BS: Anybody But Bush?

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 03:47 PM

I refuse to accept Don, your mode of thinking. It is the "Anybody But Bush" mode that I think results in us shooting the nation in both feet, AND cutting ourselves off at the knees.

The only reason I agree that Kerry will be better than Bush, is that a Kerry presidency MAY slow down the Republican machine. But I'm enough of a realist--and honest enough with myself--to admit that it may already be too late to stop the runaway train.

That is why I'm putting little effort into the presidential campaign this year, and putting my eggs in the local candidate basket, towards doing education and outreach work online and through meet-ups (it isn't just Deaniacs doing that, you know), that sort of thing.

The Democratic party will never get back into power if it doesn't take a hard turn to the left, and embrace it's progressive populist wing. It really is that simple. Going down the so-called center, and sucking up soft money instead of building a party for the future with vision, programs, legitimate small donor fund raising, etc., has resulted in the Democratic Party losing the White House, the Congress, the state houses and the governorships.

Electing Kerry will only prolong the inevitable on the national level, IMO. I would really just as soon see the national Beltway leadership self-destruct, because once that happens and they and the party rank and file know they can't win unless things change drastically, we'll keep having to do battle with the Republican right.

I do want to see the Democratic Party back in power, just not the Republicratic party. We are now, as we were at the turn of the 20th century, in an era of voter and party realignments, with a huge surge in political populism, from John Anderson to Ross Perot to Ralph Nader. Democrats have lost it all through their patronage games, their arrogance, and their courtship with corporate interests at the expense of the public trust. They have been losing, because they deserve to lose, not because Republicans deserve to win.

We all know the Republicans don't deserve anything but our contempt. But so do the Democrats right now. Just because the "Anybody But George I & II" Democrats were finally forced to wake up and smell the coffee in 2000 and 2002, doesn't mean those of us who have know the score for years have to accept their "the sky is falling" scenario for this year's election. Especially when we've heard it all before, this Democratic Party tactic of crying wolf in 1980, in 1984, in 1988, in 1992, in 1996, in 1998, in 2000, and in 2002.

So what makes this year any different? Life was pretty damn dire under Reagan. Life was pretty damn dire under George I. Life improved a bit under Clinton because of the tech boom. Life under George II has been dire too.

To working class people like myself, who never enjoyed the benefits of the 1990s boom, or had the boom dropped on us when it ended, the fact that life is dire isn't exactly news.

Clinton ran on a promise to help the middle class, and that is what he did. Kerry is running on a promise to help the middle class, and I'm sure if he is elected, that is what he'll try to do.

But not all of us in America are fortunate enough to call ourselves middle class. A lot of us are still working class. We aren't earning $80,000. Hell, we aren't even earning $50,000 in two income families! We are desperate for government services, and we are going under. The middle class is in no danger of disappearing, despite all the middle class punditry's declarations to the contrary. But the working class in this country is going under. A Kerry presidency will be too late for many of us.

So what exactly, is my incentive to vote Democratic in this year's presidential race, when it is the Democratic party that pulled the plug on the government services the working class has relied upon to stay afloat and contribute to the tax base for the last 50 years?

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 03:28 PM

Please. don't get me wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 03:28 PM

But don't get me wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 03:20 PM

Bush, with a Republican congress, will continue (or, figuring that if he has actually been elected this time and thereby has a mandate from the citizens, accelerate) his established pattern of ignoring if not encouraging corporate graft, world-wide saber-rattling, bullying or possibly launching pre-emptive strikes against other countries in Mid-East and possibly elsewhere, gutting the economy entirely for the benefit of his rich friends, and completely eliminating the social safety net, including Social Security.

Kerry as President (or any other Democrat--or, for that matter, Ralph Nader!--with a Republican congress, would bring things to a screeching halt.

That would be preferable to allowing Bush to continue in office. And I do not see Nader as being able to defeat Bush. I think Kerry has a good chance.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 07:08 PM

I do think it is important to get rid of Bush, don't get me wrong. I just don't have any expectation that much will improve under a Kerry presidency, particularly when you take into consideration the fact that the Republicans will likely increase their majority in both the Senate and the House this year.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 06:58 PM

I think you might be surprised how much better John Kerry's vision of things is than Georgie's. Remember he has walked out of live-fire engagement, has seen death up close and personal while Georgie was discovering the dimensions of cocaine and alcohol.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 06:27 PM

Electing Kerry might not make things that much better. Re-electing Bush however promises to make them a whole lot worse. Including for the rest of the world.

As I said in a recent post somewhere round here, elections are more about whether or not things would get worse, rather than expecting them to get better. That was definitely true in 2000 wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 06:26 PM

I can think of several people who would be worse than Bush. Unfortunately, they're all members of his administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 06:14 PM

Don, I don't agree that Bush is the main problem, because if it was, electing Kerry would be a solution that would result in things changing significantly.

I don't believe that electing Kerry, if that occurs, while a Republican Congress remains, will change much of anything. It will simply reverse the gridlock we had throughout the 1990s, with a Democratic president and a Republican Congress, only it will be much more entrenched. That entrenched opposition will also be a very, very angry opposition, which will limit what Kerry can do significantly.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 06:10 PM

Did anyone read my 4:20 p.m. post on Bush's latest lie?

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 05:33 PM

". . . but regime change won't deal with any of the problems we face."

GUEST, perhaps you haven't grasped this yet, but Bush is the main problem this country faces. If we don't solve that problem damned soon, there will be no possibility of solving the others at all.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 04:35 PM

But "in the country overall" isn't a vote that decides anything, as demonstrated last time. It doesn't really matter who gets the most popular votes, if they don't stack up to a majority of electoral college votes.

From what I've seen in the media, in most states, the margin between the vote for the main parties is so wide that there is virtually no prospect of it going the other way, and delivering the electoral college votes to the other side, and they are the only votes that matter. (Apart from the Supreme Court votes in the crunch...)

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 04:32 PM

So, how many of you read the Tikkun article?

Based on the responses, not too many of you. We keep seeing the same argument from the "Anybody But Bush" posters, going round and round.

Read the article. I'm not a Nader die hard, or a Dean die hard, or an anybody diehard. I'm dedicated to social and political transformation of this country I love. If Nader helps get us there, then I'm for Nader. If Dean helps us get there, then I'm for Dean. If I have to vote for Kerry, I will, but if it isn't necessary for me to vote for Kerry to get rid of Bush, then I won't vote for Kerry.

Kerry might mean regime change, but regime change won't deal with any of the problems we face. It just pulls the plug on the current occupants of the White House. Electoral politics will never be the one and only means of transforming our society, and so I don't limit what I do to bring about change to electoral politics.

A Kerry White House and a Republican Congress won't solve a thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 04:20 PM

Anybody but Bush? You bet! Here's a brand new example of the man's dishonesty and arrogance. This is copied from another forum, so all the language is not mine.

Bush Knew Medicare Actual Costs Prior to Vote.

Turns out, according to Knight Ridder, that the Bush Administration already had the figures prior to the Medicare vote. Their actuary had come up with a $551 billion price tag, even while they were still claiming to congress that it would only cost $400 billion when they were passing it.

The actual actuary was contemporaneously emailing his friends that he was threatened with being fired if he revealed the true cost of the program. One of the friends leaked the email to Knight Ridder.

They committed $150 billion in fraud on the american people. Makes all you conservatives feel nice and cozy I bet! Don't worry. He didn't get a hummer. It's ok!

Not only that, but the administration ordered its top medicare bean counter to lie to congress.

From the link below:

The government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription-drug plan.
---
Why would anyone believe this administration about anything?

Link: Medicare Fraud

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 03:19 PM

Well, the problem, Kevin, is that in the country overall, the margin is not that wide. I've heard various figures for the margin of popular votes that Gore won by (reversed, of course, by Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, and a conservative-leaning Supreme Court), but from all the figures I have heard, the margin was pretty thin, making it easy for hanky-panky to prevail. A percent or two of voters going one way or the other--or a third way--can swing the election. The margin is close enough so that if the progressives vote for one candidate and the liberals vote for another candidate, the conservative candidate wins. Unless, of course the conservative vote is split, and it doesn't appear that that is going to happen this time. In 2000, the conservative vote was split. Pat Buchanan was running. That's why is especially important this time that those who want the neo-conservative agenda out stick together.

GUEST, the ferocity of your arguments, your dogged persistence in your Nader crusade (which, under different circumstances, would be admirable), and your penchant for impugning the motives and intelligence of those who don't agree with you, remind me very much of some of the more militant Deaniacs that I ran into when I went to my precinct caucus. Because of their fanaticism--yes, fanaticism!--they went beyond well reason, and in the opinion of many people, cost Dean some delegates. I'm sure that Dean himself wouldn't have approved of their behavior. Your attitude is much the same: "Dean (or, in your case, Nader) or nobody! Everybody else stinks, and if I don't get my way, I won't vote at all!" That's pretty damned childish.

And it's also so counter-productive that it really makes me wonder about your motives.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:44 PM

Considering Ralphies previous position against the big corporations, his position against the maintenance of a large and capable military and other core values of the Republicans, I rather doubt that any repoublican was even thinking of voting for him. He said that the last time he ran that if Bush won, by the next election Bush would have done so much damage that everyone would rush to Nader in the next election. It seems to me that we are more or less faced with a two party system in America, unless and until someone comes along that the centrists of both of the parties feel is electable. I don't think Nader is it and I don't think he will garner enough support to do more than cost the Democrats the election.

Al Sharpton is being run by the Republicans and despite the fact that he could hurt the democratic party by taking a few votes away not one politician is going to say a thing against him for fear of being labelled a racist. To paraphrase B1st "Not prudent...Not gonna do it!"

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:42 PM

"A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."

How can this be so in parts of America - most of America - where the margin between the two parties is so large that there is no practical possibility of swing? Slogans like that may well make sense in some places, but to treat them as if they applied everywhere just is not joined-up thinking.

As for the organisation thing - once you get over a hundred miles radius or so, geographical size doesn't really make much difference. What does make a difference is as has been pointed out, the Internet, and the extent of Internet access makes it far easier for people in America to organise ths kind of thing than in many other places. For example, all the Americans arguing about this thing on the Mudcat cold very easily arrange to scratch each other backs about this instead of trying to scratch each others eyes out. More especially those who, as members, have the use of the PM facility - GUESTs, nameless or otherwise, are at a bit of a disadvantage here.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:27 PM

"I suspect devious motives from the Ghost who supports Nader."

Really? Why? Is it because I support Nader, or because I keep making arguments here that both support people thinking outside the "Anybody But Bush" box, and encourage people not to "just vote" in November as the solution to the takeover of the US government by corporate interests?

Here are some thoughts about the "Anybody But Bush" movements tactics of demonizing and marginalizing anyone supporting Nader, from Marc Cooper of LA Weekly. Maybe frankham, you'd better start considering how YOU look to people when you keep trying to cast aspersions on the motives of Nader supporters:

It's rather astounding to observe with what ferocity and volume so many self-proclaimed progressives, liberals and professional Democrats have joined the chorus of condemnation of Ralph Nader. The horrified reaction to Nader's announcement that he's running for president as an independent is more fit for something like Schwarzenegger decreeing the Anschluss of Santa Monica.

It's way over the top. Near hysterical. And more to the point, it's unseemly that leftists and progressives of all people should be party to any move that tends to close down rather than open up our already corporate-corseted political process. And I say this as someone who will NOT vote for Nader in November.

For months now, a "Don't Run, Ralph" campaign from the liberal left has relentlessly underlined all the reasons why a Nader candidacy would be doomed. Elsewhere in these pages, my colleague Doug Ireland, indeed, astutely lays out a compelling scenario of how Nader is most likely running into an immeasurable void (and in doing so how he's made some unjustifiable accommodations with a splinter group of cultists). Add to that the perhaps insurmountable obstacles Nader will encounter in just trying to get on the ballot in any significant number of states. (In Florida, for example, he'd have to gather 93,000 signatures by July 15 — he only got 97,000 votes there in 2000). As an independent, Nader will have no federal matching money. His highest-profile supporters have abandoned him. Most of his already tiny base was sopped back up long ago into another of this year's Democratic candidacies (including the equally hopeless and dead-ended Kucinich charade).

In other words, Ralph is cooked before he begins.

So why all the vehemence in demanding he not run? The only conclusion I can draw is that the Don't-Run-Ralphers simply must think they are smarter than everyone else. They, alone, are apparently bright enough to understand that taking votes away from a Democrat might elect a Republican (provided of course that those votes were ever going to go to a Democrat). But they're obviously worried that you, on the other hand, might be too stupid to figure out such a complex formula, that you might have to take your shoes off to do the math. In fact, you are so goddamned-dumb that these folks believe you shouldn't even be offered the option of making such a hare-brained mistake. Better not to tempt a fool like you with too many ballot choices.

Trying to keep anyone off the ballot, of course, is fundamentally anti-democratic. It betrays a bottom-line distrust of the voters. And while voters often are untrustworthy, I'm afraid there's no acceptable substitute.

The bosses and the bullies of the two major parties would have otherwise. The money- marinated chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terry McCauliffe, concocted this year's radically front-loaded primary system, precisely to guarantee that only the candidates with the most cash, the most name recognition and the best-developed establishment network could prevail the fastest with the least interference from actual voters. I see no reason why progressives should contribute to this skunk's quest to shut down the system.

If they are so worried that Nader will spoil their Anybody But Bush candidate, then why even have open primaries? Why not just let the DNC and the AFL decide who is Most Electable and just get on with it? Where are the calls that the Republican-run huckster Al Sharpton or the embarrassing Dennis Kucinich also withdraw, lest they also leech delegates from whatever pre-anointed front-runner?

Americans approach politics diffidently. Stock car races draw much bigger audiences than candidate debates. Yet, every four years, for a few months preceding the presidential election, some public attention is finally distracted away from the trivias of the entertainment culture to ponder — albeit temporarily — the greater issues that confront us.

Taken together, the two major parties do a piss-poor job of offering much substance on those matters. This time around, in their rush to unify behind the Anti-Bush, Democrats have already started to muzzle themselves and narrow the debate.

Ralph Nader will now make use of what little public space his anemic campaign will be offered. He won't be a viable choice. His campaign will offer no practical route whatsoever other than into a political wilderness. But what he will actually say will be as trenchant as ever, bracing antidotes to the pap that will pour from the official stumps. Nader will be there to remind us that Bush might be impeachable — as he said Sunday on Meet the Press; that Washington, D.C., is, indeed, "corporate-occupied territory"; that for whatever their partisan differences this campaign year the Republicans and Democrats retain frighteningly similar souls; and that, ultimately, American democracy rests not on the campaign promises of this or that candidate but rather on the willingness of the citizenry to exercise its rights.

Most important is the right to vote. And if you don't want Nader to take away your vote against Bush, then I have a radical notion for you: Don't vote for him. But don't tell him or anybody else not to run.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Frankham
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:32 PM

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

Bush represents a new trend in American politics. A reactionary right-wing revolution. All the rules that define a reasoned dialogue on the issue of this takeover no longer apply.

I suspect devious motives from the Ghost who supports Nader.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:22 PM

No, GUEST, the Census Bureau's population estimate for the US as of 13:14 EST today was 292,781,355. You're off by about 58,000,000 people. But there are still an awful lot of folks in US.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 11:48 AM

Guest, I actually think that this year in the US, a lot of people are going to be able to organize more swiftly and easily with the internet. I know that not everyone is online, and certainly not everyone online can be pulled off their favorite porn site to go get educated about the future of our poor stupid country, but I do think it's possible that an organization like TrueMajority or MoveOn or something similiar will be able to figure out a way to start joining us up, with all our disparate thoughts and opinions and candidate choices and tell us in simple two or three syllable words, how to get Bush out at the next elections. Or am I being waaaay too naive here?..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 11:41 AM

That's neat, Rapaire.

The Guest who feels it is difficult to organize in the US because of its geographic size is overlooking the organizational capabilities of the internet, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 11:38 AM

This was just sent on to me. I kinda like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 10:58 AM

"You need to organise yourselves..."

This is quite amusing. Ever been to the US McGrath? It is a huge geographical area, and it costs a lot of money to traverse it, and there are 350 million of us, so it can be a bit of a challenge to find the progressives, herd them into a central location, and organize them.

A little bit tougher here than in jolly ole.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 08:41 AM

Can't you lot get your heads round the truth that for most Americans, questions like whether to vote for Kerry or Nader are irrelevant - it's only in a few swing states that the vote is close enough for that kind of thing to make any difference.

You need to organise yourselves so that the people who'd prefer Nader who are living in those states swap their votes with people living in other states who prefer Kerry. That way the risk of Bush getting back is reduced, the Naderites involved in vote-swaps can know that the overall vote for him across the country isn't reduced just because they decide to vote tactically, and the Kerryites in safe states (or hopeless states) can know they aren't wasting their vote, but are maximising the vote for their man where it counts.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 08:28 AM

Nerd, as I recall you were a Dean supporter. All the Democrats I know support either Dean, Edwards, or Kucinich. I don't know a single Democrat who supports Kerry, despite him winning the primaries.

Remember, the vast majority of voters don't vote in primaries.

But finally, I have to say, you don't seem very typical of the Dean supporters I know. They aren't fired up anymore, but despondent. They also don't know what they will do in the voting booth come November, because they know damn well that Kerry can't draw the voters he needs to in order to revive the Democratic party, like young people, Democrats who don't vote for president or don't vote because they feel the party doesn't represent them, or people who usually don't vote because they feel dispossessed by the politicial system.

So, besides walking into a voting booth with a blindfold on, and voting Kerry, what other solutions of the problems that plague us are you offering Nerd? I see you criticizing any post that doesn't say "I'm voting for Kerry, and there is nothing else to discuss".

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:01 AM

It may be long, but it sure has no idea what it's talking about in relation to Dean supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 10:14 PM

Yeah, come on, Kendall. You want Bush out? Read the article. It talks about the dynamics of potential voters: the Deaniacs (progressives) and give some insight into things that *must* be done by the establishemnt Democratic party if it is to get Bush out.

GUEST ain't the enemy here. Just the messenger...

We all want Bush out!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 10:05 PM

I don't much like Kerry. But the US has to stop the bleeding, so ABB.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 09:40 PM

And that remark shows you have no idea what the article is about. It's a LONG article kendall. Give it some consideration, instead of being so reactionary.

Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: kendall
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 09:35 PM

dream on Mate. We know what Bush is, and we know what Nader is.

Subject: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 09:28 PM

From this month's Tikkun, about the dangers of the Anybody But Bush mindset. Some exerpts:

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

"The fact is that you cannot win Americans over to an alternative to the radical ideology of the neoconservative Right that has been the foundation of the Bushites' success by providing them with a variety of cautious half-measures lacking any coherent intellectual foundation or vision. The unbearable lightness of the Democrats—their inability to stand for anything at all—has been with us since the 1990s, when Congressional Democrats were unable to construct a liberal or progressive alternative to Gingrich's very effective (though from our standpoint reprehensible) "Contract with America," which boosted Congressional Republicans to majority status in the 1994 elections. Even in 2002 those Democrats managed to take a perfect moment for re-ascendancy and present themselves as the party that had no unifying theme or message."

"If we are trying to decide whether a candidate believes in a coherent worldview that coincides with our own deepest ethical and spiritual truths, we can make that determination ourselves by listening to what they say and have said and done in their public lives. But if we are trying to decide whether they are electable, we give the power to the media and the pollsters to tell us who we should be backing. The result is that many of the candidates who most closely represent the American people's highest ideals can be pushed out of the race, opening up the way for a candidate who fulfills the ideals of those who own and control the media."

"Many Howard Dean supporters are on the verge of deep depression. After months of tireless sacrifice for their candidate, they are beginning to feel that progressive politics have been repudiated by the American electorate. Yet what actually happened was a playing out of this Anyone But Bush dynamic of electability and realism. Dean won many of his supporters from the ranks of those who might feel closer to Kucinich on the substantive issues, but who were convinced by the Dean campaign that they should back a candidate who the media was saying was more electable. So when the media turned on Dean, portrayed him for a solid two months before the Iowa caucuses as unelectable, Dean followers had no intellectual or moral foundation to challenge the "electability" argument. Supporting Dean because of his alleged electability, and convinced of the "anybody but Bush" approach, many Democrats who deeply opposed the war in Iraq ended up accepting the media's self-fulfilling prophecy that Dean could not win, and therefore switched allegiance to Kerry or Edwards—even though these candidates supported the war—on the supposition that maybe one of them could win.

Meanwhile, putting a final stab through the heart of his most loyal followers, Dean undermined himself on the one issue that had most energized his core supporters—his maverick style that promised serious confrontation with the elites of wealth and power. When he allowed the media to convince him that declining support indicated public discontent with his alleged radicalism, Dean toned down his approach in the two months before Iowa and began to accumulate the endorsements of Al Gore and mainstream politicians, put business-as-usual political operatives into key campaign positions (including figures from the AIPAC), and made it clear that he was interpreting his declining support as a reason to become more moderate and mainstream.

The denizens of the Center rejoiced at Dean's declining fortunes in February, 2004. After Dean's loss in the Iowa caucuses, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times and other champions of the war in Iraq used the victory of Kerry and Edwards to make the point that "the American people" really wanted a candidate who would support the Iraq war and use this moment to reconstruct the entire Middle East (with who knows how many more interventions necessary)!"

________________________________________________

This is a very long article, but if you are serious about getting Bush out of the White House, it is an essential read. Reading it is what convinced me to send $25 to Nader as soon as he had announced.

Tikkun article "Anybody But Bush?"