BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 02:10 PM

Both parties have a dismal record on the environment- but for different reasons.    That is not just my opinion, but the general consensus from last year's MEEA conference (Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance) which brings together the leading environmentalishts, legislatures, renewable energy suppliers, appliance manufacturers, and utilities in the country.    I am going again the end of september.   I will let you know if the consensus is different.

Garrison Keilor was on O'reilly and looked really bad.   O'reilly asked Keilor to explain several quotes from his book and he had no explanation.   He just said he doesn't follow politics, is a simple guy from Minnesota, and you really shouldn't take him seriously.   As a folkie who likes Keilor I was embarrassed.   At the end O'reilly asked Keilor what he expected in the interview.   Keilor said he really didn't know who O'reilly was, had never listened to him, and knew nothing about O'reilly.    Incredibly stupid to go on a show watched by millions of people and not know anything about your inteviewer.   Very sad.   After that interview, I lost a lot of respect for Keilor and would not follow any of his political advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: Nerd
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 01:22 PM

I'm not saying Hoffa didn't make the claim, pdq. I'm asking why you assume Hoffa is telling the truth and Kerry is lying. I think that was pretty clear in my above post.

My point is, even if the allegations about Theresa working with Lay, Hoffa making outrageous statements about Kerry, etc., are true, none of it has anything really to do with Kerry. He can't prevent Hoffa from saying whatever he wants to say, nor could he have prevented Theresa from working with Lay before he married her.

In short, none of this proves that Kerry would be bad for the environment. But his past record DOES suggest he would be good for the environment.

Unless you choose to ignore Kerry's record and instead look at his wife's former political connections and unproven allegations by Jimmy Hoffa, you should believe that Kerry will be good for the environment. But to you, Hoffa's claims and Theresa's former political connections are more important. That's not a very sound approach to politics. It is, in fact, exactly the same approach that George Bush wants you to take in examining Kerry.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: pdq
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 01:01 PM

Nerd - I did not want a contest in ping-pong acimony, but there are many union members who agree that Hoffa Jr. made those statements.

There should be a new thread started sometime (in the future) to explain the difference between "Enironmentalisn", a political movement, and "conservation", a branch of science.

None of this is really about replacing the "Anybody But Bush" slogan with facts supporting a vote for Kerry.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: Nerd
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 12:23 PM

pdq,

I wasn't trying to blame John Heinz after he was dead. I think John Heinz was a good man, and he was in fact my Senator at the time of his death. I was pointing out that Theresa's main political contacts at that time were Republican, and Lay was a major figure among Republican donors. Remember, nobody knew he was a crook at that time, Heinz included.

My larger point is, if you believe you can't blame the deceased John Heinz for something Theresa did, why do you blame John Kerry for something Theresa did when he was not yet married to her? Sounds like a big double standard to me.

Also, go ahead and prove to me that John Kerry and Ken Lay dined together frequently. I am not willing to take Jeffrey St. Clair's word for this, so let's get to the evidence. Where is it, pdq?

Finally, you seem to be blaming Kerry for something Jimmy Hoffa said as well. Is there an audio tape of Kerry telling Jimmy Hoffa that there will be drilling in environmentally sensitive areas? If not, why assume Kerry is the liar rather than Hoffa?

BTW, almost all Environmental groups funnel a large portion of their donated funds to Democrats.

What do you mean by a "large portion?" How about "Almost all?" Like the claim about Lay and Kerry dining "frequently," this is vague and devoid of evidence.

Even if it IS true, do you wonder why? (Hint: Maybe it's because Democrats have a much better record on the environment!)

Sorry, pdq, St. Clair's accusations still won't wash!

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: pdq
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 11:28 AM

"throw yer jelly out the window, let the goddam shack burn down"

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 10:35 AM

Nack to the main topic--
If you're in a burning building, how much thought should you devote to where you'll live next?

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: pdq
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 09:52 AM

"Ken Lay was on the foundation board for one two year term, starting almost ten years ago, when Theresa Heinz was the widow of a major REPUBLICAN Senator."

Nerd...nice try, but blaming a Republican for what his wife does AFTER HE IS DEAD is a bit hard to take.

> There is audio tape of Jimmy Hoffa Jr. telling union members not to believe what Kerry says in public, it is just the crap he has to say to get elected. Hoffa says that there will be lots of union jobs for oil workers because they will be drilling everywhere. Environmentally sensitive areas included.

> No, John Kerry and his wife Theresa would not dine with Ken Lay now after he was proven to be a crook. It would not look good for the presidential candidate. But back when they did, Ken Lay was still a crook, the public just didn't know it yet.

BTW, almost all Environmental groups funnel a large portion of their donated funds to Democrats. I eventually dropped out of several groups that had become too political. Most have leaders who are not biologists, they are lawyers and politicians. The last group that got any of my money was Nature Conservancy, but when they sold a donated parcel to Late Nite host David Letterman for 4.5 million dollars, that was the end.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST,JH
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 04:46 AM

wow, Keillor makes the old Republican party sound so good ...like something he might (have) vote(d) for. *smirk*

He's sure turned into a bitter old man. He got rich on his (considerable) wits, and government supported radio for which we all pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: Nerd
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 02:39 AM

Hi GUEST

First, you are quoting the rating given to Congress by the League of Conservation Voters--who have endorsed Kerry.

Uh, yeah. That was the point. So have the other major environmental groups.

It is also essentially meaningless when you look at Kerry's record on trade, which LCV doesn't,

grasping at straws there GUEST. You're trying to say that groups like LCV and Sierra Club are not serious environmentalists. These are groups that have done far more than the Green party or any party.

Did you forget, or are you just choosing to ignore Kerry's vote against Kyoto?

Neither. I gave you statistics from the League of Conservation Voters. The Kyoto accord would have been one vote out of many. I repeat, he only has a 96% rating overall! Not nearly as good as...well, as...heck, it's one of the best in the Senate, but it's not PERFECT!

The global grassroots movements aren't aligned by nations anymore, because the corporate capitalists that are undermining participatory democracy around the globe transcend them legally, economically, and politically. These movements are creating decentralized, non-hierarchical webbed organizational structures that confound the mainstream, hierarchical, top down corporate models with charismatic "leaders" calling all the shots. The internet has been central to this type of parallel universe, and the activists working as a part of this web are no longer naive enough to believe that electoral politics will create social, political, and economic change: rather, these are the people who have already figured out that electoral politics have become one of the greatest barriers to those changes.

so you don't believe in electoral politics. Maybe that's why you STILL haven't given a single reason why you like Cobb.

By the way, I find it interesting that m7 challenge was to post a thread about why you LIKE COBB, and you turned it into an attack on Democrats, with your first post beginning:

In answser to the Nerd "Who is David Cobb" challenge, this is the thread to discuss the Green/third party/indie candidate alternatives to the "Anybody But Bush" Democratic party line.

The challenge wasn't to attack Democrats or what you claim to be their party line, it was to extol the virtues of Cobb. You seem completely unwilling to do that, preferring instead to post articles that attack Kerry and other Democrats, and talk about voting third party inthe abstract.

Once again, why do you like Cobb?

And try to answer without any reference to Kerry or your hatred of democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Aug 04 - 02:26 AM

Back to the original thread question, I found this of interest, from this site:

Some analysts see the steadiness of the Bush opposition as an explanation of why his campaign has run so many ads attacking his rival. It may be easier to convince swing voters that Kerry is not fit to be president than to convince them that Bush has done a good job. Yet ultimately, the outcome of the 2004 election, most everyone agrees, will come down to voters judgment not of Kerry, but of the man who has occupied the presidency for the past 31/2 years.

"This is an election between Bush and Bush,'' Genovese said.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 02:11 PM

The Kyoto Accord was rejected by the United States of America. John Kerry was one voice amongst many. Business brought incredible pressure to bear because the Accord ratification would have cost BIG BIG bucks. To single out Kerry is not right. Quote his voting record, but don't imply that he caused the Accord to be rejected. Bush led the way on that.

I would remark to GUEST (above) that he argues very well and writes excellently. I tend to agree that 'electoral politics' are not the answer, but a world socialism is not either. The world is now firmly in the hands of multi-nationals, and the hope that we might wrest power back from world banks is a very faint hope at best. I admire that you are trying, but I don't think it's gonna happen anytime soon. I would vote Kerry because I think that Bush is in bed with the Power Elite, and having him lead the USA for a second term would end any chance at all of achieving a world that you or I would prefer to see. I will likely be dead and forgotten by the time the remnants of MJ-12 run the whole show, but my kids won't. So I see this election as one of 'realities' rather than ideologies. I cannot vote in your elections, but please know that if I could Kerry would get my vote. Not because he walks on water, but because he can defeat Bush. That will have to be good enough this time 'round. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 01:49 PM

Nice try Nerd, but some of us know more about the environmental movement than that.

First, you are quoting the rating given to Congress by the League of Conservation Voters--who have endorsed Kerry. He may have a "career" rating of 96%, but that is just marketing tool. It is also essentially meaningless when you look at Kerry's record on trade, which LCV doesn't, and his "look the other way" record in that area of environmental activism is abysmal. It was Dean that pushed Kerry into making the empty campaign promise of "reviewing the labor and environmental standards" of all our trade agreements. And Dean pretty much sucks on free trade too. So this campaign promise is one of those "if elected" sorts of things. Sure he'll review them. A distinguished government panel with heads of corporations and global corporate capitalist think tankers, who will "study" the trade agreements, and put the white paper on the shelf.

Did you forget, or are you just choosing to ignore Kerry's vote against Kyoto?

Kerry's connections to his wife's so-called "environmental" foundation is just more evidence of his connections to global corporate capitalists through the back door. There is only one issue he has done more demagoguing on than environmental issues since announcing his candidacy, and that is his military service.

Voting for independents and third parties is doing something positive. It is building towards a future alternative, participatory, representative democracy. It is to vote against McGovernment.

The global grassroots movements aren't aligned by nations anymore, because the corporate capitalists that are undermining participatory democracy around the globe transcend them legally, economically, and politically. These movements are creating decentralized, non-hierarchical webbed organizational structures that confound the mainstream, hierarchical, top down corporate models with charismatic "leaders" calling all the shots. The internet has been central to this type of parallel universe, and the activists working as a part of this web are no longer naive enough to believe that electoral politics will create social, political, and economic change: rather, these are the people who have already figured out that electoral politics have become one of the greatest barriers to those changes.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 08:23 AM

On the other hand, maybe we need to drill in Anwar.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 03:17 AM

Thanks for the Keillor arcticle link.

Even Lou Dobbs, a registered Republican is going to vote for Kerry, precisely because he feels anyone can do better than Bush for the economy, which is, afterall, his (Dobbs's) baliwick.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: Nerd
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 02:27 AM

Oh, by the way, do you want to know about Kerry's views on the environment? He gets a 96% rating for his career of senate votes from the League of Conservation Voters, which is better than any of his competitors for the nomination. During nine of his years in the senate, he voted pro-environment 100% of the time.

Did I get this from the Kerry campaign? No, from the latest Sierra Club magazine.

So, will Kerry be good for the environment or bad for the environment?

Well, on the one hand, Jeffrey St. Clair makes shadowy assertions about Kerry which are sometimes repeated by unspecified radio talk shows.

On the other we have testimony from the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club.

I think I know who I'm going to trust on this one.

By the way, PDQ, I too am an Environmentalist. Most of us within that movement support Kerry.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: Nerd
Date: 29 Aug 04 - 12:45 AM

pdq,

it's actually not easy to verify at all. If you do a search on google, you find this assertion turning up mostly on sites that call Kerry "Ketchup Boy" and his wife "Terry Kerry."

In any case, even the assertion turns out to be pretty weak, and only speaks volumes if you believe in guilt by association. Kerry and Lay have nothing to do with one another.

(1) Remember that Heinz was a republican before she married Kerry. Ken Lay was on the foundation board for one two year term, starting almost ten years ago, when Theresa Heinz was the widow of a major REPUBLICAN Senator, before she married John Kerry. He did continue to serve after she married Kerry, but not for very long.

(2) In my line of work, I know many board members of many charitable foundations, and you know what? They're generally not picked for their politics, but because they will donate money and get their friends to do likewise. So basically Theresa got some of Kenny's money and his friends' money to go for environmental causes. Is that so bad? It's not like he was writing government policy--that came later!

Before you say the Heinz Foundation doesn't do any environmental work, know that I live in Philly which has a major wetlands bird sanctuary founded by Heinz. I don't think the egrets or bald eagles care too much if Ken Lay's money paid for their habitat.

(3) They are "frequent dining companions?" Come on, how stupid would it be for a presidential candidate to dine frequently with an indicted embezzler and symbol of corruption? I KNOW that one can't be true. It doesn't even MEAN anything until you define "frequent."

So tell me, Mr. St. Clair, how often do they dine together? You don't know? Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.

in short, pdq, this kind of assertion is exactly the kind of misleading crap the right puts out.

Right: Kerry was at a rally with Hanoi Jane!

Left: Kerry's wife had dealings with Kenny Boy Lay!

What do these facts tell us about Kerry? Precisely nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: pdq
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 09:53 PM

Nerd - I posted only three paragraphs from the article.

The second two have allegations I have heard from friends, many of whom are Environmentalists. Also heard a man discuss the Jimmy Hoffa Jr. statements at length on a radio news show.

The first paragraph I quoted is very interesting and speaks volumes. Please re-read that paragraph, the one about Ken Lay being the chairman of a committee on Global Warming for one of Theresa Heinz foundations! Ouch! It should be quite easy to verify that claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: Nerd
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 09:21 PM

So you'd like to ratchet it down? Fine, but don't try to BS us about who rathceted it up in the first place.

Here's a great example of your own level of discourse, GUEST, from the thread in which I asked you to explain why you like Cobb (which you STILL haven't done):

"And it is plain as day to me, that Democrats, nearly to a person, are perfectly content to play along with the delusions and deceptions of their party, and pretend like they aren't every bit as despicable and corrupt as their Republican brethren. But they are Nerd."


Now YOU would never call people names, would you GUEST? So you're just the man to accuse others of dragging the discourse into the gutter.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 09:14 PM

Here you go Nerd, have a nice cup of tea. Let's ratchet it down a bit, shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: Nerd
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 09:12 PM

See, pdq, here's the problem: St. Clair gives no evidence for the claims about Kerry and Ken Lay. Since I already know he will lie just to prove his point, I do not trust that this assertion is true. Not trusting his assertions, I don't see anything in his article worth worrying about.

It has nothing to do with his opinion about Lomax vs. his opinion about the environment; it has everything to do with whether he is telling the truth or lying. I simply can't tell, but I KNOW he was lying before.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: Nerd
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 09:06 PM

Maybe I wasn't clear in my post. There was not a controversy about the specific claims Jeffrey St. Clair made to me in his emails. They do not exist, as far as I know, anywhere outside St. Clair's emails to me. St. Clair simply made up these claims from nowhere; they were not in Marsh's article, or in Gordon's book. When challenged to produce any evidence at all for them, he ignored the challenge and changed the subject. I'm not just calling him names. He was pretty clearly lying to me just because he wanted to prove what a bastard Lomax was.

I suspect I knew Lomax better than you, GUEST, and I know he was no saint and could piss people off. But St. Clair was way out of line. If he's willing to just make stuff up to prove his point, why should I trust any of the facts he cites in his articles on politics?

And finally, GUEST, dragging the discourse into the gutter? You had already taken it there long before with your own name-calling. you are constantly accusing people YOU disagree with of being despicable, cowardly, afraid, etc, etc, etc. You accused ME of blinding hatred of Ralph Nader on another thread, which is a laugh. You've accused me of all kinds of things in fact, most of which are not true.

When someone lies to my face ("Lomax didn't even mention John Work once in The Land Where the Blues Began") and I say they are lying, am I really just name-calling? If that's the case, what SHOULD I say?

How about "Thank you, GUEST, may I have another?"

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 08:56 PM

mack, either you misread, or I miscommunicated, or maybe we're just ships passing in the night. ;-)

I said my political values were reflected in grassroots, bottom up organizing hence my supporting candidates at the top of the ticket who help those at the bottom of it.

That is where the Greens are currently at in my state, where we have them on city councils, county commissions, and park boards. Voting for the Green candidate at the top of the ticket in 2000 helped insure they got matching funds to get elected in 2002 in two of the three largest cities in the state, which in turn, helps fund the party building at the local level.

You believe that Green and Nader voters are trying to split the liberal vote. I don't accept that. I believe the Democrats have become so anti-democratic in their attempts to disposses and co-opt the progressive left, that they can't be trusted, much less given my vote. Especially when you get a peek at who the Democratic party is sleeping with to keep the charade going.

I don't have a problem with leaving the duopoly behind this election, or any election. And I've got news for y'all--I never voted for Clinton either.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: pdq
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 08:53 PM

Thanks, GUEST for 'Monkeywrench Hope'   (see 3:00)

As for Nerd, I see no connection between someone's opinion of Alan Lomax and his ability to ferret out the truth concerning John Kerry's Enviromnmental policies!

Here are a few quotes from the article:      

    "We all know Bush, the inveterate nick-name dropper, dubbed Lay "Kenny Boy." But they over look the fact that Lay and the Kerry's are also very good friends and frequent dining companions. Moreover, Ken Lay was recruited by Teresa Heinz Kerry for a seat on the board of her environmental foundation, where he was assigned the task of heading the foundation's global warming task force."

    "They charge that Bush...wants to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. They say that Kerry opposes this. And that's true, too. But they elide the fact that Kerry told Teamster's president Jimmy Hoffa that while he won't drill in ANWR, he does plan to drill "everywhere else like never before." Where would everywhere else include? The coastal plain of Alaska, offshore waters of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, the Rocky Mountain Front, the red rock country of Utah, the deserts of New Mexico, the Powder River Basin of Wyoming."

    "There's more. Kerry met with the American Gas Association a few weeks ago and pledged his support for a Trans-Alaska-Canada Natural Gas Pipeline that will cut across some of the most incredible tundra and taiga on Earth -- a project that will dwarf the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. No one among the Beltway Greens even squeaked. This amounts to a grand and debilitating hypocrisy."

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: Once Famous
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 08:49 PM

or vote for a Cobb salad.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: Once Famous
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 08:48 PM

I say vote for Ty Cobb. A great baseball player with the Detroit Tigers.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 08:25 PM

Nerd, you really need to get out of the habit of accusing people you disagree with of lying or being liars. That's name calling, and it really drags the discusions to the gutter.

I know about the Dave Marsh article (more of a blurb, really), and the little bit of controversy it stirred up, but I had a very different take on it than yours, apparently. Accounts I had read over the years weren't contradictory to the account in the Gordon book that Marsh refers to in his article. In fact, it matched other written accounts of Lomax I'd read in other folklore and musicology contexts, so I wasn't the least bit shocked by it by the time it showed up at CounterPunch.

But the Lomax controversy wasn't just a CounterPunch thing either. I also read about it in this Sing Out! letters exchange. I know I read about it elsewhere too, but I can't remember where else right now.

But the important point is, those critical opinions of Lomax didn't originate with Dave Marsh or Robert Gordon's book. Lomax wasn't a saint. Over the years, he alienated a lot of people. There has been a lot of scholarship published in the last 10 years that has been critical rather than reverential, which is as the scholarship should be. Comes with the territory. I don't believe in icon smashing for the sake of it, but I also don't agree with shoving this sort of controversy under the scholarship rug just so as not to tarnish the reputation Lomax studiously cultivated to gain in stature among his peers, and in the music business.

Writing about Lomax at the time of his death, like the writing about Harry Smith, was typical of that sort of writing. It was more testimonial than critical biography, which was appropriate in some instances, not in others. Obituaries are meant to be factual reportage, not unexamined adulation. And I do agree with Marsh that the writing done about Lomax, like the writing done about Harry Smith, made them both look much better in death than they were in life. I just think Marsh got a bit carried away damning him without offering any praise.

But considering your perspective on Lomax, I can totally understand that your exchange with Jeffrey soured you on him. But because your exchange with Jeffrey about an article written by a writer other than him about folk music, demonstrated he was ill informed about Lomax, doesn't mean his analysis of environmental politics is wrong. That just says to me that he ended up playing the role of the customer service department to your complaint about an article in his magazine.

So I'm fine with you leaving that one out as far as you're concerned, based upon your personal experience. But I still think his insight an analysis of environmental politics is dead on.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: mack/misophist
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 07:49 PM

GUEST:
Your criticism of the 'top down' philosophy is flawed. In fact, I think you have it backwards. The only efficient/effective way for a new party to grow is from the city/county level up. It's a fact of life that a presidential election wants millions in donations, thousands of volunteers, and very careful organizing. The Greens are not ready. They may be ready when/if they get 20% of the Congress and the state governors. Or not.

It's a long time since any committed liberal saw the presidential election as anything but a do-or-die proposition. Don't expect sympathy for an idea that's likely to give us four more years of bush. If you're truly serious, support local Green candidates. Run for office yourself. But stop trying to split the liberal vote where it matters most.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 07:00 PM

The issue is one of voting for the candidate of your choice. Some people balance that with the necessity of ridding American politics of its present leader. That makes Kerry the choice. No question. Except from the Greens. That's cool. Even when I supported 'peace' candidates years back, I still had the urge to vote for Gregory or Nader. The Greens won't win; that's a given. But, Kerry could lose, and you know what that means.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: Nerd
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 06:46 PM

I actually haven't yet had a chance to read much of this, but I will offer two observations in advance.

1) much of your analysis comes from a small cabal of analysts, the folks who run CounterPunch, including Jeffrey St. Clair. After Alan Lomax died, they ran an outrageous article accusing him of racism. The article was written by Dave Marsh. But after I wrote a letter to the editor pointing out both factual and interpretive errors (for example, no black person who knew him seems ever to have accused him of such racism), I got a snidde email back, not from Marsh, but from Jeffrey St. Clair. Now Marsh is an expert on American popular music, but St. Clair is not, so I was not surprised that his own position was even more ill-informed, and seemed to include an intense hatred of Lomax for being white. St. Clair and I swapped about five or six emails arguing to facts, by which point he was making up outrageous lies, like saying that Lomax forced his collecting partner, Professor John Work [who was black], to carry around all the equipment like a porter, for which there is no evidence anywhere in Work's writings, or Lomax's, or anywhere else. St. Clair would neither budge from this position nor provide any evidence for it. He said he was outraged that Lomax never once mentioned John Work in The Land Where the Blues Began, so I pointed out that he THANKED JOHN WORK IN THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, for God's sake. St. Clair ignored that and accused Lomax of still MORE racist acts for which there was no evidence. So I gave up.

My point: in my own personal experience, St. Clair plays very loose with facts, and in fact makes up lies fluently and easily to suit his argument. I suspected at the time that he might be a compulsive liar, so facile did it seem. He also seems obsessed with sticking it to what he sees as the "powers that be," including white people and anyone working for the government, even if those people were underfunded folklorists collecting traditional music in 1942, risking their lives and risking arrest and expulsion to go to black areas of town in the Jim Crow south, just because they thought old black bluesmen were geniuses.

In short, I really wouldn't trust what he has to say.

2) It seems to me you're making the "anyone but Bush" argument on a larger scale: "anyone but Rs and Ds." Many of your links are about "How the Democrats screwed the greens." But you still haven't said much that's positive about Cobb. What do you LIKE about Cobb?   You haven't talked about any specifics, except that he reflects your values as well as Nader.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 06:39 PM

Guest of 06:37PM

You confuse your thoughts with something that matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 06:37 PM

Beardedbruce has poetic issues. He confuses them with politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 06:31 PM

Which is also to say, apparently the Republicans have no trouble leaving their children behind.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 06:29 PM

beardedbruce, the majority of voting Americans also believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

I mean, this is just MBWAG but, I think the voting Americans who believe the Democrats are left of center might be the same group of voting Americans who think Saddam devised the 9/11 plot.

Which is to say, aren't we all sorry now that we cut funding for education.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 06:23 PM

Don Firth:

"The way I see it, both parties are right of center in relation to the rest of the world. "

Perhaps, but here in the US, almost half of the voting citizens feel that the Democrats are LEFT of center.... You can dream all you want, but check any of the polls in the last 6 years or so.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 06:21 PM

So nice of you to join us, Guest 05:56 PM. I'm delighted to see your contribution to the thread is opening a round of pithy quotations.

Now here is one for you:

"The desire to seem clever often keeps us from being so."
   -- François de La Rochefoucauld

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: Nerd
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 06:09 PM

Thanks, GUEST. It's a lot to read, but I'll have look when I have a chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 05:58 PM

I've switched my vote from Nader to Cobb.

Don, I like you and know we differ very little on certain issues.

Where we part company is on political values.

You embrace the "top of the ticket" political values of the mainstream political parties, which dictates that you should only vote for their candidates because only their candidates can win. That is why you can't see any other way forward into the future, than continuing to vote for one or the other party's candidate for president. That isn't a very democratic system. It is a king making system.

Instead of that top down, royalist sort of philosophy, I embrace political values that reflects a grassroots, bottom up philosophy, that is informed by the social (not strictly political!) movements with which I am aligned. It the shared political values of the social movements I work to support in everyday life, mostly in ways that don't include electoral politics, and most importantly, not just during election years, that best reflect my political values and theirs, when I vote for candidates who are independent of the duopoly.

So while a lot of you Kerry supporters keep claiming there are no differences between you and the Nader or Green folks, you really do have it wrong. There are profound differences in our political values.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 05:56 PM

I want to assure everyone on this thread that I've been purposely provocative in order to make you bring out your best arguements.

As Lenin said, "By their asses shall ye know them."

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 05:39 PM

Thanks pdq, I know the overwhelming majority of Kerry supporters here at Mudcat are voices of the Dem Party apparatchiks.

I also understand they not giants be, no matter how hysterically and angrily their broken sails flap in the wind.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 05:25 PM

I, for one, am not a "hard-core Democrat." And GUEST, I could give you a long list of differences that Kerry would make, but I'm not going to because, frankly, I don't have the time that you seem to have. And if I did, you would only try to debate me point by point, and there, also, I don't have the time (not that I couldn't vigorously if I did have the time). What time I do have, I prefer to spend in the 3D world drumming up votes for Kerry. Okay, if you prefer, against Bush.

The way I see it, both parties are right of center in relation to the rest of the world. But the Democratic Party is not as far to the right as the Republican Party. Unfortunatly, these are the only viable alternatives we have. I sympathize with your position, but you're not being politically realistic.

By the way, who did you say you were going to vote for?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: pdq
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 05:06 PM

GUEST - Understand something. Many of the people you are agueing with are committed Democrats. Not liberals or political idealists but hard core Democrat partisans.

Talk about copy-and-past thinking from Bush-bashing hate sites. Some of the people you think you can change wrote them!

Nothing you say will change their minds. Nor will their discourse ever become truly civil.

Mark Clark is a fine person most of the time, but here is a statement from him after he voted in the Iowa caucuses:

   "At our local precinct caucus, Jan and I started out in the Kucinich group but the group was too small to be viable (less than 15% of total attendees) so, after some negotiation, the Kucinich group agreed to join the Edwards group on the promise that one of the delegates would be selected from among us. In our precinct, Kerry supporters got four delegates, Edwards three and Dean two. No other candidate's group was viable. My wife, Jan, is a delegate to the county convention (I've done it many times) and I was reelected as one of two members of the county central committee from our precinct."

Yes, Mark Clark is a Democrat Party Central Committee member and has been for years.

I am afraid the best they will do for you is point you toward more windmills.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 04:46 PM

I didn't say he was full of shit, Mark. I said he wasn't a very good source for political information on how to vote and who to vote for, because he is, by his own admission, not a political animal. That's all. He is operating from the same anger base that Al Franken is operating from, only not nearly as smart as Franken is.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 04:43 PM

Well of course Garrison Keillor is full of shit, because... well, after all, he's Garrison Keillor. On the other hand, GUEST is well-informed and completely reliable because... because...

I forget.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 04:32 PM

And Don, it sounds to me like you've settled for the lesser of two evils argument.

Again.

The argument is much more vehement this year. Much more strident. But it is still the same argument used by the Democrats in 2000, in 1996, in 1992...

ad nauseum.

That lesser than two evils argument was settled once and for all for me when it gave us George W. Bush as president.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 04:29 PM

"But he will at least alleviate some of the problems that Bush started."

OK Don, I keep hearing this from the Kerry supporters. But what I need to know from you is:

1. Which problems do you believe will Kerry alleviate? Specifics, please.

2. How will he alleviate them? Again, specifics please.

And no, referring me to the official website, which is nothing but well designed PR fantasy, is acceptable anymore.

Garrison Keillor is one of the most apolitical figures in Minnesota, and a Johnny-Come-Lately. He is ill-informed on politics, and contemptuous of anyone outside the narrow "mainstream". I'd no more follow his political recommendations than I would Pete Seegers, and Pete is a damn site better educated politically, and tolerant generally, than Garrison Keillor is.

As to this election being "do or die" I say hogwash. This election is about hate. Democrats hating Republicans, and Republicans hating Democrats, with the whole beautiful world caught in the snare of lies weaved between the two sides to make their web of deceit stronger every day.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 04:20 PM

The US political situation is kinda like a patient with a gangrenous limb. You can argue about the ideal prosthetic replacement, you can theorize about limb regeneration or transplant, but if you don't amputate the limb pretty damn soon, the patient is gonna croak.

The neocons must be replaced, and fast. After that we can discuss rehab and political therapy. This is no time for fine tuning your political consciousness, save the patient first then work on rehab.

I don't know whether anyone's already referenced Garrison Keillor's article for In These Times but folks might want to check it out.

This is do-or-die guys, don't screw it up.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 04:01 PM

There you go again, GUEST, assuming that you're the only one with a clue. I've read it and a great deal of stuff like it. I also watched NOW with Bill Moyers last night and it was anything but encouraging.

I don't think Kerry is going to solve all our problems, or even very many of them. But he will at least alleviate some of the problems that Bush started. Am I happy with Kerry? No. But right now, what we need is damage control, and Kerry will provide some of that. Not all, but better than nothing.

Either Bush or Kerry is going to win. Anybody who's paying attention knows that. So what's it to be? Four more years of Bush? Not if I can help it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 03:57 PM

I suggest you all look up the term "Ownership Society" too, because it isn't just Dumbya that is going to be selling you on this latest, greatest sham. The New Economy Clinton/Kerry Democrats are selling the same bill of goods, just framed with a different rhetoric.

Bill Clinton may not have called single mothers welfare sluts, but he kicked them off welfare and jailed their sons just the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 03:50 PM

Looks like the Anybody But Bush folk are pure contented to keep their heads in the sand until November 3rd. At which time, we do what? Play more "let's pretend" games about who owns Kerry, and what their agenda will be for the next 4 years?

I don't believe Kerry is going to change the course the ship of state is sailing one iota. So I'm asking, what happens when nothing changes after Inauguration Day? When nothing changes after the 2006, 2007, or 2008 Kerry State of the Union addresses?

What happens when things maybe even get worse than they've been under Bush? More people permanently unemployed. More women, children, and elderly living in poverty, and the ranks of the uninsured balloons to over, say, 60 million people?

Or what happens when the current health care system finally collapses into itself? How many more years can American workers stand double digit increases in their health insurance premiums, increases in their co-pays, fund the medical flexible spending account to pay for the health care goods and services that used to paid by their insurance, all while their wages continue to shrink and inflation creeps ever higher along with the interest rates?

What happens then? That is the path this nation is on right now, and wouldn't you all like to know how Kerry/Edwards is going to stop it? How Kerry/Edwards is going to put an end once and for all of the looting of the American economy under the guise of the "ownership society"?

What are we going to do 15 years from now when we finally admit that Clinton's social security lockbox never had anything in it from the gitgo, besides the empty campaign promises of Democratic presidential candidates from 1992 onward?

Subject: RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'
From: GUEST,-------
Date: 28 Aug 04 - 03:13 PM

RE: BS: Can We Do Better than 'Anybody But Bush'

Maybe not, but it will be more than good enough.