Saturday, September 11, 2004

How to Argue with a Kerry Supporter

By Glorious Revolutionary Federation

Read full article...

Posted 09/11 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. I’ll have to try a few of these out.

    Posted by Mickey Z from  on  09/12  at  10:23 AM

  2. Well, gee, what do I say to these penny-pinching tightwads who think plunging the US into an ever-deepening spiral of debt to pay for voter-buying giveaways like tax cuts and unaffordable Medicare benefits (which the nation won’t even begin paying for until the President has almost completed his second term, should he win)?

    What do I say to those purple prose pundits who, when the president borrows money to pay ongoing expenses as well as interest on existing debt, accuse him of trailer trash tweaker economics?

    What do I say when bleeding heart military strategists, like professor of strategy Jeffery Record at the Army War College spout commie propaganda like: “An unnecessary war has consumed American Army and other ground resources, to the point where we have nothing left in the cupboard for another contingency—for instance, should the North Koreans decide that with the Americans completely absorbed in Iraq, now is the time to do something.”

    What do I tell these dangerously deluded people?

    Posted by TKM from  on  09/13  at  12:21 PM

  3. From Kerry’s Time magazine interview, available at http://www.time.com/time/election2004
    /article/0,18471,695825,00.html

    I’ve made mistakes, and I’ve done things that I regret, sure. I regret voting for Justice Scalia. I regret that any of us put faith in what the President said about how he would take America to war.
    A flesh-and-blood Kerry supporter would pretty much make mincemeat of these arguments.

    Posted by Dave Weigel from Arlington, VA  on  09/13  at  01:14 PM

  4. To Mr. Weigel:

    How does Kerry acknowledging his squalid record “make mincemeat” of our belief that the record makes the politician, and that we must base our assessment of him and his claims on his conduct in the past?

    Posted by Fortune 500 Killers from  on  09/13  at  06:14 PM

  5. F500K:

    Good question. I’m curious: What has Ralph Nader done for progressive causes in the last four years? What happened to Democracy Rising? How come, when I log onto Ralph Nader’s website, he doesn’t name any of his actual achievements since seatbelts? Where was Ralph when John Kerry voted against DOMA? Where was Ralph when John Kerry was taking on the Republicans over ANWR?

    Why should progressives vote for such a hypocritical, do-nothing candidate?

    Posted by Dave Weigel from Arlington, VA  on  09/13  at  10:26 PM

  6. I believe Nader was busy with his joint project with Canada: Slow The Overuse and Proliferation of Acronyms (STOP, A?).

    Posted by Mickey Z. from  on  09/14  at  06:43 AM

  7. Why don’t you just vote for George W. and get it over with? Why continue this charade of saying you want to do the right thing, when all you want is another 4 years of destruction, courtesy of this administration? Ralph Nader is a washed up egomaniac trying to keep his name forefront, regardless of the damage to the rest of us. Grow Up Ralph Supporters. Join the real world.

    Posted by Nadersupportsbush from  on  09/14  at  04:21 PM

  8. Kerry = 4 years of destruction.

    Bush = 4 years of destruction.

    Kerry = Bush.

    (P.S. When did Nader become an “egomaniac” as it is now widely held? Was that before or after he dedicated his life to public service?)

    Posted by Mickey Z. from  on  09/14  at  04:27 PM

  9. First, Micky Z.’s equations indicate he must have learned math in Texas public schools while Bush was governor. As for Mr. Nader’s “public service,” it is more like “publicity” service. His thirst for the (lime)light is so consuming, one might conclude he is nourished through photosynthesis. Ralph Nader may have been admired—a long, long time ago, but he has squandered his legacy in this self-aggrandizing last “hurrah” and for what? Meanwhile,Bush, Rove and Cheney can’t believe their luck, standing back rubbing their hands in glee at Ralph’s greed and the naivete of his deluded supporters. This charade campaign is tragic for those of us who actually care about this country, instead of merely trying to use the election to make a point. I hope Nader voters, especially in Fla., have children who suffer the results of their parents’ folly in this election.

    Posted by Nadersupportsbush from  on  09/14  at  05:18 PM

  10. To Dave Weigel, Pathetic Apologist for Kerry:

    Nader accomplishments since seatbelts:

    Helped draft major update of Freedom of Information Act
    Played crucial role in formation of Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration
    Founded Public Citizen, which spearheaded crucial projects on health care accountability, among others.

    Since 2000:

    Citizenworks
    Helping Greens at the local and state level (Camejo’s very successful gubernatorial run in 2002—nearly 10%—and positive public impression in the recall)

    Defense of Marriage Act Vote: Kerry against gay marraige.  Nader for it.

    Posted by Fortune 500 Killers from  on  09/14  at  05:20 PM

  11. Additional Nader accomplishment: takng money from Bush campaign to assist in apparent mutual goal of assuring Kerry not elected.

    Not egomaniac. Megalomaniac.

    Posted by TKM from  on  09/14  at  06:38 PM

  12. I defies logic to say Kerry=Bush, it really does. Here’s a GLARING comparision that’s not mentioned:

    Bush is pure evil, Kerry is a liberal politician who wants to win an election.

    Kerry is not Bush, and Kerry would have the liberal ear, hell, maybe even Nader’s! ( They did talk a few months ago, you know. )

    So fine, it’s nice to be high and mighty…

    but it’s nicer to be heard.

    Posted by johnny from  on  09/14  at  08:28 PM

  13. “When the world goes mad, one must accept madness as sanity, since sanity is, in the last analysis, nothing but the madness on which the whole world happens to agree.”

    --George Bernard Shaw

    Posted by Mickey Z. from  on  09/14  at  08:33 PM

  14. John Kerry has taken A HELL of alot more $$$ from Repubs than Nader. But of course, Kerry is a Repub (as are these other war mongering, Patriot Act supporting, anti-labor, anti-poor, anti-abortion (yes, Kerry IS anti-abortion rights; he “doesn’t like” abortion and will “be open to” appointing anti-abortion rights judges if he becomes President) Democrats.

    Posted by Brandy from  on  09/14  at  10:10 PM

  15. This is madness (I like that phrase). Do these Kerry supporters have the slightest shred of CONCRETE PROOF to offer that Kerry is any different or better than Bush? Last I heard, Kerry wanted to increase the number of troops in Iraq by 40,000 (that makes him different). Chomsky tells us that Kerry will be “less violent” than Bush. Are 40,000 extra troops on hand ready to fire their weapons at innocent men, women and children who can’t even secure a cup of uncontaminated water “less violent”? They will however aid in Israel’s expansion in the Middle East, as Charles Krauthammer reminds us, having those troops there will help to defend Israel’s interests and can be used to invade Iran. Kerry would be good for the job since he is a devoted Zionist stooge who can’t say enough good things about Adolph Sharon and the interests of the “Lobby” (the only lobby that matters). Yet, the ABBers defend Kerry despite the fact that he has no charisma, is a proven liar/hypocrit/war monger/war criminal who is inept at building a decent campaign to counter Bushit. If Bush is a moron, what does that make John “Bush is a formidable debater so we better get ready to lose” Kerry (I am paraphrasing)?

    Please Democrats, present some concrete evidence about what the Democrats have EVER done to improve America or the world, in the past and the present (dropping the A bomb does not count). Stop your pathetic attacks, lies and dirty tricks directed at Nader and build your party if that is what you want.

    Posted by Rhino Rick from Tokyo, Japan  on  09/14  at  11:00 PM

  16. Johnny (#12) maintains, “Bush is pure evil, Kerry is a liberal politician who wants to win an election.” Is it okay then to emulate “pure evil” to get elected?

    Nice article but I wonder about the intentionality of Bush’s malapropisms.

    Posted by kim from  on  09/15  at  04:06 AM

  17. Last I heard, even your buddy Ralph had retracted from “there’s no difference between the two candidates.” However much we disagree about that, there is no question that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, so if you want 4 more years of a dangerous religious fanatic to whom God speaks, a man who is incapable of seeing anything but black and white in every situation; and a man who, with nothing to lose, will more forcefully destroy the principles of democracy, then, by all means, PLEASE VOTE FOR NADER!! Rest comfortably knowing the Republicans love you because while they work fervently to destroy everything Ralph Nader supposedly stands for, you will still help Bush get elected. Then you can be proud your stood your ground. Your “victory of principle” may taste a little bitter when it is seasoned with: losing overtime pay entirely (that is what Bush’s plan for flex and comp time does); seeing oil rigs in the Arctic National Forest and more pollution of air and water; sending your children to die in Iran, N. Korea etc. as well as Iraq; losing social security and medicare; paying higher drug prices while losing health insurance; being injured or killed due to the elimination of regulation on business; stepping over starving people in the street; living with the decisions of the Bush Supreme Court and appellate courts that will turn back the clock of freedom and justice; and watching John Ashcroft succeed in his crusade to inject religion and remove science from our schools. All those things and more-courtesy of Bush/Nader! Stand Proud You Bush-Nader Supporters. Vote Ralph-because apparently to you all, absolutely nothing in the world is more important than your selfish need to prove a point.

    Posted by nadersupportsbush from  on  09/15  at  08:55 AM

  18. “Do these Kerry supporters have the slightest shred of CONCRETE PROOF to offer that Kerry is any different or better than Bush?”

    I don’t have all day, but here are two.

    SUPREME COURT
    Bush - Says his model justice is Antonin Scalia.
    Kerry - Voted against Clarence Thomas. Has said he regrets voting for Scalia. Voted for Souder, Ginsberg and Breyer.

    IRAQ WAR
    Bush - Well, this is obvious.
    Kerry - Would not have prosecuted the unilateral, pre-emptive war on Iraq. Gave authority to threaten force against Iraq based on Bush’s statement of Sept. 19, 2002 that “If you want to keep the peace, you’ve got to have the authorization to use force. But it’s—this will be—this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It’s a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration’s ability to keep the peace. That’s what this is all about.” As Kerry put it: “Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.”

    What really gets me Nader supporters is that they ignore John Kerry’s explanation for his record and listen to that of the corporate media and George W. Bush. Nader supporters who think and read critically - Cornel West, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Michael Moore - have rejected the lies about Kerry.

    Posted by Dave Weigel from Arlington, VA  on  09/15  at  10:59 AM

  19. Sorry Dave, wrong again. Kerry said about a month ago that he supports preemptive strikes. Look it up.

    And West, Chomsky and Zinn ARE NOT rejecting the arguments that Kerry is very similar to Bush. They have publicly stated the opposite; their “support” for Kerry is based on getting Bush out of office, a tactic that I don’t agree with, but they do NOT approve of Kerry. They may be ABB, but they are not Kerry fans. (MM is a different story).

    And Nader never retracted the “no difference” statement because he never said it. He said very little difference. Please do your homework.

    Posted by Brandy from  on  09/15  at  01:14 PM

  20. Brandy,

    You’re probably referring to this AP story from July.

    Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Friday he would be willing to launch a pre-emptive strike against terrorists if he had adequate intelligence of a threat.

    Kerry offered some support for one of the most controversial aspects of President Bush’s national security policy, even as he criticized the president for not reforming intelligence agencies after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

    “Am I prepared as president to go get them before they get us if we locate them and have the sufficient intelligence? You bet I am,” he said at a news conference at his Washington headquarters.

    The Bush campaign spun this as Kerry being indecisive, saying he now supported pre-emptive WAR. But he only said he supported pre-emptive STRIKES AGAINST TERRORISTS. This is manifestly different: Kerry was working off his rhetoric of “getting the terrorists before they get us,” which implies using intelligence and international police tactics.

    The Bush campaign and right wing radio lied about this quote, claiming Kerry “supported pre-emptive war.” Progressives should not be repeating right wing lies.

    Posted by Dave Weigel from Arlington, VA  on  09/15  at  02:51 PM

  21. “The Bush campaign spun this as Kerry being indecisive, saying he now supported pre-emptive WAR. But he only said he supported pre-emptive STRIKES AGAINST TERRORISTS.”

    Oh YES! Excuse me. You are right! Gosh of course, of course, what IN THE WORLD was I thinking????

    And of course, WHO is a terrorist????? HUndreds, (probably thousands) of Arab-Americans who are being detained in the US. Iraqis, of course, since Kerry was not opposed to the war just the “way” Bush went about it. If the occupation wasn’t such a disaster, Iranians would be on BOTH Bush and Kerry’s lists as would Syrians. And of course, Kerry was for the bombings of Iraq by Clinton and Gore under the late 90s. Clinton and Gore called for “regeime change” in Iraq. Hey, but those Eye-Rackis are “terrorists”!

    And Kerry now supports the death penalty for “terrorists”.


    Give it up, Dave. Kerry is just another Country Club Democrat who is about as progressive as.............Bush!

    Posted by Brandy from  on  09/15  at  06:12 PM

  22. To Mr. Wiegel,

    1) A vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush, there are millions of people who do not normally vote because they know our political system is mostly a fraud (helped in great part by the Democrats who maintain the charade). In the last election most of the Nader voters wouldn’t have even voted in the first place had it not been for Nader’s inspiration. You can learn much about the whole mythology of “Nader stealing Gore votes” from Sam Smith’s website, The Progressive Review. Smith wrote a long article about how Nader DID NOT cost Gore the election (at any rate, Gore STOLE VOTES FROM NADER, IMO).

    2) Here’s a little not well known datum about our wonderful war (anti-war?) hero John Kerry:

    When the hearings were underway to determine whether the US should go to war in Iraq over WMDs, Scott Ritter, the person most knowledgable about the topic (and who was of course fiercely opposed to the US going to war over non existent WMDs), was barred from testifying to the committee dealing with this matter. Who barred him? John Kerry, the head of the committee.

    Posted by Rhino Rick from Tokyo, Japan  on  09/15  at  06:29 PM

  23. Apologies to Mr. Weigel, I misspelled your name and point 1. was directed to the “nadersupportbush” person. Point 2 still stands however to show what an amazing hypocrit Kerry truly is.

    To “nadersupportbush” chap, your argument is reductionist and therefore holds little prospect. The history of the Democratic Party, certainly from the time of WWII onward, has been one of complicity with the Republicans (FDR also used WWII as a solution to class war at home, that’s another story). The system works like this: the Republicans rachet the political agenda rightwards and when the Democrats come into office they legitimize it. This is perfectly illustrated by the legacy of Clinton who sold out the environment, sold out labor, sold out one important issue after another. (Regarding the environment, the tactics of the big green groups., ie., “gangreen” shows beyond a doubt that the politics of cooptation work best with a Democrat in office. Clinton had the big greens eating out of his hand all the while making backroom deals to undermine every environmental protection imaginable. His strong support for the WTO also showed his committment to capitalism over the environment to be obvious).

    Clinton paved the way for the even more rightwing (yes, I admit it) W. Bush, and now we have a Democratic candidate that is so right wing that he makes Nixon seem like a cub scout.

    If the Democrats are so wonderful, why do they vote for almost every right wing law the Republicans put on the table? They have supported overwhelmingly a long list of fascistic issues, from the dismantling of the constitution, to global imperial war, to NATO, NAFTA, WTO, and any other nasty acronym you can think of.

    I think Howie Hawkins of the Greens made the best statement: if the Democrats really wanted to get rid of Bush they would surround the White House and hold a vigil, have the man arrested and impeached (and there is certainly enough evidence at this point to do that). But they don’t because they are a) cowards, and b) bourgeois-- I want my cake and eat it too-- hypocrits.

    Posted by Rhino Rick from Tokyo, Japan  on  09/15  at  07:35 PM

  24. Sorry again, I think it was Don Fitz of Synthesis/Resurgence magazine who wrote that about surrounding the Whitehouse. Either way…

    Also, in fairness to Kerry, his sudden timidness about getting elected may be due to death threats from the Bush gangsters. An upcoming book from Kenyon Gibson called The Nature of the Game lists numerous people who died under mysterious circumstances after that had blown the whistle on political scandals or attempted to effect structural change into the political system.

    Posted by Rhino Rick from Tokyo, Japan  on  09/16  at  02:45 AM
    25. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: The Other September 11: Regime Change Then and Now

    Previous entry: The Other September 11ths

    [ads]

    Support Press Action