know whether to be an idealist or a pragmatist, whether to vote for the best man or the best man possible to elect.

The funny part is I don't know how he voted; the old man always voted by secret ballot.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 10:26 PM

Jaysus, Amos, now you say this. So, Mickey Mouse doesn't have a shot at it? Or did you just mean real animals and NOT cartoon animals. Please be careful how you answer, because your statement is a revelation to me, and I could get really phoced up if you don't give your response deep consideration. Like since when? OK, ya gotta be American born, over forty and a woman with big, you knows, like on Bay Watch. So how did Bush get in? I think you're trollin'. I am NOT gonna bite. Nice try, fellow.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 10:01 PM

I don't think animals can get elected. It's unconstitutional. This country is for hoomings, ya know!! :>) If you want to be an animal here, you have to accept a lower position: pet, chattel, food chain, or pest subject to extermination. There are a few openings left in marginal areas where you can live unmoslested, but not many.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 09:44 PM

Get the cat to be VP. Of course, that'll mean shutting down the game at which I never score more than 30%. Stoopid phocin' cats.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 09:08 PM

I hereby nominate the groundhog who lives on RangerSteve's property. He would make a better president than either Bush or Kerry, and RangerSteve will have to leave him alone once he is an official candidate.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 07:53 PM

I agree with GUEST. A friend of mine phoned one evening and he was clearly under the influence--lots of it. He called to say that Nixon had been elected. I asked who he'd voted for (we both worked for Eugene McCarthy in the 67-8 primaries. He said he'd voted for McCarthy. I said I wasn't aware that McCarthy was on the ticket. He said he wrote him in. I asked if he felt he'd thrown his vote away. He said no. He said, "I didn't want either one that WAS on the ticket, so I voted for the one I did want. He did that the following election also. In his words, McCarthy didn't win in the country, but he did win in my friend's house. That's democracy. Enough people do that, and the Dems and Reps will wake up. Voting for the lesser of evils means, ultimately, voting for evil.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST,clint keller
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 07:45 PM

In my bitter old age I'm getting to where I think there's something pathological about anyone who'd run for president and the only choice you get is beween two evils. I'm still hoping to be proved wrong.

There's a story from the early 1900's:

"How didja vote, Ed?"

"Well, I was goin along, and a fella come up and give me two dollars to vote Democrat...."

"So you voted Democrat?"

",,,and then another fella come up and give me three dollars to vote Republican..."

"Oh, so you voted Republican?"

"No, I voted Democrat because they was less corrupt."

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 12:31 PM

I recommend that people stop voting for the lesser of two evils, for starters. I recommend that people start contributing to the public debate and saying these things in places where politicians hear them.

Raise and debate these issues in public and in private. Public demonstrations. On cable access channels. Talk radio. Precinct caucuses. City council meetings. Testifying before state legislatures. Writing letters to the editors.   And ESPECIALLY talking to friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, people you stand in line with at the grocery store.

START TALKING ABOUT THE PROBLEMS AND THE SOLUTIONS.

Voting for the lesser of two evil candidates in the presidential election is NOT going to fix or solve any of our problems.

Creating a new paradigm, that is what is needed. Organizing at the local, grassroots level to do anything that contributes to the public good, whether it be a community garage sale for funds for community gardens, or what have you. Drag everyone you know into the public square, kicking and screaming if necessary.

Get out of your cars, your houses, your workplaces and mix it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: van lingle
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 11:16 AM

Actually I do get it, guest. The situation that Barney Frank succinctly describes is upon us and I think his solution is correct. The deregulation movement that really gained momentum under Reagan is moving the wealth of this country toward a privileged few. Mr. Frank's call for more government involvement is, short of a violent overthrow of the government, the only thing that's going to reverse this trend. This is not a new idea. It's been a pretty standard reaction to Reaganism by liberals as we watch Coporate America dismantle the New Deal. Unfortunately, the American electorate is far too disinterested to support a fringe canidate with enough courage to try and reform things at this point. I guess things will have to get a lot worse before some kind of change can occur. (What do you recommend?)

BUT...if you need a reason to subscribe to the Anybody But Bush philosphy, and IMO there are plenty, his potential for packing the court with conservatives is plenty good enough for me. vl

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: John P
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 10:26 AM

What makes anyone think that the internet will be more useful than anyythng else in organizing an extremely large group of people? Are you going to figure out how to take over their computers and force them to go to the websites where they could take part in an organization? I am reasonably politically active and aware, and I know Dean was using the internet to his advantave, and I have never visited a political web site and am not likely to do so. I am not likely to join some single-minded organization, especially if it means using my limited internet time to do so.

I did attend the local Democratic caucus a few weeks ago, and was elected to represent my precinct in the district caucus next month. One thing I came away from the caucus with is the overwhlelming sense that "Anybody But Bush" is what is driving the Democratic party right now. Attendance at the caucus was about ten times what it has ever been in the past. I don't think many of those people (with the exception of a few idiotically fanatic Dean supporters) were there to support any one candidate. We were all there to try to decide who had the best chance of beating Bush, and to encourage each other to vote for whoever the Democrats put forward. If there is any grassroots movement going on right now, it is exactly "Anybody But Bush".

It has been a long time since I voted for a candidate. I vote in every election, but I am almost always voting against the candidate I consider to be the worst of two evils. As far as I can tell, any candidate who has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected to national office is already corrupt and probably has stands on some issues that I find abhorrent. But there is usually a worse choice. In the current presidential race, I think Dennis Kucinich has the best platform. I agree with almost everything he says. But, of course, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. Neither, unfortunately, does Nader. So I'll vote against Bush in whatever way looks like it will have the most chance of achieving my goal of removing him from office.

Oddly, the only state level candidate I've voted for (as opposed to voting against people) in recent years was a Republican. Ralph Munro was the Secretary of State here in Washington for many years, and as far as I could tell he was an honest and dedicated public servant who always acted ethically and with a great deal of personal integrity. I chose to reward that attitude and behavior rather casting a knee-jerk votie for whoever his Democratic opponents were.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 10:24 AM

Van Lingle, you just don't seem to get it. My kids ARE growing up in a country with a fucked Supreme Court.

When is the last time you heard a politician saying they wanted to go to Washington to help the poor and working poor people of this country? When is the last time you heard a politician say they wanted to go to Washington to restore the budget cuts made to our New Deal institutions, and provide a basic standard of living and human rights to the poor and working poor people of this nation, who contribute mightily to the wealth of the few, for very little in return, including the ability to survive from day to day?

What none of you seems to be able to take on board here is that there are places in the US that currently rival New Delhi in terms of standard of living.

Are the Democrats doing anything about that? Oh, right. They are going to take away the latest give away to the ric. That won't even restore last years draconian budget cuts.

How about getting some action on the draconian budget cuts from the Reagan era? The Clinton era?

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 10:16 AM

Here is an example of what I'm talking about, an excerpt from today's Washington Post editorial by David Broder. He is talking about what Rep. Barney Frank has been saying in speeches lately:

While most of those in office or seeking office suggest that tweaking the economy with modest measures such as more job training or new tax incentives will revive the great job-growing engines of the 1990s, Frank offers a more sweeping and disturbing hypothesis.

A fundamental shift has occurred, he says. "The ability of the private sector in this country to create wealth is now outstripping its ability to create jobs. The normal rule of thumb by which a certain increase in the gross domestic product would produce a concomitant increase in jobs does not appear to apply."

That is the basic reason, he suggests, for this jobless recovery -- why month after month the economic growth figures spell boom, and month after month unemployment remains stubbornly high and more thousands become so discouraged they give up the search for work.

Frank buttresses his argument by pointing out that the boom in corporate profits and the rise in the stock market have been accompanied not just by joblessness but by a decline in real wages, a falloff in private health insurance and a rise in income inequality.

All this suggests something more is at work than just bad luck or bad timing -- a shift requiring a fundamental re-examination of the available options.

Why is this boom leaving so many worse off? Frank's catalogue of causes is a familiar one: globalization and its handmaiden, the outsourcing of jobs to low-wage countries; the weakening of unions; the tilt of the tax system in favor of the wealthy investor. And Frank endorses the regular catalogue of remedies urged by Kerry and other mainstream Democrats. They include tougher trade rules, restoration of union organizing and bargaining rights and steps to make the tax system more progressive. Like everyone else, including Bush, he says education, innovation and skills training are the keys to a healthy long-term economic future.

But unlike others, Frank does not stop at that point. Just as he is bold in diagnosing the cause of the problem -- a private economy geared to producing wealth, not jobs -- he is equally daring in his remedies.

Toward the end of his speech, Frank uttered a sentence one can hardly imagine coming from the mouth of a 21st-century American politician. "Our problem today," he said, "is too little government."

When I asked him in an interview Thursday if he was sending a message to Kerry, Frank said, "It's a message for all Democrats. What I'm saying is we're in a situation now where we need the government, and where is it? We've cut taxes, we've criticized bureaucracy, we've almost condemned the public sector. I'm saying it's time to talk positively about government and use it to do what the private economy is no longer doing."

Complete artice here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56650-2004Mar13.html

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: van lingle
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 10:10 AM

In the short term no, a packed court may not have a great impact on your life economically but consider the kind of country that your kids will have to grow up in with a Chief Justice Scalia (shudder)setting the agenda and the inclusion of a couple more conservative colleagues abetting him. It doesn't sound like the kind of America I'd want to live in. This court as it stands now is, after all, largely responsible for making Bush possible. vl

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 09:30 AM

The Supreme Court ain't putting food on my table, paying my rent, or buying me a new car to replace my 1988 model. That argument is much too esoteric and removed from the daily life of working class people to matter much. When you or your kids are sick and you can't get medical care--now THAT is a problem.

On a Ritz cracker.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: van lingle
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 08:22 AM

Here it is for you on a Ritz cracker,Guest: The Supreme Court. Bush could get the opportunity to make as many as three appointments to the bench. This would be a long term disaster for the country that could exceed any damage he might do with his New American Century swagger.
You make many excellent points about the Democrats abandonment of principle for the sake of "electability" (I hate that word) but I'm sure that any appointments to the court made by Kerry would have to be far more reasonable than those made by our fundamentalist, nitwit
"War President".vl