BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'

Subject: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 01:32 PM

Here is an excellent analysis of the dangerous, short-sighted strategy being espoused by complacent "Anybody But Bush" liberals (calling themselves progressives, of course), who continue to insist everyone hold their nose, gag, and vote for Kerry.

The author, Greg Bates, says:

"I find myself in awkward opposition to Dave's (a fellow writer and colleague of his) call for all progressives to gag but nonetheless vote Kerry, saying that a vote for Nader is no more than a dangerous protest. (Counterpunch, September 27, 2004) Behind every plea of this ilk is a simple demand: THINK STRATEGICALLY! Okay, let's get real."

He then goes on to talk about the hysteria surrounding the strategic thinking of many progressive leftists (like Bobert, for instance), who are planning on voting for Nader or Cobb in "safe states" where Bush is considered a sure win. They too are being admonished by the hysterical Democrats, in an attemt to shame and guilt trip EVERYBODY who isn't a gung-ho Republican, into voting for Kerry. In other words, the Anybody But Bushites are now claiming there are no safe states, and there is no safe vote for non-Repubs to cast, except one for Kerry. Fear mongering for Kerry is the order of the day.

Bates goes on to say:

"The value of a vote for Nader in a safe state is obvious: a growing protest vote, or even a steady one in these times, would show that the politics of fear may not be enough to keep progressives in line, and that to win, real policy change may be needed to head off a bigger vote next time.

Let's turn to consider the logic of Dave's position that we should all vote Kerry and reserve our protests for the streets, confining any progressive presidential electoral strategy to working inside the party during primary season. He writes:

"Voting for Kerry is only the first step. Any progressive who casts a vote for this unprincipled, calculating, Democratic Leadership Council member needs to simultaneously take a vow to remain active-no, to become even more active--in pushing for a progressive, anti-war agenda after November 2. A President-elect Kerry must be confronted with a million anti-war demonstrators at his inauguration ceremony. He must face a one-million-member jobs march in April 2005."

But wait a minute. Part of the punch of the street protest is an implied threat: change your policies or we will vote you out of office next time. March loudly and carry a big ballot. Dave would change the deal: We protest what you are doing, but don't worry; we'll vote for you no matter what you do. True, protests exert pressure in other ways besides threatening a politician's re-election. But taking that electoral tool completely off the table-or relegating it to local elections, as Dave is in effect advocating-robs movements of essential thunder.

Dave would confine progressive electoral politics on the presidential level to the primaries. How can any serious progressive argue this on the heels of what the Party did to the platforms of Kucinich, Dean and others? This in effect says: don't worry about the fun we are having in our progressive sandbox in the spring, we will vote for whoever you nominate. As I have pointed out elsewhere, reformers inside the party need progressives outside the party to demonstrate that, if the Democrats don't move left, we will walk. Otherwise, why would the party, drunk with corporate cash, hand over the keys to reformers? The existence of large numbers of progressives working and voting for other options can be used as leverage to pull the Democrats along. It may not work, but without it reforming the party is all the harder."

I'm still saying that a vote for Nader or Cobb IS a strategic vote, AND a strategic vote that sends a very strong message to the Democratic party. It allows progressives to vote FOR an anti-corporate candidate they not only believe in, but actually believe could serve very well as president. A candidate who would take the corporate parties to the cleaners, where they so desperately need to go.

It seems the Democratic grassroots have, in Bates' words "fundamentally lost touch with the power of third parties. Their success does not necessarily rest on winning office, but on applying pressure." Bates reminds us that "From the early labor parties of the 1830s, to the Free Soil Party of the 1850s, to the Prohibition Party of the 1890s, to the Bull Moose Party at the start of the twentieth century, to the Reform Party in the 1990s, third-party movements have forced policies and issues onto center stage and into mainstream political discourse. The result of these third-party campaigns has been the adoption of some of the most significant pieces of legislation in American history, such as the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the establishment of pensions, unemployment insurance, the minimum wage, Social Security, child labor laws, public schools, public power, the direct election of senators, the graduated income tax, paid vacation, the forty-hour workweek, higher civil service standards, the formation of labor unions, and democratic tools such as the initiative, the referendum, and the recall."

What depresses me more than anything about this election, is the way so many otherwise right thinking people, have totally lost touch with that history, and now believe, like so many Mudcatters do, that casting a vote for an independent or third party candidate, when combined with continued activism for progressive causes, is a wasted vote.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 01:46 PM

""Voting for Kerry is only the first step. Any progressive who casts a vote for this unprincipled, calculating, Democratic Leadership Council member needs to simultaneously take a vow to remain active-no, to become even more active--in pushing for a progressive, anti-war agenda after November 2. A President-elect Kerry must be confronted with a million anti-war demonstrators at his inauguration ceremony. He must face a one-million-member jobs march in April 2005."

That makes more sense than the rebuttal posted above. In the wake of a Bush victory the ability of "the left" to organise effectively will be even more weakened than it clearly was last time. In the wake of a Bush defeat you could have the momentum to start moving forward.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: mack/misophist
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 02:09 PM

It appears that the sub text of this is: 'Better a loss than an imperfect win. Better a bush than a Kerry.' Nonsense!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 02:18 PM

Certainly,

Returning the governmnet to the oil lobby because the Left could not get together long enough to counter the votes of frightened evangelicals who believe that Saddam not only planned the 9/11 attcaks but that he magically, using his Satanic powers, flew each of the planes then transported himself back to Baghdad a split second before the planes hit.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Fishpicker
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 02:52 PM

This country needs to have a two party system, not the current sold out republicrat party! A vote for a third party candidate, by those that believe this is important and even though it seems futile at this point, somewhere down the road will give us a choice other than the lesser of two weavils. There is no difference between kerry and beorge gush in the final analysis they are both sold out to big business. Both are tax and spend globalists liars IMO. Ralph Nader has actually done something possitive as a consumer advocate in his long career that we all have benefited from. I am against bush's fourth reich approach as much as kerry's preppy do nothing daddy approach. To get this republic back to something close to what it once was we need to start attempting to vote something other than carpet baggers into office. This doesn't happen immediatly but takes long enough for citizens to become so disgusted with business as usual that they bring about that change. There will be less and less definition between presidential candidtates in the future untill we all step up to the plate and vote these parasites out!


                               FP

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 02:54 PM

As I expected, none of you gentlemen seem to understand that the self-labeled "progressives" pimping for Kerry have already fractured the global and national movements which had mobilized against Bush. The Democrats have very skillfully and intentionally, not to mention successfully, disemboweled the left by demonizing Nader.

We had MILLIONS of people marching against Bush before the sell-outs like Noam Chomsky (in order to protect his cushy academic job, I'm sure) insisted the dissent be silenced, and everyone fall in lock step behind Kerry and the Democratic Leadership Council.

The movements for true social, economic, and political change that had surged and grown dramatically in the wake of the Bush/Cheney election theft of 2000, have now effectively been destroyed by the liberal pimps and sell-outs for Kerry and the DLC.

Regardless of who wins in November now, the momentum that was present to bring all sorts of disenfranchised and disillusioned workers, peace activists, immigrants, single women, progressive blocks of communities of color, etc that were pouring into the streets in 2003 to protest the war and Bush's policies like the Patriot Act, were jailed by the Democrats in Boston this summer, and no one on the left said boo about it.

The strategy of the Anybody But Bush Democrats has been very savvy indeed. They cut off the heads of those movements, and jailed those activists who DARED to challenge their power and supremacy when they showed up in the streets of Boston, in order to insure victory for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 03:36 PM

Nader doesn't represent any cause but Nader's ego.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 03:42 PM

You forgot to add "in my opinion" to your post there, Jack-o.

Nice to see your perspective here, Fishpicker. The All-Kerry All the Time Anybody But Bush camp gets a bit stale with their Nader bashing after awhile.

And oddly, they never talk about how the Democratic steamroller for Kerry has crushed the life out of the movements for change, do they? Apparently the long haul doesn't concern them. Just the instant gratification of getting rid of Bush.

I note these aren't the people who will be picking up the pieces of the shattered movements come November 3rd.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 05:54 PM

Bush has some funny friends these days.

Before a long haul you need to be facing in the right direction.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 06:04 PM

As far as I'm concerned, Bush and Kerry are two rotten teeth in the mouth of the same world-devouring dragon. The Democrats and Republicans are the left and right sides of its ravening jaws. I prefer the left side a wee bit, but that's not saying much, cos you get chewed up and swallowed all the same.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:22 PM

Political commentary using imagery, metaphors and personification. I love it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 09:40 AM

The movements of millions for political change WERE facing in the right direction before they were crushed by the Democrats and the Kerry/Edwards campaign, McGrath. That is why the arguments that we can protest and dissent after the election are so specious.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 10:08 AM

Hitler's rise to power was facilitated by the fact that the Liberals and the Socialists and the Communists were battling it out in the streets and the press. There are times when trying to block a Popular Front is a serious mistake. (And no I'm not identifying Bushism with Hitlerism - that's merely an illustrative analogy.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 10:14 AM

I suspect the chief motivation of our agent provocateur "guest" is to discourage progressive minded folks from voting at all. It's a pretty simple strategy.

You know I'll feel a whole lot better protesting Kerry's actions in the White House for the next 4 years than having to deal with the consequences of Bush getting re-elected.

And I applaud the national Green Party candidates who advocate voting for Kerry in states where the Presidental race appears close.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 10:44 AM

Of course you applaud candidates that say "vote for the other guy, not me". That is because the fear people have of standing up to the Bush/Cheney camp is so strong, that they have lost track of their spines.

And if you think John Kerry has a spine he will use to stand up to the plutocracy, you are seriously deluded. He will represent the interests of the plutocracy, NOT the citizens of the US of A and the world.

I am advocating EVERYONE vote. I just refuse to advocate that EVERYONE vote for Kerry. I don't see Kerry as the messiah that the Anybody But Bush camp keeps proclaiming him to be. I see widespread evidence of a deep and wide reactionary voting pattern amongst people who will vote for Bush or Kerry, because that way they don't need to think about what a Bush presidency or Kerry presidency will mean.

Bush and Kerry are both the products being sold by the two corporate parties, which are just like Disney and Viacom. The duopoly candidates are two corporate entities competing for market share, and selling different brands of the same product.

And I, along with millions of other true progessives, am not buying what they are selling.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 10:48 AM

A leaked page from the Kerry Edwards Democratic Election Colorado Election Day Manual, November 2004:
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc.jpg
"If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a pre-emptive strike (particularly suited to states in which there techniques have been tried in the past).
• Issue a press release
    i. Reviewing Republican Tactic used in the past in your area or state
    ii. Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting
• Prime Minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points
• Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics
• Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls

In other words plant a seed if discontent in the minds of minoritys to make them think the Republicans are trying to take away their right to vote. Cause anger against Republicans if none exists.

If you think these tactics are acceptable, replace the word Republican with Democrat, replace Kerry Edwards with G W Bush, reread the page and see if it still acceptable.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 12:17 PM

Except when it actually is part of a Bush dirty tricks campaign, this kind of squabble is just silly.

The sensible thing to do is organise voter trading, maximising the anti-Bush vote where it is effective, and in the process maximising the Nader and Green vote in other places.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 12:27 PM

Except when it actually is part of a Bush dirty tricks campaign, this kind of squabble is just silly.

The sensible thing to do is organise voter trading, maximising the anti-Bush vote where it is effective, and in the process maximising the Nader and Green vote in other places.

Here's the "VotePair" site. (Though, for Mudcatters over in the States who are inclined to try this, I'd have thought doing it via PMs with Mudcatters you trust to keep their word might make more sense, since trust is the essential feature in this kind of arrangement.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 12:32 PM

You know what McGrath? You don't know jack shit about American politics and electoral realities, but that doesn't stop you from spouting off in these threads as if you were a fount of political wisdom. You ain't. You are naive, blissfully and stubbornly ignorant of facts, trends, history, and tactics which work in the US, rather than your merry olde England.

The ludicrous suggestion that voter trading can even be organized, much less should be, is an excellent example of your bizarre form of "strategic" thinking.

You don't know what the hell you are talking about. You don't live in the US, have no experience doing political and/or electoral organizing and strategizing here, so why not just shut the fuck up and stay out of it?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 12:46 PM

Guest-

It sounds like you DO know jack shit about American politics. In fact, I'm convinced you're full of it. Keep on spewing it out. You may even discourage some Bush supporters from voting.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,US
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 12:57 PM

I hear US voters are geting letters from "prominent" English men such as Steven Hawking.

Englishmen: Fuck off and mind your own business.

Uncle Sam

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 01:05 PM

If I can get even one Bush voter to stay home, I'd be successful.

Politics, especially in this climate, is not for the polite or the squeamish. Which is why, after flirting with voting for Cobb, I decided against it, for the same reason why Nader refused to run as a Green Party candidate this year: the Greens are ready to be a mainstream party. They keep waffling on running a presidential candidate of their own, and even when they do run their own candidate, they waffle and say "but it's OK if you vote Democratic instead."

It is NOT ok to build a party with that spineless sort of waffling. More than anything, Greens, like liberal Democrats, want everyone to like them.

IMO, I and the electorate don't need to personally like the candidates we vote for, but we do need to know they have a strong enough spine to stand strong and tough against special interest pressures, pressures from fellow politicans and lobbyists, and have a strong, clear vision with a strategy for working to realize that vision, for the citizens of the nation and the world.

Politics is a rough and tumble business, especially for honest people like Nader. But I can't think of any politician who has been stronger and tougher than he has over the years, accomplishing a tremendous amount of positive stuff, pushing legislation through a completely hostile (to him & his issues) Congress, executive branch, and judicial branch. Nader is exactly the kind of leader I would love to have in the White House, because he knows how to take the career politicians and lobbyists to task to get the job done.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 01:07 PM

Oops, I should have said "Greens ARE NOT ready to be a mainstream party." My bad.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 01:11 PM

Guest US, I would no more listen to an English celebrity than I would a Hollywood celebrity regarding how to vote. This whole "celebrity endorsement" game is appallingly undemocratic, and just another demonstration of the corporate marketing tactics being used to sell candidates. Celebrities should stick to selling toothpaste.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 01:51 PM

Selling toothpaste and selling a candidate is a very similar process in the prevailing $y$tem... :-)

Did you know that swishing some salty water around in your mouth after brushing your teeth in the evening will go farther to protect them than the expensive commercially sold products will? It will not protect you, however, against a 2-party corporate dictatorship that masquerades as a democracy.

Did you know that shaving foam is a totally useless product? Try using a little lathered shampoo instead. It works great, and the razor doesn't get plugged up with sticky gunk from it either. Way cheaper than shaving foam, and works better be cleaning off oils from your skin and the razor.

Another totally useless product: drinking straws. Pointless.

Another totally useless product: Electric can opener. Ridiculous. People who think they need one should buy a machine to yawn and sneeze for them too, I suppose.

Here's another tip: Fresh human urine kills athlete's foot fungus totally dead. Use your own in the shower, then shower it off and wash it down the drain. Costs nothing, unlike the expensive anti-fungal creams and other remedies you are encouraged to buy at the drugstore.

A pity that one can't achieve the same clean sweep of resident vermin and parasites by peeing on the political $y$tem, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,US
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 02:00 PM

Excuse me it was not Steven Hawking but Richard Dawkins.

Do you Limeys need any advice? OK then Fuck off and mind your own business.

Uncle Sam

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Fishpicker
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 02:06 PM

Little Hawk,


"Resident vermin", Great! I hope you will allow me to add that one to my repertoire without having to send you a royalty check.

                        FP

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 02:20 PM

There is a speculation that Nader is been unduly influenced by Fred Newman's cult political group, New Alliance for America from which he receives financial support. He also receives money from the RNC.

Nader is simply not presidential material and a vote for him is a vote for four more reckless and unprincipled, irresponsible shenanigans in the White House.

The Left really needs to rethink and reframe it's position. It has a history of factionalism, rancor, and reaction. Not all Lefties agree and often vehemently disagree. In the meantime, the Wrong-wing is walking all over us because they are in lockstep. Many are the advocates of a demented so-called president who offers religious Crusades instead of sound policy. The Left can't fight that with Nader regardless of all the chest pounding and rage they offer.

First, get this religious fanatic out of office before he starts a scorched-earth policy in the Middle East to bring about his delusional Rapture. That's the only reason Bush supports Israel. That's why Karl Rove is whistling "Onward Christian Soldiers". It's not about the "facts" or "policies" anymore folks. It's about religous fascism taking over our country. Nader would do well to speak to that.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 02:31 PM

Was that GUEST response to my last post actually from the same person as the other GUEST posts? If so, my gut feelings that there's something dodgy about this "progressive" are very much strengthened. That kneejerk xenophobia sounded sincere, and it's a tone that's pretty characteristic of...
................................

Quite a lot of American voters will be getting letters from people in this country, I believe, mostly from non-celebrities. The Guardian is pushing the idea quite hard - Letters to Clark County. I am inclined to think it's probably not a great idea, because people can get touchy about that kind of thing. (If I was sending a letter to a total stranger in that way, I'd be very tempted to urge the person I was writing to back Bush, in the expectation that this might make them think twice about doing so.)

However the point is, in a very real sense the man elected in November isn't just the US President, but also the nearest approach to the President of Earth. God help us. It's no wonder that people outside the USA get concerned about what's going to happen. It's our future that's likely to be screwed up as well.

I imagine it must have felt a bit like this for people living out in the Roman Empire watching the in-crowd in Rome and its environs sorting out who was to be Emperor. The Romans generally got it wrong too, and they sure did squabble about it...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 02:39 PM

You are full of shit Frank, and mouthing the propaganda of the Anybody But Bush Democratic Leadership Council camp, about supposed Republican funding and signature gathering for Nader. How about we talk about the anti-democratic initimdation campaign the Democrats have waged against Nader? The Democratic party's lawsuits to keep Nader off the ballot in 20 states? The knocks on the doors in the middle of the night of signature gatherers for Nader, threatening them with legal action if they "illegally" accept a voter registration from someone who isn't eligible to vote?

You are completely out of step with the times. The groups that are coalescing together on the left are leaving your generation's fractured tendencies behind, and uniting under a new unified banner. We aren't the lame ass AFL-CIO angry white men anymore.

We are united as never before against war, racism, exploitation, and in defense of civil liberties and civil and human rights. We aren't beholden to corporate power or corporate unions like the AFL-CIO, which has actively campaigned to stop today's Million Worker March.

Why the attempt to stop union members from participating in today's march? Simple: the Kerry campaign told them to oppose it. We know damn well whose side Senator John Kerry is on, and it most certainly isn't the workers, especially the unorganized working poor of this country. John Kerry has said it over and over and over again: he is working for the middle class, not the working class and the poor.

We know which side our bread is buttered on, thank you very much.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 03:19 PM

BTW, here is MY union's response to the AFL-CIO's decision to help the Kerry/DLC Democrat's attempts to crush our movment, BTW.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,US
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 02:03 AM

I suppose all you union members are the ones whining about jobs leaving the US and blaming it on Bush when unions and lawyers are the ones running the jobs away.

All that marching shit just wears out your shoes faster and supports those off shore shoe makers.

Uncle Sam

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 01:28 PM

Guest,

Nader has taken $8,000 from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth which he hasn't returned. These are the smear group that is headed by John O'Neil and financed by members of the RNC and billionaires like T. Boone Pickens. This is the group that is illegally airing the "Stolen Honor" smear-umentary on John Kerry for Sinclair. That shows you something about Nader's integrity.

Kerry has said conclusively in his campaign speeches and in the debates that he is in support of the Middle and the Working class in this country. Edwards has been specific about this as well. Kerry is being supported by many labor unions.

The problem is that when you tell a guy that he's full of shit, it weakens your argument. It's a problem the fringe Left has had for a long time and makes them vulnerable to a kind of weakness. You can't yell down those who you disagree with and expect to win anything. Decent language is the only way
to a reasonable dialogue unless Naderites have dispensed with dialogue and just enjoy yelling.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 01:54 PM

Where is your proof that Nader took $8,000 from Swift Boat Veterans, FranK?

Answer: you don't have any. You are falling victim to the urban legends the left has circulating, especially on the Internet, about this election. Another urban legend of this sort: that Bush had a device under his jacket in debate #2, and Karl Rove was feeding him his lines through an earpiece.

Telling someone they are full of shit weakens arguments for your generation, maybe, but certainly it doesn't for younger generations. Also, labeling people who have disagreed with you strongly as "fringe" is also a tactic that most people see through also. Trying to demonize the opposition with statements like you make in your last paragraph--people are wise to that too.

Kerry has repeatedly said he is working for the middle class. Here it is straight from his website. Middle class, Frank. Not the poor, not the working poor, not the working class.

Did he endorse yesterday's Million Worker March, which had the backing of Rev Jesse Jackson, Martin Luther King III, etc? No he did not. And he made sure the AFL-CIO, who is supporting him, along with many of the other internationals, didn't support it either.

Nader, however, did.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 02:03 PM

Frank:

Who is Klor de Alva? A. A billionaire from Brazil who is trying to influence the Colorada election.

Who is George Sorros? A. A billionaire who said that he would give up all of his money if he could guarantee a loss for Bush.

Who supports Edwards' campaign? A. More than half comes from lawyers, lawyers' families and employees.

Who is full of shit?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 02:06 PM

Mouthing off against an opponent does bugger all to convince that opponent, no matter what generation they are. It never did.

Much better to save it for the occasional situations where it can be useful enough, for example as a way of generating group solidarity.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 02:06 PM

You too are full of shit Old Guy. Full of Republican shit.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:28 PM

Spoken like a true old man who is completely out of touch there, McGrath.

What's this, the Sunday school marm standard of rip roaring political argument? Chastising for use of curse words? Give me a break. You guys must really be desperate.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:30 PM

GUEST/NaderRaider and friends--

I have a lot of trouble with these statements:

>And oddly, they never talk about how the Democratic steamroller for Kerry has crushed the life out >of the movements for change

>The movements for true social, economic, and political change that had surged and grown >dramatically in the wake of the Bush/Cheney election theft of 2000, have now effectively been >destroyed by the liberal pimps and sell-outs for Kerry and the DLC.

for the simple reason that I don't see how any real political movement could be so easily destroyed--

I don't have much disagreement with "progressive" issues (unless you count Nader), but I think that 'progressives" like GUEST don't really understand how to work in the political system-

First--when you act anonymously, you are a non-entity, even to people who agree with what you might have to say--people follow people, not abstract ideas--

Second--issues don't create political power--organization creates political power--you can use an issue to rally the troops, but you have to have recruit and organize the troops first--

Third--Compromise is critical to extending political power, because all political power comes from building coalitions--and you can't consolidate without reconciling differences--

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:52 PM

Well, you are dead wrong on #2. The millions who demonstrated against the Iraq war around the world weren't organized. They responded to the issue, and their feet followed. There truly was no global recruitment campaign that organized the demonstrators in advance, beyond the same organizing that gets done for all major demos. That is what is meant by "mass movement". No one organizes those. They just reach critical mass, like they did when the no-nukes movement stopped nuclear power in it's tracks in the wake of Three Mile Island.

The big difference? The issue, and how strongly millions of people feel about it.

Compromise is not critical to extending political power. There are so many movements throughout history which have proved that, from taxation without representation, to slavery, to women's suffrage, to ending apartheid, etc etc.

You don't compromise on the big stuff, and when you are trying to force the issue, you don't either.

Compromise in conventional governmental politics is merely a buzzword, and really only meaningful in a legislative context. Politics encompasses much, much more than that. When agitation and forcing issues to a higher place on politicians and governments' agendas from outside the system is the goal, you never compromise.

I agree that coalition building is good for the process. But you have to remember, coalition building is also what corporations and their lobbyists do.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:58 PM

Spoken like an old hippy, who knows a bit about how to argue with political opponents. And an awful lot of movement people I've worked alongside never managed to learn that. Maybe if they had, we wouldn't be in quite this situation after all these years.

The only time you ever set out to annoy an opponent is when you have some reason to think that this will put them off their balance, and that this will help you. For eample, it might push them over the line, so that they lash out. That clearly doesn't arise in a forum like this, so it's a waste of words.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: michaelr
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 09:07 PM

Blah blah blah

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 01:07 AM

Anonymous guest:

An anonymous guest accusing a non Republican of being full of Republican shit is full of shit.

Now, being so full of shit tell us

Who is Klor de Alva?

Who is George Sorros?

Who is Harold Ickes?

Who is John Sperling?

Who supports Edwards' campaign?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 10:04 AM

You know what McGrath? You don't know jack shit about American politics and electoral realities, but that doesn't stop you from spouting off in these threads as if you were a fount of political wisdom. (17 Oct 04 - 12:32 PM)

I 'love' it. When 17 Oct 04 - 12:32 PM feels (s)he's losing an argument on the level of content (s)he's either declaring that the opposition is full of shit or that they don't know shit. Your xenophobic tendencies, 17 Oct 04 - 12:32 PM, and your display of jingoistic feeling of superiority is just as unpalatable as the same stuff from U(ncle)S(am). You may come from widely different political positions, but you are much closer to each other in other respects than you would like to admit.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 12:53 PM

You may come from widely different political positions

But I wouldn't be too sure about that. It's very easy to put on a front on the Internet, and easier still when, as a nameless GUEST, you don't have to be too careful about letting the mask slip.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 01:18 PM

"Where is your proof that Nader took $8,000 from Swift Boat Veterans, FranK?"

Article in the New York Times.

"Telling someone they are full of shit weakens arguments for your generation, maybe, but certainly it doesn't for younger generations."

A generational gap is rely a specious argument. Not all "younger generation" people fall into lock-step and agree.

There are "fringe" groups that do more destruction than good. There were the Weathermen in the Sixties for example. They can be recognized by their
name-calling, violent solutions to social problems and their blind adherence to ideological leaders. Fortunately, they are not represented by any "younger generation".

If you have been following the Kerry stump speeches you would find that he does mention the "working class" as well as the "middle class". The emphasis he gives to the middle class is because it is deteriorating as the dispararity between rich and poor grows. At one time in our history, the working class was the middle class.

As for the Million Worker March and Jesse Jackson, I don't know why or if he didn't endorse it but it may be that he did. There is no proof that he didn't.

Nader is not going to win the presidential election. W (God forbid) might.
In short a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 04:50 PM

Honored GUEST has, on a number of occasions, accused me of being brainwashed or being incapable of thinking "outside the box." First of all, I am not a member of any political party, nor have I ever been. And second, it's a bit difficult to brainwash someone who has followed this business as closely as I have over the past several decades. Because I am not a member of any political party, that does not mean that I don't have a political philosophy. I do. It is what most people would call "liberal" or "progressive" (despite the fact that some people regard those terms as swear words).

I have studied up thoroughly on the candidates—all the candidates—and in the light of my political philosophy and in the light of political reality, I have made my decision. My first choice was Dennis Kucinich, and I voted for him in my precinct caucus. When it became obvious that he wasn't going to make it, I favored Howard Dean. When the thing finally shook out, Kerry was the front-runner. I'm quite sure that if either Kucinich or Dean had become the front-runner, GUEST would be turning his/her vitriol on them.

I will be voting for John Kerry.

This does not mean that I am completely smitten with him. Far from it. But considering the apparent political philosophy of George W. Bush (if, indeed, he has a cohesive political philosophy, but his advisors, e.g., Cheney, Rove, Rice et al certainly do), along with his litany of bad decisions, mistakes, deceptions, and downright impeachable offenses (all far worse that Clinton's little peccadillo, which affected neither the nation nor the world, and resulted in the death of no one), another four years of the Bush administration is simply unacceptable.

There is ample justification for the "anybody but Bush" position.

And anyone who knows anything at all about Kerry—beyond the usual Republican and third-party rhetoric—know that he will be a far more competent president in all areas domestic and foreign than Bush. [By the way, did anyone watch Frontline last week?] And in any case, even if he turns out to be as bad as GUEST tries to make him out to be, he can't possibly be worse than what Bush has been—and if Bush actually gets elected this time, he will undoubtedly regard that as a mandate. If you have the courage, think about that for a while!

Too many people (including former supporters) are angry with Ralph Nader for playing the spoiler yet again, and no one can realistically believe that David Cobb will be elected when very few people have ever even heard of him—and the same goes for Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party, only even more so. No one in his right mind doubts that when the smoke clears and the blood gets mopped up after November 2nd, either John Kerry or George W. Bush will be president-elect of the United States.

Like it or not, the art (or is it "mud-wrestle?") of politics demands compromise. Always has; always will. Sometimes the only reasonable choice is to vote for a front-running candidate you are not particularly enamored with, but who a) has a realistic chance of winning; and b) reflects your political philosophy better than the other front-running candidate. One can refuse to compromise, vote for a candidate who is closer to one's political philosophy than either of the front-runners (even though one reflects it better than the other), and then, while the real bad guy gets elected and the whole world goes down the tubes, sit back and feel smug and self-righteous about one's "uncompromising integrity." But that's small beer. At best, that accomplishes nothing. At worst, it's totally selfish and self-defeating.

Also, like it or not, this is primarily a two-party system. Anyone who seriously believes that there is going to be a great popular movement in which the people will rise up and put either Nader or Cobb into office this election probably also believes in the Great Pumpkin. Not that it can't happen sometime. But when such things are in the offing, they invariably give some indication, and there is certainly no indication that anything like that will occur this time around.

If one is seriously interested in altering the political system in this country, there are two ways to go about it: one is outlined HERE; the other is to join or start a movement to institute Instant Runoff Voting. It wouldn't hurt to do both.

The anger that GUEST exhibits toward those who disagree with him/her reminds me very much of some of the more militant pacifists I met during the Sixties. If you didn't accept every last tenet of non-violence that they espoused, they would be perfectly willing to take you out in the alley and beat the crap out of you.

And speaking of crap, wait 'til after November 2nd. Then we'll see who's full of shit around here.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 05:08 PM

Looking at this map and the poll figures behind them, it seems pretty obvious that anyone living in those states which are shown as dark red or dark blue could happily vote for anyone they like, in the knowledge that this can't make any difference to the result one way or another.

And that's the rationale behind vote swapping - because you can cast that vote for someone you wouldn't normally vote for, on behalf of someone in a marginal state where that vote might make a difference. All it needs is mutual trust, which of course is quite a tall order. But I know people I'd trust in a similar situation, and I'm sure most people do.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 06:35 PM

Tell Ralph Nader to Send Back the Dirty Swift Boat Money!
Five major donors who have given $13,500 to the right-wing, discredited Republican group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have also given Ralph Nader's presidential campaign $8,000.


http://www.thenaderfactor.com/petition9/

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:50 PM

Guest,

I want to set the record straight. I am for the Million Men March on Washington. I support the raising of the minimum wage. I am on the side of the American worker. I agree with some of the ideas of Nader and Jesse Jackson whether or not I like them personally. (I'm still smarting over the "Hymietown" slur.)

Here's the bottom line. If Bush gets into office on November 4th, 2004, it will not make any difference what Nader, Jesse, you or I think. Why? Because we will see the rise of a new kind of fascism in the U.S. with a Crusader in charge of each branch of our government. He has threatened to put his heel on Kerry's throat. Shouldn't that tell you something? He also has made some interesting Freudian slips in his speeches.

1. That he will stand up for terror.
2. That he favors a draft.
3.   Sept. 4th, 2001 was a significant date for him. Could it be possibly that 9-11 was planned and he knew about it while reading "My Pet Goat"?

It may be that his slips reveal the truth more than any statement he makes on the stump.

As Garrison Keillor so elegantly recommends, if you like Nader, wear his clothes, his perfume or whatever but when you get into the voting booth, please do the right thing for our country and oust the Terminator Crusader who wants to make the Mid-East his "Sudatenland".

Frank