To Thread - Forum Home

The Mudcat Café TM
https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=67763
82 messages

BS: Anybody But Bush?

11 Mar 04 - 09:28 PM (#1134368)
Subject: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________________________

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

Tikkun article "Anybody But Bush?"


11 Mar 04 - 09:35 PM (#1134373)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: kendall

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


11 Mar 04 - 09:40 PM (#1134374)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

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


11 Mar 04 - 10:05 PM (#1134393)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST,pdc

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


11 Mar 04 - 10:14 PM (#1134397)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Bobert

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

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

We all want Bush out!

Bobert


12 Mar 04 - 01:01 AM (#1134460)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Nerd

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


12 Mar 04 - 08:28 AM (#1134681)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

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

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

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

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


12 Mar 04 - 08:41 AM (#1134699)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: McGrath of Harlow

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

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


12 Mar 04 - 10:58 AM (#1134744)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

"You need to organise yourselves..."

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

A little bit tougher here than in jolly ole.


12 Mar 04 - 11:38 AM (#1134800)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Rapparee

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


12 Mar 04 - 11:41 AM (#1134805)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST,pdc

That's neat, Rapaire.

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


12 Mar 04 - 11:48 AM (#1134815)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Ellenpoly

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


12 Mar 04 - 01:22 PM (#1134895)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Rapparee

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


12 Mar 04 - 01:32 PM (#1134911)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Frankham

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

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

I suspect devious motives from the Ghost who supports Nader.

Frank


12 Mar 04 - 02:27 PM (#1134993)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, Ralph is cooked before he begins.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


12 Mar 04 - 02:42 PM (#1135004)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: McGrath of Harlow

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

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

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


12 Mar 04 - 02:44 PM (#1135005)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Chief Chaos

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

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


12 Mar 04 - 03:19 PM (#1135044)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Don Firth

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

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

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

Don Firth


12 Mar 04 - 04:20 PM (#1135102)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST,pdc

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

Bush Knew Medicare Actual Costs Prior to Vote.

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

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

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

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

From the link below:

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

Link: Medicare Fraud


12 Mar 04 - 04:32 PM (#1135107)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

So, how many of you read the Tikkun article?

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

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

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

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


12 Mar 04 - 04:35 PM (#1135108)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: McGrath of Harlow

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

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


12 Mar 04 - 05:33 PM (#1135143)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Don Firth

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

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

Don Firth


12 Mar 04 - 06:10 PM (#1135158)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST,pdc

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


12 Mar 04 - 06:14 PM (#1135159)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

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

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


12 Mar 04 - 06:26 PM (#1135165)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Bee-dubya-ell

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


12 Mar 04 - 06:27 PM (#1135167)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: McGrath of Harlow

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

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


12 Mar 04 - 06:58 PM (#1135182)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Amos

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

A


12 Mar 04 - 07:08 PM (#1135188)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

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


13 Mar 04 - 03:20 PM (#1135661)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Don Firth

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

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

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

Don Firth


13 Mar 04 - 03:28 PM (#1135666)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST,GUEST

But don't get me wrong.


13 Mar 04 - 03:28 PM (#1135667)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

Please. don't get me wrong.


13 Mar 04 - 03:47 PM (#1135678)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


14 Mar 04 - 08:22 AM (#1136077)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: van lingle

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


14 Mar 04 - 09:30 AM (#1136100)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

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

On a Ritz cracker.


14 Mar 04 - 10:10 AM (#1136114)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: van lingle

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


14 Mar 04 - 10:16 AM (#1136120)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complete artice here:

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


14 Mar 04 - 10:24 AM (#1136127)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

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

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

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

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

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


14 Mar 04 - 10:26 AM (#1136129)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: John P

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

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

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

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

John Peekstok


14 Mar 04 - 11:16 AM (#1136155)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: van lingle

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

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


14 Mar 04 - 12:31 PM (#1136201)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

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

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

START TALKING ABOUT THE PROBLEMS AND THE SOLUTIONS.

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

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

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


14 Mar 04 - 07:45 PM (#1136461)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST,clint keller

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

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

"How didja vote, Ed?"

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

"So you voted Democrat?"

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

"Oh, so you voted Republican?"

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

clint


14 Mar 04 - 07:53 PM (#1136465)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Peace

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


14 Mar 04 - 09:08 PM (#1136511)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Little Hawk

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

- LH


14 Mar 04 - 09:44 PM (#1136531)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Peace

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


14 Mar 04 - 10:01 PM (#1136539)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Amos

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

A


14 Mar 04 - 10:26 PM (#1136556)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Peace

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


14 Mar 04 - 11:18 PM (#1136587)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller

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

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

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

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

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

clint


14 Mar 04 - 11:23 PM (#1136596)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Peace

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

Bruce


14 Mar 04 - 11:28 PM (#1136600)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Amos

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

A


15 Mar 04 - 12:02 AM (#1136618)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Little Hawk

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


15 Mar 04 - 12:28 AM (#1136634)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller

I think we did...

clint


15 Mar 04 - 12:30 AM (#1136637)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller

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

clint


15 Mar 04 - 01:17 AM (#1136662)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Thomas the Rhymer

Hows abouts "anybody but guest?"

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

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

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

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


15 Mar 04 - 08:43 AM (#1136904)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

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


15 Mar 04 - 09:25 AM (#1136937)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: John P

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

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

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

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

"START TALKING ABOUT THE PROBLEMS AND THE SOLUTIONS."


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

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

John Peekstok


15 Mar 04 - 09:39 AM (#1136950)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Stilly River Sage

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


    AP: Privacy Protecting Programs Killed


    March 15, 2004 02:52 AM EST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

SRS


15 Mar 04 - 09:41 AM (#1136952)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Stilly River Sage

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


15 Mar 04 - 10:21 AM (#1136986)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Amos

SRS:

Thanks for the alert. THese guys are such sleaze!

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

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

A


15 Mar 04 - 10:27 AM (#1136991)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Peace

Falls right in there with ECHELON.


15 Mar 04 - 12:05 PM (#1137093)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

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

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

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

Sorry I dared mention it.


15 Mar 04 - 12:24 PM (#1137111)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Amos

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

A


15 Mar 04 - 12:30 PM (#1137115)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

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

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

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

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


15 Mar 04 - 12:49 PM (#1137143)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Amos

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

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

A

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

A


15 Mar 04 - 01:11 PM (#1137173)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Don Firth

GUEST, you're a real piece of work.

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

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

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

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

Don Firth


15 Mar 04 - 01:18 PM (#1137181)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

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


15 Mar 04 - 01:30 PM (#1137194)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Cruiser

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

Good phrase Don Firth.


15 Mar 04 - 01:56 PM (#1137221)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Peace

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

BM


15 Mar 04 - 02:09 PM (#1137237)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

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

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

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


15 Mar 04 - 02:21 PM (#1137250)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: dick greenhaus

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

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


15 Mar 04 - 02:24 PM (#1137256)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: artbrooks

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


15 Mar 04 - 02:26 PM (#1137257)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

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

Unless the cure kills the patient, of course.


15 Mar 04 - 02:51 PM (#1137274)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

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

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


15 Mar 04 - 03:00 PM (#1137284)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Peace

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


15 Mar 04 - 03:03 PM (#1137288)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: dick greenhaus

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


15 Mar 04 - 03:17 PM (#1137300)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Don Firth

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

But there are a few problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don Firth


15 Mar 04 - 03:21 PM (#1137302)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Amos

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

Well said.


A


15 Mar 04 - 04:04 PM (#1137340)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Frankham

Ghost,

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

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


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

Frank


15 Mar 04 - 11:59 PM (#1137673)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: John P

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

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

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

I'm hanging up now.

John Peekstok


16 Mar 04 - 12:22 AM (#1137683)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Stilly River Sage

Break!

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

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

Okay. Back to the discussion. . .


16 Mar 04 - 12:29 AM (#1137686)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Peace

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

Wow, ya gotta love Latin for Beginners.


16 Mar 04 - 12:32 AM (#1137687)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: Peace

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


16 Mar 04 - 08:54 AM (#1138000)
Subject: RE: BS: Anybody But Bush?
From: GUEST

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