BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 04:58 PM

One of the journals that I respect the most is the magazine, The Nation.I It has endorsed Kerry. Also, the New Yorker.

One thing about cults is that the people who are a part of them tend to be vehement in their defense of their "guru" to the point of becoming insulting when their cult is questioned.

CultNews does a service in exposing those such as "Alliance for New America". There is nothing wrong with supporting a candidate that you believe in. Where it becomes problematic is when a legitimate criticism of that candidate is dismissed as "shit" or "lies". This is the way most Republicans deal with Kerry and it's this kind of ad-hominem arguments that discredits the candidate they espouse. It's a pattern and I see it
in action regarding the proponents of Nader who refuse to offer a logical argument to support theirs, that there is no difference between Kerry and Bush. In fact, there is a world of difference between both candidates and most reputable representatives of a Liberal left-wing point of view do support and see the difference. This is why Naderites feel so marginalized. It's a blind submission to a faulty premise.

I don't think that John Kerry is a "guru" but I think that he would make a good president because he has been consistent in his point-of-view.
He supported the authorization to go into Iraq because he believed Bush at his word that he would not use a pre-emptive strike while the UNSCOM inspections were working. Kerry supported those inspections and recognized their value. Bush lied to the American people by justifying his war. Kerry has been consistent in criticizing the way it was done by Bush. If he were president, there is every reason to believe we could have avoided this war by keeping any weapons of mass destruction out of Saddam's hands through UN inspections.

I am nervous when Kerry talks about Iran and Israel but to say that he is the same as Bush is absolutely ridiculous and this is Nader's contention that must be answered and has been by reputable Liberals, Progressives and those of the Left.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 01:13 PM

Not counting any of the variegated (nameless)GUESTs who might qualify.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 12:51 PM

So, are you really Martin Gibson, Old Guy, or are we blessed with two stupid, illiterate jerks?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 12:38 PM

"Is the Bush administration willing to accept the fact that the Iraqis might elect a government that they don't want them to have?"
                                                                   --Congressional Representative Jim McDermott (Dem.), Washington State.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 09:17 AM

One possibility people seem to ignore is that there actually is a reasonably fair election in Iraq, and the winners say "Sod Off".

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 01:59 AM

Now that would be irony for sure.

Bush starts a war. Kerry gets elected. He withdraws in disgrace and looses the war.

Kerry goes down in history as the arrogant asshole that lost the war.


Haw Haw Ho Ho


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 09:38 PM

You read about it at CultNews?

And you're lecturing me about credibility?

You're right, I don't know anything about you. But people who are talking the same talk as you, ie constant haranguing about Bush/Cheney et al, and persistent voicing of intense, irrational fears of a Bush victory, makes me think some of you Kerry supporters really can't stand being around people who don't think exactly like you do. To the point of being intolerant of Republicans, conservatives, progressive independents like Nader, or anyone who isn't stridently in your candidate's camp, period.

My way of looking at the world means that if Kerry wins, we live with Kerry, if Bush wins, we live with Bush. But I'm not going to vote for either of them because I think my guy is better. But hey, best of luck to you and your guy. I mean that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 05:35 PM

Guest,

The New Alliance Party is mentioned on CultNews. From what I've read, it doesn't strike me that they are particularly objective in their views. It's another case of a fringe Left group shooting itself in the foot. According to your argument, any criticism of a group that has an intense ideology is McCarthyism.
On the contrary. There is nothing holy about The New Alliance Party. Criticism of it's tactics is in order in a free country.

I am questioning Nader's judgement in alligning himself with an ideological group when trying to represent the American people. I reject your characterization of my criticism as McCarthyism. I consider that a knee-jerk reaction rather than a legitimate point.

I don't agree that the Black Caucus is extremely conservative. They are representative of many African-Americans and to assign them to this category
is disrespectful. But respect for other viewpoints is obviously not a Nader trait as exhibited by your assaults on my character.

You don't know what I'm afraid of or not. Reactionary knee-jerk assaults do not make a viable argument or do much to convince people that Nader is worth
supporting.

The Nation is a well-thought out intelligent journal. It has been in business for many years and I give it far more credence than a diatribe from a disgruntled Nader supporter.

I see nothing wrong with being tied to the Democratic Party, particularly when we stand to lose an election to a Reactionary demagogue who will gut our
government programs such as public health, the public school system, Head Start, Affirmative Action, protection of the environment, and separation of Church and State.

The Left has always had a problem with disunity because lefties continually call each other names and tell each other that they are full of shit. This is a self-defeating strategy that only makes the Republican Reactionary laugh.
Legitimate discussions without name calling is desirable. Legitimate criticisms of candidates is not McCarthyism. That in itself is a "label" that can be erroneously used to avoid a real discussion of the issues.

It's OK to be idealistic, and it's OK to present a point-of-view but it is counter-productive to go off half cocked foaming at the mouth and railing against someone you don't agree with.

Wear Nader's perfume and clothes if you must but if you want to really do something to claim our country back, vote for Kerry and get rid of Bush.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 05:13 PM

McGrath nailed it. And that's why I'm voting for Kerry.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 04:57 PM

The only way to get people protesting against Kerry, which will almost certainly be avery good idea, will be to elect him.

Here's another maxim: "The best is enemy of the good" Or indeed of the not-that-good.

If Gore had won last time, the "Progressives" would have been far stronger today than they were last time, having gathered support in opposition to his Administration. If Bush wins, in four years time they are going to be far less effective than they are even today. That's how these things work.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 04:55 PM

GUEST--You apparently don't know your own candidate's political affilations--In Maryland, Nader is the candidate for the Populist Party--Maryland State Board of Elections

The Druse divide the faithful into those who know, and those who think they know--politics is like that, too--

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 04:27 PM

If you are voting for Kerry, you already have capitulated and acquiesced. He supports the war, and plans to escalate it by sending more troops, involving EU & NATO, etc.

When I see you protesting against Kerry the president as stridently as you have been campaigning for Kerry the candidate, then we'll talk, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 04:20 PM

So don't tell me I am being too strident -- you see what happens when people get complacent???

:D


A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 03:44 PM

Precisely.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 03:42 PM

They capitulated and acquiesced, in other words.

And lest we forget, the majority didn't vote for Bush, either.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 03:20 PM

Most people in Germany in fact voted against Hitler, as you should know. However not enough people saw stopping him as the most important thing, they were preoccupied with other significant, but in the upshot, much less important, differences.

They blew it, for themselves,and for everybody else.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 03:01 PM

You guys are leaving out the projection of what happens if a decent human being is elected to office.

It has happened before and it has done good. How much depends on the situation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 02:37 PM

No McGrath, I don't think qualifying adjectives has anything to do with it.

Hitler was brought to power by a nation. You can no more blame Hitler alone, without the support of his nation, for the Holocaust, than you can blame Bush/Cheney alone, without the support of this nation, for the war on terror, Iraq, Palestine, etc.

Democratically elected leaders that do despicable things, do it with the blessing of enough of their countrymen, and the capitulation and acquiesence of most the rest of their countrymen, to make the nation itself culpable.

That is what happened in Germany in 1933, and that is what is happening in the US in 2004. Enough Americans agree with Bush, and most the rest of those who disagree with Bush have capitlated and acquiesced to his agenda, including John Kerry and the Democrats.

They may well be coming for us Naderites soon enough, whether Kerry or Bush is elected. Because that is the mood of enough of the US citizenry right now.

Americans are very afraid right now, for good reason, and in a way that most Europeans aren't. Afraid for their jobs, their health, their housing, their ability of their families to afford to stay warm in winter and get to work driving the distances many Americans drive to get to their jobs, their children's ability to get a decent education, or even survive to their 18th birthday if they are African American or Latino and male, or beyond it if we see a draft. Afraid that when they can't work anymore, that their pension money will be have been disappeared by the government, to pay for the reckless oil wars. Afraid that when we can no longer work, no one will take care of us when we become ill, or will house us, or even give us food.

Most Europeans, while the economy does effect them, just doesn't have this perfect storm of capitalist oppression bearing down on them the way Americans do, which is why it is so easy for them to oppose Bush. Most European countries haven't gone to these capitalist extremes the way the US has. They still have at least some vestiges of socialist governance protecting them, at least so far.

It isn't that easy to oppose Bush here. It is, however, pretty easy to appease and capitulate to his agenda, as Kerry and the Democrats have consistently demonstrated.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 02:10 PM

Political change never happens by voting in one political party instead of the other political party.

And that's largely true, assuming that by "political change" you mean desirable political change. But voting in one political party instead of another can certainly bring about undesirable political change, and can bring desirable political change to a shuddering halt. As witness, for a prime example, Germany in 1933. (And that doesn't mean I'm saying that Bush is a clone of Hitler - if I don't put that in, someone is bound to claim I said that.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 01:23 PM

Nader a populist? I don't THINK so MTed, but thanks for the laugh!

MTed, there is the popularity of maintaining the status quo, which is the superficial, fleeting change brought about through electoral politics. Then there is the politics of agitating for fundamental and lasting change, which sometimes, though not always happens when pressure is brought to bear upon the political establishment through positions taken by the political vanguards. Left and right doesn't have anything to do with it, it just reinforces your antiquated beliefs about how politics works. That antiquated thinking makes you either a conventional, status quo Republican or a conventional, status quo Democrat.

Political change never happens by voting in one political party instead of the other political party. That maintains the status quo, and doesn't change anything fundamentally. Nader has been in a political vanguard position his entire life, and he is quite comfortable there. He, along with others like Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, and other mavericks in THEIR political vanguard movements, are agitating for a fundamental sea change that many of us believe the majority of Americans want, but just don't know how to go about getting it yet.

It is our job to help them learn how to bring about the fundamental sea change. It will take the political vanguards in all directions, not just left and right, to come together, reach critical mass, and bring about fundamental constitutional change in how elections are held in the US. If it is going to happen, it will happen because the outsiders bring pressure to bear upon the insiders, to force the change. It will take years. But I am convinced THAT is the change people are longing for, not just the superficial change that will occur if Kerry defeats Bush next Tuesday.

It is your conventional Republicrat worldview that is dying, MTed. Even though we have no way of knowing how all of this will work out, I at least am optimistic enough to believe the sea change is already happening. It may take another generation to manifest, but the status quo your narrow, partisan, conservative worldview is embracing MTed, is definitely on it's way out. The new wave hasn't even begun to gather the power of the populace yet, but it is most definitely building. The thing is, you see Nader and Ventura and Perot as isolated nut cases, rather than different aspects of the same political phenomena.

I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 01:17 PM

Vietnam Vets against the War DID NOT have anything to do with bringing the war to an end.

I think you're seriously mistaken. But it won't resolve with the data available here. I also think you misheard what I said about LBJ -- I was indicating he was an immoral SOB, and you seemed to agree with that position.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 01:04 PM

Thank you, anonymous GUEST, for clarifying something that, for some reason, you have not been clear about, and that is simply that you are not and have never been a "progressive" Democrat in anyway, but are, in fact, an old line Leftist trying, once more, to crash the party--

The leftist view, and, coincidentally, the Nader view, is, we know what is good for the people, and they will recognize it and rise up, with one voice, casting off their consumerist, materialist, American shackles and embrace our New Progressive, leftist values--

The thing is that to lead the people, you must listen to the people--

Nader doesn't, which is why, though he claims to be a populist, he has no popular support--If he truly spoke for "the people", at least the ones who feel disenfranchised, disillusioned, or disgusted with the electoral process, he would have support at the level of a Ross Perot or a George Wallace--instead, his support is dwindling fast--

Both the Old and the New Left never listened--which is why they are never a factor in American politics for more than a few years at a time--

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 10:56 AM

Christ Amos, why can't you just admit LBJ was as bad as Nixon when it came to the war, and let it go?

LBJ and Nixon were worlds apart on the economy, on social issues, etc. We aren't idiots. LBJ was the president who escalated the war when he shouldn't have. It resulted in Nixon promising to end the war if elected, which he actually didn't intend to do unless Kissinger could win it in a cake walk at the peace table. They didn't. Nixon then escalated the war further.

Some of us aren't suffering from Democratic amnesia Amos, and know our history too well for you to be able to get away with spreading this sort of information.

Vietnam Vets against the War DID NOT have anything to do with bringing the war to an end. The perpetual escalations of troop levels, expansion of the war into neighboring countries, loss of life, and the economy going south are what brought the war to an end.

The US lost the Vietnam War, and left Vietnam in disgrace, just as we will lose the war on Iraq, and leave Iraq in disgrace. Whether it is Bush or Kerry as commander in chief.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:31 PM

Dear God, OG, are you asking for a fight about the morals of Lyndon Baines Johnson? The man who had more peckers in his pocket than any politician since All the King's Men?.

Not from me.

But Richard M. Nixon was as foul a fellow as you are ever likely to meet and he prosecuted the war and exacerbated it until public pressure forced him to rethink his position.

One of the major forces behind that decision was the Washington Mall camp-in by the Vietnam Veterans against the War, led and spoken for by a decorated vet named KErry.

Lyndon Johnson, my tush.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:16 PM

Amos: Nixon war machine

Have you ever heard of LBJ?

He is the Democrat that started that war. It got handed to Nixon, a Republican, and he ended it.

Nixon BOOOOOOOOOOOOO He's an evil Republican

LBJ YAYYYYYYYYYYYYY He's a good old Democrat. From Taxas too. Good guys come from Texas. They swagger and speak with a twang.

"Many Democratic liberals resented his friendly association with the Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower; others considered him a tool of wealthy Southwestern gas and oil interests."
http://www.libraryreference.org/johnson.html

Houston, we have a problem.

Remember the NASA facility that opened in 1961 in Tejas after LBJ he was elected VP in 1960? The Johnson Space Center? I wonder why it was built there.
"Civic leaders and congressmen from other states doubted that Houston and environs met all of NASA's official criteria, at least any more than their towns did. They inquired about the roles of Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson,qv chairman of the high-level National Aeronautics and Space Council, and Representative Albert Thomas,qv also a Democrat and Texan and chairman of the Independent Offices Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, in the choice of the Harris County site. Webb and other NASA officials denied all charges and suggestions of political influence"
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/LL/sql1.html

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 09:05 PM

Nader has too many connections to the Bushites this time.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 08:43 PM

Tell it to Kerry's military wing, McGrath.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 08:02 PM

aThere might even be a time for a cll to arms, but it's not now.

To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 07:40 PM

Christ Frank, give it a rest, will you? If Nader is so damn "cultish" why did so many people support him in 2000? What is so "cultish" about Jewish Marxists and African American socialists anyway? That they aren't Kerry Democrats?

Lenora Fulani was the first African American to get on the presidential ballot in all 50 states in 1988 as the New Alliance Party candidate, and she did so with a lot of support from African Americans who had supported Jesse Jackson's 1984 run, but didn't like Jackson being so closely aligned with the Democratic party. Fulani has also worked with Rev Al Sharpton, a candidate in this year's Democratic primaries.

In 1994, Fulani joined the Patriot Party, which has ties to Ross Perot's Reform Party, with whom Nader was working this year to get on the ballot as their nominated candidate in a number of states.

So why shouldn't Nader be working with these former New Alliance Party activists? The New Alliance Party was a socialist party made up of working class African Americans, Chicanos, Arab, Jewish, GLBT, and feminist activists looking to expand their base beyond the International Workers Party. The New Alliance Party has plenty of people of color, Frank. And Nader doesn't need the endorsement of the extremely conservative Congressional Black Caucus, because their politics are very far to the right of Nader's and his progressive supporters.

What the hell is wrong with that? New Alliance Party activists would be natural allies with Nader, as would Ramsey Clark and International ANSWER, who organized and led the biggest anti-war demonstrations in the US prior to the Iraq invasion. Or the Million Worker March which was completely ignored by your man Kerry. Nader/Camejo at least endorsed the march.

Andy why on earth wouldn't Nader seek advice and support from the New Alliance Party or ANSWER or any other socialist and progressive individuals and organizations that are his natural political allies?

What you are doing Frank, is using the incredibly vicious and filthy political smear tactic of guilt by association, and trying to paint these people, and Nader by association, as bizarre cultists that All Red Blooded Patriotic Americans should fear and loathe. What you are doing is despicable. You sure are looking like you've joined ranks with the modern day McCarthyites, calling the New Alliance Party a cult, instead of a communist front. You were there in the 50s Frank, so you know just how it works. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, stooping to this despicable level.

I undertand that to conservative Democrats, only the extremely conservative Congressional Black Caucus will do for African American electoral support. After all, they are just as opposed to the GLBT agenda as Kerry, the Democratic Leadership Council, and the Republican Party is. I'm not afraid of radical African American, Jewish, Arab, Chicano, GLBT, or feminist political activists who aren't working for the Democrats Frank, but apparently you are.

As to citing The Nation, don't make me laugh. The Nation has been one of the leading liberal journals trying to discredit Nader this year. For a more balanced account of Nader running this year, try some journals that aren't tied quite so closely to the Democratic Party (ie steer clear of Alter Net, Common Dreams, Working Assets, New Republic, The Nation, Mother Jones, ballot-access.org, and the other liberal mainstream journals).

Try CounterPunch, New Left Review , Democracy Now, IndyMedia, or lefthook.org instead.

The Democratic drive to discredit Nader is fueled with large amounts of unregulated money, much of it funneled through the National Progress Fund, an ostensibly independent group led by Toby Moffett, a former Democratic congressman who is currently a partner in a largely Republican lobbying firm called the Livingston Group.

National Progress Fund and other so-called independent 527 organizations (named for the section of the tax code under which they incorporate) were operating openly at the Democratic National Convention. They held meetings to discuss the best strategies and tactics to push the Nader-Camejo ticket off the ballot and they raised money from Democratic fat cats to accomplish their goals. It is evident that these "independent" groups are actually not independent but working closely with the Democratic Party.

In addition, chair of the Democratic Party of Maine, Dorothy Melanson, testified under oath in a public hearing before Maine's secretary of state that the national Democratic Party is funding efforts throughout the country to stop Nader-Camejo from appearing on ballots.

These ties with Democrats don't prevent the 527s from accepting help from entrenched corporate interests, or even Republican quarters, to finance challenges of the signatures we have collected to meet the requirements of ballot access. According to reports filed with the Internal Revenue Service, Robert Savoie, president of Louisiana-based Science & Engineering Associates, donated $25,000 to the National Progress Fund in June. A month before, Savoie gave $25,000 to the Republican National Committee.

As for Nader using signatures gathered by Republicans to get on the Michigan ballot, Democrats challenged more than 45,000 of the 50,500 signatures submitted on Nader's behalf claiming they were collected by the Michigan Republican Party.

The state appeals court ruled the board had overstepped its authority and dismissed challenges to the petitions. Nader got on the ballot despite the Democratic challenge. Nader isn't a Democrat and nor are his supporters, so why should any of us care if Nader was able to get on the Michigan ballot by playing the Republicans against the Democrats? Nader has been fighting both Democrats and Republicans his entire career, and both parties have been harrassing his campaign ever since he got into the race. It doesn't bother me one iota that Nader used the Republicans, but I'm sure it bothers died in the wool Democrats like you, Frank.

The Congressional Black Caucus thing was idiotic. They yelled at him to quit the race. He said no. They yelled some more. So what? And if you think your list of list of celebrity dilettantes is going to convince any of Nader's supporters to change their votes, or should, you are seriously delusional. Why the hell should ANYONE give a damn what Phil Donahue says about Ralph Nader? Those pathetic liberal sellouts for Kerry have crushed the progressive agenda and movements, and now think they can come to us at the 11th hour to save Kerry's ass in Michigan and Wiconsin? I think not!

Despite all those Democratic efforts to keep him off the ballot, Nader is still holding his own, and may end up doing as well as he did in 2000, despite the unprecedented legal harrassment campaign being waged by the Democrats to keep him off the ballot. Here is the progressive answer to Noam Chomsky, et als' 11th hour call the progressive left to arms call, Frank.

Deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 04:43 PM

Eric Alterman in the Nation (Oct 4, 04) had a few points to make about Nader.
1.He has "virtually no support amoung African-Americans, Latinos or Asian-Americans.
2. Nader met with the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and it ended in a shouting match. After, Texas Representative Sheila Jackson said,"This is the most historic electionof our lifetime, and it is a life-or-death matter for the vulnerable people we represent. For that reason, we can't sacrifice their vulnerability for the efforts being made by Mr. Nader."
3. The Detroit Free Press in September reported that 45,000 of the 50,500 peetition signatures submitted on Nader's behalf in Michigan wer submitted by Republicans. In Florida, Kennth Sukhia who represents Bush was in charge of Nader's access ballot.
4. Phil Donahue, Jim Hightower, Susan Sarandon, Howard Zinn and Cornel West are urging support for Kerry and not for Nader.
5. No national labor unions are supporting Nader.
6. Carl Pope of the Sierra Club when asked by Nader for support said, "No thanks."
7. Nader is polling at 2.74 percent of Americans, high enough to tip the swing states for Kerry.
8. Nader doesn't have the support of organized Gay groups either.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 12:15 PM

Welcome to the Cat, Old Guy!!

As for voting for Nader, it may be principled in some abstract way, but not in a way that makes a real difference. Guest has dismissed Kerry as a militarist, ignoring the incredible character he demonstrated when standing up to the whole Nixon war machine.

Kerry is as principled and moral a man as has ever occupied the White House, in my opinion.

I am sure many disagree, but I call 'em as I sees 'em.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: M.Ted
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 12:04 PM

In case anyone missed it, Old Guy is a member now, instead of a guest, so let's welcome him--he looks like a good addition--he joined a little bit passed sundown on Saturday, and worked the threads well into the wee hours, then, after a bit of sleeping time, picked up again on Sunday morning--don't overdo it, Old Guy--pace yourself, like Kevin and Amos do, or you'll run out of things to say, like Catspaw--

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:57 AM

According to an article in the Nation, Nader is "in bed with the ultra-sectarian cult-racket formerly known as the New Alliance Party". This isheaded by Fred Newman who also heads other front organizations and is referred to as a "guru". CultNews has reported about the Newman machine which has been linked to Micheal Bloomberg, Charles Schumer, George Patacki and Rudy Guiliani.

If Nader is so together, why have Studs Terkel, Barbara Erenreich,Bonnie Raitt, Tim Robbins and Noam Chomsky left his campaign?

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:16 PM

That's what elections almost invariably do, everywhere. They are a break with real politics, which only takes place between elections. But the elections determine the circumstances in which the real politics can take place.

Basically it's a matter of choosing between two steps forward and one step back, or one step forward and two steps back.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 06:18 PM

We already HAD those movements built. This presidential election and the partisan warfare surrounding it, have effectively destroyed those movements by hushing and crushing any and all dissent from the Democratic party line or criticism of Kerry.

The progressive movements in the US have been very effectively and successfully crushed by the Democratic Party and the Kerry/Edwards campaign. All the resources of the left have been recklessly dumped into this presidential campaign, mostly into the coffers of the Democratic party to boot.

The waste of this criminal. Absolutely criminal. People will most definitely suffer and die as a result of this recklessness and disregard shown by the progressives, in this messianic quest to unseat Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 05:45 PM

I haven't read any posts here or come across anything in the media that suggests anybody thinks that Kerry, if elected, is going to do things like "bring the working class and poor universal health care, a clean environment, human and civil rights" and so forth.

I suppose there may be some of Bush's crowd saying that he's a leftie and all that, and Bush came out in one of those debates with some crap about him being on the left - but obviously enough anyone who thinks that is true would indeed by "seriously deluded".

As I understand it, as a spectator (and being a spectator has its points when trying to make sense of what is going on in a roughhouse), the reasons "progressives" give for seeing a Kerry victory as desirable are that this would make for a much better environment for building a movement to achieve those kind of things; whereas a Bush victory would make it far harder to build such a movement, as well as entailing enormous additional costs for poor Americans, and risks for everybody.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 05:08 PM

Guest--

"hysterical, unbalanced"----proof, please.

i.e. quotes

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Old Guy
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 04:58 PM

Where is Amos?

Is he in Church or out beating up Bush supporters?

I miss sparring with that old Kerry droid.

He's like a vending machine with one flavor. No matter what the input is, the output is always the same.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 03:47 PM

SOme of us wish they were running in '04.....

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Old Guy
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 03:21 PM

Spot on.

Except for the voting for Nader Part. It is like shooting your last bullet into the air. Like the lemmings jumping into the sea. Like the financiers jumping out of tall buildings when the market crashes.

I hope that someday a popular candidate will come along that can start a trend toward getting money out of the election process. It seems impossible but maybe McCain can get it rolling.

I nominate McCain / Lieberman for 08.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:57 PM

You are all entitled to your opinions, and I am entitled to mine. I am voting for Nader, and with a clear conscience. As I said in another thread today, I realize there are consequential differences between Bush and Kerry, but I will not vote for either candidate, as a vote for either one of them is a vote to maintain the systems of capitalist empire I have worked my entire life to change.

In other words, I am both sticking to my principles AND doing the right thing. I don't participate in the politics of capitulation and appeasement. Encroaching fascism in US politics is a given at this point, and has been present in our political system for well over 20 years now. It is not suddenly a potential only if Bush is elected. It is the beast we are attempting to slay, here and now, and have been trying to slay for over 20 years. Reagan enshrined that fascism in the US at the same time Thatcer nailed it down. Neither Clinton or Blair did anything to change that course, and both Clinton and Blair nailed desparately attempted to nail the lid down on the coffin of progressive socialism. Kerry is ready to step into place, and keep on hammering.

Not all of us have fallen for the Democratic Party tactics being used to regain power and control of the political establishment. The Democratic Party isn't working for thebenefit of the working class and poor, any more than it is working for universal health care, the environment, human rights and global justice, world peace, or an end to militarist capitalism and empire.

Anyone who believes John Kerry will bring the working class and poor universal health care, a clean environment, human and civil rights, peace in the Middle East or anywhere else, an end to the economic "volunteer army" drafting of the nation's poor men and women, or an end to the domination of the US political system by the military capitalists, is seriously deluded.

John Kerry is every bit the status quo candidate as George Bush. A vote for either is a vote to maintain the status quo Kerry's supporters claim they are against. Which in my book, makes all of you Kerry supporters claiming otherwise a bunch of hypocrites and liars.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Old Guy
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:30 PM

Don:

What would you call the people that attacked the guest that posted above?

Zealots?
Maniacs?
Storm Troopers?

I think extremists is rather complimentary in consideration of their actions.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:22 PM

"Kerry extremists."

Wow, Old Guy, that's a real doozy! I guess we can add that to the list of other labels, like "liberal," "progressive," and other such dirty words.

Dismiss it by slapping a catchy label on it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:20 PM

Who has ever said Kerry was "an angel"?

And apart from posting in the same thread on the same site, in what way are any of us "associating" with this particular unamed GUEST, who may or may not be the same as various other unnamed GUESTs who post here from time to time?

The suggestion that we are somehow supposed to avoid taking an interest in what happens in elections outside our own countries is a bit hard to justify. More especially when what the outcome of such elections has a major impact on our own lives, and on the lives of people who are important to us.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Old Guy
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:08 PM

Guest:

Please don't mention the word fear here. It is now a hot button for the Kerry extremists. They push it whenever any government agency attempts to do their job or whenever the current administration mentions that national security is at risk.

Perhaps the term "the of lack of a feeling of security" would avoid the wrath of the Kerryites.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:05 PM

Guest,

Bush is different.   Encroachiing fascism is something that many have a hard time getting their head around.

I don't share your view of Democrat's hysteria. I see the Democrats as a party of hope and optimism. "Hope is on the way".

Progressives for Kerry are nothing to be afraid of. Being frightened and fearful is what the Republicans want for us. Kerry offers a different view.
He has been criticized for being restrained in his anger. I consider this a plus for any President. He is not frothing at the mouth in frustration but calm and measured in his approach. He is for building consensus and community and not muckraking or taking a negative bashing position.

Demonizing is a political ploy. But it is fair to criticize a world view that is based on rigid, authoritarian, selfish and violent policies.

I think you are mistaken when you assume that I am vilifying Nader, Bush or anyone else. I am referring to their world view and their policies that result from them. I don't think it's constructive to take a victim stance which many on the fringe of the Left are prone to do.

Nader is an obstructionist. It really doesn't matter if he is taken Republican money or not. I have no cognitive dissonance regarding Nader. Many of his policies are good. But his action in this time of encroaching fascism in our country is reprehensible.

Kerry is not perfect but he's not a religious fanatic or a world dominating
hegemonic fascist. He is a militarist which bothers me a great deal but I believe that what I know of him, he will be sensitive to the world community and not promote military solutions in lieu of sensible policy decisions.

I'm not at all worried that Kerry will turn out to be like Bush. I have never said that Nader said that.

You say, " But that doesn't stop you from engaging in this arrogant, patronizing bull shit game of demonizing Nader."

I'm not the one doing the demonizing. I have stated that I believe that some of Nader's policies are valid. The bull shit as you have decided to call it is not coming from this quarter. To dismiss my view as bull shit doesn't give any weight for support to Nader. It reinforces the anger and the passion which is not a bad thing in itself but is misguided at a time when the Bush Administration has elected a policy of world domination through building military bases in the Middle East and embarking on a Holy Crusade against the Muslim world.

I have noticed that those who ascribe shortcomings such as close-mindedness, arrogance and other vituperative statements to others generally are used as a smoke screen to deny those aspects in themselves.
Karl Rove has used this technique effectively.

I don't consider Nader an enemy. I think it is however unfortunate what he is doing and no amount of anger or ad-hominem arguments can change my mind or any other person's mind. I don't deny that Jesse has some intelligence. My comment is not on the man but the image that he conveyed which made him electable. Arnold, the same way.

I don't believe Kerry is perfect but Ralph is not presidential at this point because he doesn't grasp the reality of another Bush four years. As a matter of fact, I am of the impression that Ralph would welcome it in order to shake the country up believing that the public would rise up against Bush and support him. I think that's a pipe dream.

I don't agree that all Democrats have caved in to special interests or to the Bush view. There are plenty of feisty Dems out there such as Rep. Barney Franks, John Lewis of Georgia, Barak Obama of Illinois and others who will keep Kerry's feet to the fire if need be.

As to the abuse of Dems to Naderites, I can't comment because this has not been my experience. There is however a sense of urgency in that Nader has taken votes away from Kerry which portends a Bush re-election.

I personally think it's reprehensible for anyone to pull up signs, threaten or harass anyone for political gain. I do feel, though, it's all right to state what I think is appropriate about any political candidate based on my views. As an American, I cherish that right. Again, to be told that I am full of shit weakens the argument from anyone who uses that type of intimidation. I suspect a Karl Rove approach is operative here.

I came out one morning to find one of my Kerry/Edwards lawn signs crumpled in the neighbor's garbage. Was it a Bush supporter or a Naderite? Don't know. Chances are that it wasn't a Democrat. So my experience has been different from yours.

I believe that it's important for Progressives not to assume a position of victims and keep reaffirming the positive values that have helped us in the past, that of community, fair play for all, tolerance, economic fairness, helping those who need it through government programs, paying taxes as dues for living in a civilized society, protecting Social Security for our elderly, and being judicious in foreign policy and not go off half-cocked with a crazy Reactionary anger. This would apply to Naderites as well as Bushies.

Frank












------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Translate Page From:  Translate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to Thread

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 11:14 AM

First off, maybe you, Frank, are living in "not normal" times, but I'm not. My life is just as normal now as it was on 9/10/2001, and in October 2000. The election of Bush and 9/11 did nothing to change my life one iota. So, I consider any Democratic sycophant claims that we are living in "not normal" times because Bush is president, to be just as ludicrous, disturbing, and frightening as the fundamentalist Christian claims that Bush is their apocalypse president because he will usher in the end times.

I see no difference between the hysterical Democratic "not normal times" fear mongering and the hysterical Republican "end times" fear mongering.

Both sides are delusional in that regard, and the Democrats and self-proclaimed progressives for Kerry frighten me every bit as much as the Bush Republicans do.

However, I am not frightened and disturbed by Democrats who are honest about their support for Kerry or Republicans who are honest about their support Bush, when they simply say "that is the candidate that best represents my political worldview" without demonizing the other party's candidate as if he were Satan. That is just despicable, and there are plenty of people posting here in Mudcat who are doing that, and doing it all the time.

It isn't just enough for you to demonize and villify Bush and Nader though. The Kerry as Messiah group (or angel, if you prefer your choice of words) is an unbalanced, hysterical group of people I don't wish to have any association with, thank you very much. And that includes you, Frank. And Amos. And Jack the Sailor. And Don Firth. And Nerd. And Ron Davies. And McGrath, even though he can't even vote because he isn't a US resident.

As to the accusations that Nader is accepting Republican money, I think we all know that sort of thing is a typical dirty tricks tactic. Kerry supporters aren't going to believe that myth, the same way that the Bush supporters believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. You don't want to know, nor will you accept, the truth or the facts of the case about it, because it would result in cognitive dissonance for you.

And when I read the threads here about the "separate realities" of the Kerry and Bush camps, I sit back and howl. Kerry supporters are just as delusional, just as biased, and experience just as much cognitive dissonance with their candidate as many Republicans do with Bush. Yet the conclusion of the Kerry camp is that ONLY Bush supporters suffer from this. How about Kerry's anti-war supporters? How about Kerry's universal health care advocates who are now supporting him? Plenty of cognitive dissonance there, Frank, because Kerry isn't on their side of the issue any more than Bush is.

The anti-Bush fear mongering Kerry supporters keep saying things like "The premise behind the Nader support is that Kerry is going to be just like Bush and turn Republican for some reason."

You just don't get how arrogant it is of you to presume to state what MY premise is for supporting Nader. You are absolutely, 100% wrong in YOUR premise about Nader supporters, Frank. But that doesn't stop you from engaging in this arrogant, patronizing bull shit game of demonizing Nader.

And I really have to question why Kerry's supporters would keep doing that at this point. The Democratic army of lawyers has succeeded in keeping him off the ballot in nearly every battleground state. You should be happy now, and just get on with it. But you can't. Your viciousness and bitterness and rancor is still driving you. It is every bit as ugly as the Bush supporters viciousness, bitterness, and rancor. The closer the election gets, the worse the Mudcat Kerry supporters' foaming at the mouth gets. You've become what it is you claim to hate and despise so much: irrational, hateful, fear mongering dividers.

Nader is not now, and never has been your enemy. Your arrogant dismissiveness regarding Jesse Ventura only demonstrates what a partisan worldview you hold. Jesse wasn't merely a humorous diversion, no matter how pathetic he looked. The man does have some intelligence and his insights into the partisan wars are fairly astute. But because of your closed minded, partisan worldview, you can't objectively judge when Jesse is making an astute, accurate observation, and when he isn't, because your partisan blinders don't allow you to think objectively, and even more importantly, critically about politics.

I won't follow any group that is so blinded by their own partisan prejudices, and the Kerry supporters are every bit as blinded as their Bush counterparts. Kerry's supporters are so blinded by their hatred of Bush, that they are no longer rational, logical, critical thinkers. They just swallow their party's lines and lies hook, line, and sinker, because it is so easy. So black and white. So certain. So safe for them and their bigoted, partisan worldview.

There are only a handful of people willing to work above the partisan divide in this election, and who will be prepared to heal the divisions between Bush's America and Kerry's America when it is all over. Those people are most certainly NOT Kerry Democrats and Kerry progressives. I absolutely do not believe that the Kerry Democrats and Kerry progressives will hold Kerry's feet to the fire. They have collapsed, accepted the politics of appeasement, and will never rejoin the movements for social change they abandoned to support Kerry.

I know of not one single Nader supporter who believes Kerry would be the same as Bush. Not one. That is a Democratic myth. I live in a neighborhood where in 2000, Nader lawn signs were everywhere. Today, they have been mostly replaced by Kerry/Edwards signs. I have no problem with that. But I wish the Kerry supporters would stop harrassing me for my Nader lawn sign. They get very vicious. More than one Kerry supporter has bullied and threatened us for supporting Nader, by coming to our house, ringing our doorbell, and screaming in my face when I opened my door. I have been verbally abused by Kerry supporters in the parking lot of my coop. I have colleagues at work who aren't speaking to me because I am supporting Nader.

That is how out of control the Kerry people are. Out of control, anti-social, irrational to the point where I feel like some of these nut cases could actually do me and my family physical harm.

Back during Gulf War I, we put a gigantic peace sign in Xmas lights on our house. We lived in a very Republican area at that time. I was somewhat fearful then, that we or our house might be attacked/vandalized by Republican gung ho types. Seriously was fearful of it. But nothing ever happened, except that the Republicans who went as far as to mention it to me, politely disagreed with me, or vigorously debated my views with me.

But the Kerry supporters have actually bullied and harrassed us, at home, at work, and out in the community where we conduct our daily lives. I am, at this point, much more fearful of you Kerry types than I am of the Bush supporters. Not more fearful of a Kerry presidency than a Bush presidency. But more fearful of Kerry's supporters and their fascist tactics of bullying and intimidation.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Old Guy
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 10:58 PM

Larry K:

Well said but note that the terrorists think they are on a mission from God to wipe out the infidels, us.

All this crap about Nader and swiftboaters is a side show. It causes us to take our eyes off the ball and let Kerry get away just when we have him cornered and closing in for the kill.

Nerd:

As usual you sound like a package of fire crackers going off and leaving nothing but smoke and chaff behind. Try to put some style into your posts, not just noise.

Old guy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 03:39 PM

Guest,

Whether Nader is taking the Republican money or not, I tend not to take his denial as a meaningful source of proof that he didn't.

Jesse Ventura didn't last long. He was a diversion because of the humorous idea of having a wrestler in government. Also, he represents the values of the Republicans in that he represents the classic Schwartzenegger figure.I find it very difficult to take what Jesse has to say seriously. As to Al Gore, he is the president of the US. The Republicans managed to steal the election in 2000. So Jesse didn't get it right.

The reason that neither party can pull in enough votes for a landslide is simple. Bush is a Divider, not a Uniter. Polarity in the electorate is greater today than it has been in some time. It has little to do with facts or policies but is a "culture war" between hard-assed dictatorial Republicans and Progressive Liberal Democrats who oppose that manner of behaving.

There is no candidate however that walks on water. Kerry's references to Iran are disturbing. We don't need to be going into that country. However, next to Bush, he is an angel. When he is in office, we can put his feet to the fire. Democrats aren't saints. I don't know any rational person who believes that. But they can recognize a "spoiler" when a crazy guy in the White House
threatens the stability of our country with his sabre rattling, fear mongering and sanguinary platform of international policy and someone interferes with the process of ousting him. There is no psychological disconnect here.

The premise behind the Nader support is that Kerry is going to be just like Bush and turn Republican for some reason. That's specious thinking. Kerry is not a compromiser. He has his own opinions, many with which I agree but not all.

There is nothing wrong with the passion that some young people feel who are disgusted with the status quo.   If it were McCain vrs. Kerry or even Bush Sr. vrs. Kerry, the Naderites would have more traction. But we are in a plane of reality that says that another four years of Bush will be a disaster for our country. He is not only incompetent to lead but is emotionally disturbed. Nader has to see that and know that his time is not yet here. If we are fortunate in the development in our democracy, that time may yet come.
I think a three, four or whatever party system is a healthy thing in normal times. But in this election, the whole notion of democracy and representative government is in peril. We are in danger of a kind of new fascism.

Future generations will go through the same kind of disillusionment that spark their idealism in the political jungle. The idealism, however, is a great thing for our country and needs to be respected, but what will your future children say if you allowed Bush another four years? It would be betrayal to allow this.

Nerd,

What Keillor said was to paraphrase, in this election, worship anyone you like but when you go into the voting booth vote for the Man. He didn't mean Nader or Bush.

Frank

.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Choking on Progressives for Kerry'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 10:45 PM

Larry K--

No, as usual, you're wrong. Re: your post 22 Oct 3:49 PM---Kerry does not think terrorism is a nuisance and a legal matter now---just that we have to get to the point where it can eventually be in the background--not an all-pervasive fear as Bush is now making it----stoking fear (while piously and hypocritically appealing to voters to reject "the politics of fear')'-----in order to assure election. How much more Bush drivel can you swallow before you choke on it?

Why don't you ever do research before shooting from the lip?---or do you like regurgitating Bush's smarmy idiocies?

I refer you to Ebbie's post of 12 Oct 2004 12:01 PM on the Terrorism as a Nuisance thread----where the offending word "nuisance" was used in context-----she quotes exactly what Kerry said.

If you have any sense of logic, you will agree that reducing terrorism to a level that is not threatening the fabric of your life is not only a worthy goal, but essential to preserve sanity. In fact that's precisely what the UK has done regarding IRA terrorism.

Kerry is not alleging that terrorism has been reduced to a nuisance, just that this should be our goal. The main disagreement between Bush and Kerry on terrorism is how to get to the stage where terrorism is in the background----unless of course Bush really believes that , omnipotent as he is, he can eliminate terrorism worldwide for the first time in history.

In this case he is either even more of a megalomaniac than I thought, or more of a dim bulb. He himself even said at the time of the Republican convention that the war on terrorism could never be won----then of course retracted that statement--lest he be caught making sense.

So, as a result, his perfect record of nonsense is preserved.

Of course, since you're a staunch Bushite, I don't expect you to have any sense of logic. I continue my search for a thinking person who would vote for Bush.