Press Action

Friday, July 23, 2004

Donkeys Buck Antiwar Support: Unity a Futile Effort

By Josh Frank

Read full article...

Posted 07/23 |

Add a Comment

Comments:

You must register to comment.

After having read your article “Donkeys Buck Antiwar Support: Unity a Futile Effort” I felt I needed to make some comments.

I feel you were unfairly harsh in your comments about Dennis Kucinich.

Did YOU announce your candidacy for President?
Did YOU criss cross the country, often times traveling up to 11,000 miles in one week?
Did YOU go and give stump speech after stump speech, often times having to repeat the same things over and over again while continueing to remain passionate for the need to get out of Iraq, have not-for-profit healthcare, end the war on drugs, decrease the bloated military budget, withdraw from NAFTA/WTO, etc.?
Did YOU do this and alot more on around 4 hours of sleep per night?

Many times over the past months I posted repeatedly on the Kucinich National Forum that I was either going to write Dennis’ name in on the ballot if there was a space provided, or I would just not vote. Then something happened.....

Dennis came to visit again in Seattle last Saturday. He explained that he did not campaign for a year and 1/2 to turn around and do ANYTHING that would help get Bush re-elected. He acknowledged that Kerry is not what we would have hoped for. He acknowledged that he liked the Kerry of 1972 and not the Kerry of 2004 and he made it very clear that he is in NO WAY abandoning his positions on the issues!!!!!

He WILL speak out against the War in Iraq at the convention, and he asked us on Saturday to continue to do the same on all the issues, including Iraq. But in the end, reality sets in.

Here is reality. Look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself, am I, Josh Frank, willing to do ANYTHING that would help get Bush re-elected for another 4 years? If the answer is “YES” then you can do one of the following things:

1) Don’t Vote
2) Vote for Nader
3) Write in Dennis’ name (Dennis does not want his supporters to do this)
4) Write in someone elses name
5) If Dennis had gone 3rd pary and asked his supporters to vote for him in November, you could have done that too.

You do not have to vote for Bush because if you do any of the above (except for #5 which was just hypothetical) then Bush WILL WIN!

As Dennis mentioned on Saturday, this is a very close race, basically a dead heat when you look at the poll numbers - so the Democracts need to come out in large numbers and vote if Kerry is going to have a chance to win. Don’t get me wrong, I AM NOT HAPPY ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF VOTING FOR KERRY!!! I joked on the forum that I would have to get drunk on Martinellis Sparkling Apple Juice in order to let go of my inhibitions enough to put an X next to Kerry/Edwards.

And consider this, if Dennis had…

Posted by Susan Lynn Rapp from on 07/23 at 05:52 PM

Umm. Susan, I live in New York, so if I write in Snoopy for President, how will that help get Bush re-elected? This is a safe state.. or, do you know what ‘electoral college’ means?

Posted by Josh Frank from New York on 07/23 at 10:56 PM

Dude, that was a pretty facetious and smart-alecky response to a well thoughout response to your article. You didn’t even address her core issues. Fact of the matter is: the progressive movement is going to have a heck of a lot more political influence and push under a Kerry administration as opposed to a Bush one. Kucinich knows this. He knows that his swing state of Ohio needs to go into the Dem’s column on Nov 2. No Republican candidate has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio. So yeah, you have the luxury to vote for Snoopy in your state of NY. But that’s because you are riding on the backs of other Dems who are out there voting to make sure that Bush is out of there. You were totally harsh for someone who has written a few books. Not that author’s aren’t harsh. But at least she made a cogent response to your article. Your response left much to be desired…

Posted by Sunil from on 07/24 at 02:31 AM

Dear Josh:

OK. So your saying that New York is a sure thing for Kerry, whether you vote for him or Snoopy.

So maybe your specific vote wouldn’t have an effect, but if everybody thinks that way, i.e. if Nader supporters vote for Nader, Kucinich supporters write in his name, Dean supporters ditto, etc., and the rest of the apathetic Dems stay home would you agree that in a close race Bush would win in that case?

I read somewhere that in order to beat the Republicans the Dems have to come out in large numbers to vote, if they don’t the Republicans win hands down (EVERY TIME). So if the balance of votes gets split between other candidates other than Kerry, such as Snoopy, the three stooges (which was my backup choice at one point, along with Howdy Doody and Bozo the Clown), then Bush wins for another four years.

Now maybe I am mistaken about this. Maybe this information was incorrect. If I am, I apologize.

Peace (NOW!)

Susan

Posted by Susan Lynn Rapp from on 07/24 at 05:07 AM

If progressives in swing states met Kerry head on, and risked voting for another candidate, we would be on the verge of a real radical transformation in the US. Either Kerry would have to listen to the voters, or lose the election.

The idea that people shouldn’t vote for whom they want out of fear, or pressure from you, is bogus. These are dire days indeed. Democracy is dwindling, and you are afraid Bush is the antichrist. He isn’t. It’s a systemic problem, that will not change under a new administration.

As for the Democratic Party giving progressives room to breath. I don’t agree with this for a number of reasons. Primarily, Democrats have a long, long history of crushing social movements. As many have pointed out, the Democratic Party has long been the graveyard of radical change. Kerry will not challenge this. And who will inside the party? My point being, Kucinich will not. Wellstone didn’t.

I would vote for my candidate of choice in any state, particularly a swing state. As in such states my vote matters even more. So ‘riding on the back’ as Sunil says (hope this isn’t the Sunil I know) is not accurate. I was simply making the point that voting, or writing the candidates in that Susan mentions will not in effect re-select Bush.

For further info on this, I highly recommend an interview I did with Greg Bates, which is on this site. Graci-

Posted by Joshua Frank from on 07/24 at 08:07 AM

I think that if that is your position, and I can respect, you should be clear as to why you think that Bush can safely be allowed to stay in power. I respect this position - specifically in reference to writings by Gabriel Kolko and the stark difference between what the Biden/Holbrooke imperialists want (and perhaps set up Sandy Berger) and what Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell are trying to do inside the Republican party. I think the kernel of truth in this point is that Bush may well be LESS of a neocon in his second term, (see Reagan post Iran Contra eposure) while Kerry will be a “progressive internationalist.” Therefore, hey, in all reality, a strong and angry liberal/radical left along with a country walled in by the changing policies of the world will actually produce a better country.

But this is a longshot. I think, on reflection that campaigning for Nader in swing states may be very very irresponsible, what I think Lenin would call infantile. For many reasons having to do with domestic policy, radicals can’t see the forest from the trees because they are so angry that they don’t remember some bread and butter issues. This is not a statement of anybody but Bush. It is a statement of strategy. I can respect and appreciate other strategies though, and they should be discussed freely, not with smarm.

Posted by j cummings from on 07/24 at 02:25 PM

First Jordy, I agree with you about Kolko’s work. I think that article you refer to will be in Counterpunch’s new book, expanded. I could go into more detail as to why Kerry, on a number of issues, will not be radically different from W. There are some small differences indeed. But for radicals to focus, and corral ourselves in such narrow cages of discourse, like many liberals do, is dreadful. I hope you will pick up my upcoming book for my full argument. As a message board is not the right forum. I also hope Mark Hand, Mickey or the Ox chime in, as from what I’ve read they are in agreement with my argument. You are also talking to a anarchist at heart. So I have trouble arguing for anything that involves maintaining an elite ruling class, ie voting for John Kerry. Or hell, voting in general.

And for using Lenin in denfense of not voting for your candidate of choice in swing states is suspect, don’t you think Jordy?

Posted by Josh from on 07/24 at 05:37 PM

I don’t think there is any misuse of Lenin. I am no purist.

Posted by j cummings from on 07/24 at 05:57 PM

I fail to see why there is any further need for speculation on this topic. JFK2 has made it painfully clear what kind of senator he is and what kind of president he’ll be. It isn’t an issue of “safely” allowing Bush to stay in power, it’s exchanging one Yale-educated, corporate-owned war criminal for another.

Kerry voted for the Iraq invasion, the PATRIOT Act, the repeal of welfare...he supports NAFTA, the WTO, the war on drugs, and Israeli repression. He is being advised by men like Beers, Morningstar, and Perry. He didn’t support gay marriage, hasn’’t ruled out appointing anti-abortion judges, and complains that Dubya hasn’t done enough in the war on terror (sic). He is even on record as being all for “pre-emptive” strikes ("Am I prepared to go get them before they get us if we locate them and have sufficient intelligence? You bet I am. I will never allow any other country to veto what we need to do and I will never allow any other institution to veto what we need to do to protect our nation.”)

Kerry is not at all coy about laying out his status quo agenda. Only desperation or denial could inspire anyone to find even an iota of hope in his candidacy.

Didn’t anyone learn anything from the Clinton years?

Posted by Mickey Z. from on 07/24 at 06:55 PM

I don’t find an iota of hope from Kerry’s candidacy...nor from Bush’s. I greatly do from Nader. If America had a parliamentary system, I would advocate voting for him anywhere. With the system as it is, I think that at the very least, serious discussion should be made about the ramifications of allowing Bush to stay in power.

Hypothetical worst case scenario: Bush squeeks a defeat, no thanks to Kerry, who not surprisingly does not pick up Nader’s issues. Immediately invades Iran, Patriot II, etc. - of course with opposition, but burnt out opposition. Kerry on the other hand could do the same thing, and the opposition will be all the more angry because they actually thought Kerry would make a difference. Bush’s win will not at all be the fualt of Naderites, but the fault of Kerry for not bringing up his issues. This I can accept.

But if this takes place, the recriminations and anger will be incredibly demobilizing, to a degree probably not seen in American history. This isn’t what I want, obviously, but it is a realistic assessment, I believe, of the “conjuncture.”

I think that actually discussing these things, as opposed to gnashing teeth and using vaguely authoritarian language to make one’s case is the job of people who are openly stating that if Bush wins, no big deal… I am not trying to make a definitive point, but people should wonder how they would respond to a Bush victory. Now I think there is a slim chance of both Kolko’s work as I noted being correct, but there is also a larger chance of other issues occuring.

Posted by j cummings from on 07/24 at 08:29 PM

I agree with Josh in point no. 5. Well stated.
Kucinich is merely window dressing for the Dems to make them look really really liberal, when in fact they are really really fascist.

Posted by Rhino Rick from Tokyo, Japan on 07/24 at 08:54 PM

I may have little, if any, hope that Kerry will turn out to be a decent President, however I have tons of hope that the Democratic Party will ultimately be cured. Right now, it is still in the thick of trouble from the centrist movement. The Democratic Party needs to regain its liberal voice and it can happen in spite of the corporate controlled Media and the DNC and any other rigging that is confounding things. WHY? Because it will ultimately be WE THE PEOPLE who will fix it! No entity can prevail aginst the collective voice of WE THE PEOPLE! There are Grassroots organizations sprouting up at this very moment. A Progressive Summit is in the works in August in Washington DC to keep this movement going. As more and more people realize that the centrist position is ineffective in bringing the change that is needed in the country, I believe they will move more toward the liberal position. It may not take as big a push as one might think for this to happen. The large majority of people that post on the Kerry Forum say they want want DENNIS wants. They want the US to get out of Iraq. They want to end the failed War on Drugs. They want to legalize marijuana, particulary medicinal marijuana. They want to pull out of NAFTA/WTO. They want Not-for-Profit Single Payer Universal Health Care. They want Living Wages. Oh sure, there were a few posts here and there that objected to these ideas, but not very many. When I would respectfully and gently remind the Kerry supporters that there was already a candidate running for President who was passionately for all of the things they wanted, the response most common was “He’s unelectable”. “He” being Dennis Kucinich. Then they would go back to posting and saying “I hope Kerry will change his mind about this”, “I hope Kerry will reconsider his position on that”. Here is MY prediction: Someday these folks are going to vote for Dennis!

Posted by Susan Lynn Rapp from on 07/24 at 09:18 PM

I admire your enthusiasm, Susan, but when did the Democratic Party ever have a “liberal
voice”?

And Jordy, what does this mean: “I think that actually discussing these things, as opposed to gnashing teeth and using vaguely authoritarian language to make one’s case is the job of people who are openly stating that if Bush wins, no big deal…”

Thanks…

Posted by Mickey Z. from on 07/24 at 09:36 PM

“Kucinich is merely window dressing for the Dems to make them look really really liberal, when in fact they are really really fascist”.

Posted by Rhino Rick on 07/24 at 09:54 PM

~~~~~~
I’d be willing to bet a whole paycheck (if I had a job) that you have never heard Dennis speak in person. In fact, I bet you have never visited his website, particpated on his National Forum, read his speeches or reviewed his position statements. If Dennis is in cahoots with the Democratic Party gone fascist, then how come he has acknowledged publicy time and time and time again, that the Democratic Party needs alot of fixing. I know this because I HAVE seen him speak in person, I have read his speeches, I have reviewed his position statements and I just saw him in Seattle last Saturday. Nobody is perfect and niether is Dennis, but he’s more closer to perfect than anyone else I can think of.

Perhaps a visit to Vote Smart to review Dennis’ voting record is in order as well. Then you can come back here and apologize.

Posted by Susan Lynn Rapp from on 07/24 at 09:43 PM

Mickey Z wrote:

“I admire your enthusiasm, Susan, but when did the Democratic Party ever have a “liberal
voice”?”

Well there is me for starters......and the folks at the Kucinich National Forum and the folks at the Kerry Forum (see post above).....

What we have really been lacking is not so much the liberal voice but a liberal lEADER. I think Dennis fits that description. I did however come out more liberal (than Dennis) on the political compass quiz that I took online! (LOL)

I hope that’s a fair answer to your question.

Posted by Susan Lynn Rapp from on 07/24 at 10:03 PM

OK...what I meant by “vaguely authoritarian language” is that as opposed to trying to sell me/anyone on why it is safe to support Nader wherever one pleases, why - as opposed to the catechism of Kerry-the-imperialist, why Bush may NOT be worse.

I myself think there are quite a few reasons why Bush may be preferable to Kerry - Cato Institute people getting more influence on foreign policy for example...China being more cooly responded to by the Scowcroft crowd than liberals who want a new Cold War.

Still, since I can’t be sure of these possibilities, I don’t find it sufficient as a maybe, compared to the equally plausible circumstance I mentioned earlier…

Posted by j cummings from on 07/25 at 10:25 AM

of course I use vaguely authoritarian language all the time.

Posted by j cummings from on 07/25 at 10:28 AM

Susan, not belittling your intellignet and sincere comments elsewhere on this thread, and admitting that I like Dennis a lot [ I remained a registered Democrat specifically to vote for him in the Illinois primary March 17 after he was already dead in the water], I would suggest to you that good as Kucinich is, Nader is better. It gives evidence to our sick body politic that the best man for the job is only polling single digits - apparently because he’s not part of the system, i.e. Democrat or Republican. This is as inexplicable as the fact that where it is not entirely apathetic and politically disengaged, the vast majority hold political positions that are contrary to their own interests.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 07/25 at 05:21 PM

I dearly wanted Kucinich to have more influence on the Democrats than he did during the primaries this past winter and spring. But Kucinich’s positions on many of the issues have never been shared by the Democratic establishment. People who agree with the policy positions of Kucinich and other liberal Democrats need to get rid of the “unelectable” mentality and simply vote for the candidate who matches their views on many issues, especially during the Democratic primaries. If anti-imperialists and those who seek radical change in the U.S. political and economic scene continue to offer their support to rabid establishment and right-leaning Democrats such as Kerry, then these status quo-types will continue to rule the scene; and, as Mickey Z. points out, they always have.

If elected to a second term, will Bush launch invasions of Iran, Syria, North Korea and other “rogue” states? Will he dissolve Congress and declare himself supreme ruler? It’s possible, but unlikely on the first question, given the level of personnel that will be needed, which could not be satisfied even if the U.S. government reinstated the military draft. As for the second question, some would argue that he’s already succeeded at creating a quasi-dictatorship, given how the Democrats, including Kerry, have offered their support to his most authoritarian policies and how those Democrats who may oppose Bush’s policies tell their constituents that the only remedy to Bushism is to wait until the next general presidential election instead of adopting more effective tactics to roll back Bushism/Kerryism in between elections.

Posted by Mark Hand from on 07/25 at 06:00 PM

Dear Susan,

I also admire your enthusiasm and committment (and of course I agree with DK on a number of positions he takes, on opposing US militarism to renewable energy policy, bravo DK), but DK’s position that he wants to bring people back into the Dem’s “big tent” to me is the smell of death. And I’m sorry I have to disagree here, and I do with many well meaning people, but I do not see any future in the Demosaurs/Republicants two party scam.

I do not know what the future holds. If we had a different type of electoral system (prop. rep./instant run off voting etc.), maybe electoral politics would still hold out some hope for the dying Republic. We saw what happened to my own choice for an electoral strategy with the Greens, they were defanged and made irrelevent with their decision to basically endorse Kerry and reject Nader.

To take a broader view, ecologically speaking, the Republic cannot sustain itself for long. If that is true, how do people think they can really fix this broken two party system in time? I think they cannot. Most people are in a state of deep apathy and denial. They deny how deeply corrupted the Democratic Party is (historically) because they want to hold out for some hope (I think of the liberal radio personalities Mike Malloy and Thom Hartmann,who should know better but ignore all empirical evidence to the contrary).

At least Nader offers a chance to disrupt things in a more direct way. If all of the Dems who put their energy into electing some clone into the whitehouse put the same energy into electing Nader (despite his imperfections, if he has any) then we really would have an interesting situation, wouldn’t we?

Posted by Rhino Rick from Tokyo, Japan on 07/25 at 06:06 PM

Tracey McLellan wrote:

“I would suggest to you that as good as Kucinich is, Nader is better. It gives evidence to our sick body politic that the best man for the job is only polling single digits - apparently because he’s not part of the system, i.e. Democrat or Republican”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{QUOTE) Nader accepting GOP signatures in Michigan/
Dem leaders have asked him to refuse the signatures
Tuesday, July 20, 2004 Posted: 11:28 AM EDT (1528 GMT)

LANSING, Michigan (AP)—In an about face, Ralph Nader decided Monday to accept thousands of petition signatures collected by Michigan Republicans if that is the only way he can qualify for the state’s presidential ballot.

Last Thursday, Michigan Republican Party officials submitted 43,000 signatures—far more than the 30,000 needed—to ensure Nader could appear on the ballot as an independent. Republicans began collecting signatures after it appeared that Nader might not get on the ballot as the Reform Party’s candidate for president. Nader’s campaign had turned in about 5,400 signatures. But spokesman Kevin Zeese said it stopped collecting them a month ago after the national Reform Party endorsed Nader and it looked as though he could get on the ballot as its candidate. But there has been a growing dispute over who controls the Reform Party in Michigan. One group claiming to be the legitimate Reform Party of Michigan plans to nominate a presidential candidate for the ballot at its state convention Saturday. Chairman Matthew Crehan, of Muskegon, Michigan, has said there is no guarantee Nader will get that nomination. A group headed by John Muntz, of Wyandotte, Michigan, which also claims to be the legitimate state Reform Party, already has nominated Nader for the spot on the state ballot. Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land has said she can’t accept that nomination until the dispute over who controls the state Reform Party is resolved. Zeese said the goal is to get Nader on Michigan’s ballot—however it happens. “We’re going to continue to pursue the Reform Party, but we’re not going to close off the independent option at this time while the Reform Party has not decided” who is in charge, he said. Michigan Democratic Party leaders have asked Nader to refuse the signatures, saying Republicans want him on the ballot only to draw votes away from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. “We urge Nader to reject this Republican political trick and demonstrate that he is still a man with great integrity who honors his own beliefs,” Michigan Democratic Executive Chairman Mark Brewer said. Zeese initially said last week that the campaign would refuse the GOP signatures.
He later said he wasn’t sure that was still the case if it turned out state officials wouldn’t accept the Reform Party nomination. Brewer said Nader’s decision not to withdraw as an independent will force the party to file a federal election complaint against Nader’s campaign and the Michigan Republican Party, which it contends exceeded a state political party campaign limit of $5,000 in helping Nader get on…

Posted by Susan Lynn Rapp from on 07/25 at 06:20 PM

Your right Susan. I find Nader’s acceptance of Republican help distasteful, but I support it. Whatever it takes to get him on the ballot, I support. And if he causes Kerry to lose, so much the better. Maybe finally the Dems will return to their roots, though that is doubtful. Moreover, as Gabriel Kolko has pointed out, and as I think has been referred to in this thread, Kerry could be worse than Bush in foreign affairs in that Kerry seeks to mend international alliances that Bush is destroying and staunch the breech that would isolate the US militarily and diplomatically, which would have the effect of making this a safer world.

That said, Nader too has his worts. I don’t know if anyone else saw it, but there was an exchange between Salon reporters and Nader reproduced on the Web this week in which Nader responded disingenuously to accusations of said Republican support and the fact that his new book is published by a house owned by Rupert Murdoch. I didn’t like that at all, but I as little expect Nader to be perfect as I do myself.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 07/25 at 07:12 PM

Tracy McLellan wrote:

“Your right Susan. I find Nader’s acceptance of Republican help distasteful, but I support it. Whatever it takes to get him on the ballot, I support. And if he causes Kerry to lose, so much the better”.

FOUR MORE YEARS of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Achcroft, Rove, etc.?

Yes, that will cetainly push us in a more positive direction. (Sarcasm intended, sorry)

“Maybe finally the Dems will return to their roots, though that is doubtful”.

It’s already happening and I would prefer to continue that effort minus Bush & Tricky Dicky the 2nd in power.

“Moreover, as Gabriel Kolko has pointed out, and as I think has been referred to in this thread, Kerry could be worse than Bush in foreign affairs in that Kerry seeks to mend international alliances that Bush is destroying and staunch the breech that would isolate the US militarily and diplomatically, which would have the effect of making this a safer world”.

HUH?

“That said, Nader too has his worts. I don’t know if anyone else saw it, but there was an exchange between Salon reporters and Nader reproduced on the Web this week in which Nader responded disingenuously to accusations of said Republican support and the fact that his new book is published by a house owned by Rupert Murdoch. I didn’t like that at all, but I as little expect Nader to be perfect as I do myself”.

Yes, I agree, Nader isn’t perfect, Kucinich isn’t perfect, nobody’s perfect!

Posted by Susan Lynn Rapp from on 07/25 at 07:36 PM

Regarding Nader taking money from the evil Republicants, in a column at CounterPunch Josh Frank noted that the Demosaurs took over 129 thousand dollars this year from Dick Cheney’s company, Halliburton. A cowardly act of vileness for which there is no known odor to match.

People who criticize Nader for taking money from the Reps are doing so out of proportion of criticizing the decrepit Demon-cracktic Party.

Posted by Rhino Rick from Tokyo, Japan on 07/26 at 03:48 AM

Democrats are playing dirty pool against Nader in his attempts to get on the ballot. It appears he is fighting fire with fire in accepting the aid of Machiavellian Republicans for which Nader is receiving much criticism. To these critics I would pose the question: if you could further the platform for the destitute, oppressed, and about-to-be slaughtered peoples by accepting aid from an unscrupulous adversary, would you refuse?

Posted by kim from on 07/26 at 11:02 AM

Susan, see Gabriel Kolko’s very perceptive examination of the possibility that Kerry could be worse than Bush respecting the point I have half-coherently made above at Counterpunch.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 07/26 at 11:56 AM

Thanks, Tracy, for pointing me to that article.
It was very interesting and I certainly agreed with Kolko’s description of Kerry.

As Kolko mentioned, Kerry keeps saying we need the cooperation and blessings of other countries, but from what I’ve observed it’s always in the context of needing their help to fight terrorism. The good news is that it has not worked with Bush and the way things are going, I sincerely doubt it will work for Kerry either.

A recent New York Times poll indicated that 9 out of 10 delegates at the Democratic National Convention are against the War/Occupation in Iraq! Other recent National polls are showing that the majority of Americans now feel that going into Iraq was a big mistake. Yes, folks, WE THE PEOPLE, are starting to wake up. But like a sleeping giant, the wakeing up is a slow process and patience is needed.

Not too long ago I posted a comment on the Kucinich Forum suggesting the very same idea: That Kerry may actually be more dangerous than Bush, but now I’m not so sure.

It dawned on me the other day that with Bush back in office, no matter what horrible things he might try to pull, how could we push for impeachment? We would end up with Tricky Dicky II as President. Now with Kerry as President, and if HE tried to pull similar shinanigans (something fascist, perhaps?) then I would be all in favor of pushing for impeachment. I’m not fond of Edwards, but he is not the evil incarnate of Dick Cheney.

But I must admit Kolko’s article does bring up an interesting possibility. If Kerry was successful in bringing other countries back in good graces with the US to fight terrorism, coupled with Kerry’s promise to upgrade the US Military
and make it the most modern, technologically advanced military in the world (Jesus Christ), then he would have that much more power to pursue murder and mayhem on all continents all in the name of fighting terrorism (like we can really fix it that way, geeeesh!).

Having said all that, I’m hedging my bets on the shift in sentiment that I’m seeing from WE THE PEOPLE!!!

Posted by Susan Lynn Rapp from on 07/26 at 02:55 PM

Bush is far worse than Nixon already. Nixon responded to social pressure on issues aside from war crimes, which he pretended that he didn’t control, and to an extent he was right - he also started the EPA, implemented wage and price controls and other relatively anti-market, egalitarian economic policies, opened relations with China, signed the OSHA and implemented Detente - which Democrats like Moynihan and Scoop Jackson helped kill.

Posted by j cummings from on 07/26 at 04:10 PM

I have to agree with Susan Lynn Rapp re her statements about Dennis Kucinich. He is acting responsibly, and even though I, too, am dismayed that we got so little from the Platform Committee, I am more optimistic about the future of our people than I have been for a long while (and I think I am quite a bit older than most of you). I really would like to know your ages. Have you lost someone you loved dearly in a war that never should have been fought? I have. Vietnam was my (unfortunate) era. Have you ever been disabled and so ill that you spent a great deal of your time in hospitals and clinics? I have, as have a great many Americans who are suffering far more during these past four years of George Bush’s reign of terror, greed, and total lack of empathy. You may think it would be great to take the Democratic Party to its knees, but in the meantime there will be thousands more people who will fare even worse than they have during the past four years. In my state more and more people have no access to medical care--physical or mental--and it will be they (and I) and our families who will suffer worsening health problems and even death because we will have no one to advocate for us. It WAS better under Bill Clinton, even though he was a “centrist.” As a former social worker, I now see former clients of mine wandering the streets because they cannot afford their medications. Will you sacrifice them in order to “punish” the Democrats into . . .What? I am sorry to hear such cynicism, such disrespect for the common person, that I have come across in this article and in some of the quasi-intellectual arguments I have been reading from some of you who should know that even if Rep. Kucinich did not win this battle, he will, with the support he has garnered from so many of us, win the “war” on greed and egomaniacal leaders and presumptive nominees who would rather let the rest of us sink than give up the fight for the Presidency. J.M. White.

Posted by J.M. White from on 07/27 at 02:11 AM

Dear J.M.,

I disagree with your assessment that life is better under a Democratic administration than under a Republican: our last liberal president was Richard Nixon. The Democrats regularly legitimize the right ward racheting of the Republicans. It is not about punishing the Democrats but looking at reality. The Democrats must be forcefully exposed as being equally culpable for the conservative agenda, and agenda which, historically, they have happily helped to promote! The empirical record is clear on this. But empirical evidence is not something brain-washed Democrats seem much interested in reviewing.

ps. I don’t understand how having lost a loved one in the Vietnam war (a Democratic party war) has anything to do with exposing what a gang of frauds and liars the Democrats truly are.

Posted by Rhino Rick from Tokyo, Japan on 07/29 at 05:26 AM

You poor, pitiful little people.

Posted by Dr. Mei Eighes from Asylum Control Center on 08/01 at 03:18 PM

“I think, on reflection that campaigning for Nader in swing states may be very very irresponsible, what I think Lenin would call infantile.”

I seriously doubt Lenin would have described campaigning for Nader in the swing states as “infantile”, and if he had any criticisms of Nader, I think they would have been quite different from yours. You see, Lenin had no illusions in the Democratic Party, which backed a campaign against the Bolshevik revolution that unfolded into a civil war which lasted from 1918 to 1921. Lenin, I’m sure, looked forward to the overthrow of the American two-party system, which still practiced codified Jim Crow in the South and de facto Jim Crow in the North. “Infantile” was a term Lenin used to describe some with a revolutionary bent who refused to take part in the serious work of building a political force that could take on the institutions of a capitalist society. The Democratic Party is one such main institution in our society.

“Hypothetical worst case scenario: Bush squeeks a defeat, no thanks to Kerry, who not surprisingly does not pick up Nader’s issues. Immediately invades Iran, Patriot II, etc. - of course with opposition, but burnt out opposition. Kerry on the other hand could do the same thing, and the opposition will be all the more angry because they actually thought Kerry would make a difference.”

If Kerry wins, the “liberal opposition” that is campaigning so ardently for his election will worry more about getting him reelected in 2008 than putting any pressure on him to change his policies. First, they will be embarrassed for having supported someone who actually escalates the war on terror (which many pro-Kerry “liberals” claim to oppose) and attempt to deflect criticism of their poor choice at the polls by using their influence in the American left to stifle efforts to build popular resistance (which would expose their contradictions and damage the image of their president). Second, most of the “liberal opposition” that supports Kerry for president already know they are voting for an Establishment candidate, and that they aren’t going to get anything from him that is substantively different from Bush. Kerry has said over and over again that Bush isn’t tough enough on the war on terror, that he feels more troops are needed to carry out the occupation of Iraq, that a Democrat can win more foreign governments to sanction the occupation and send troops, etc. So, no, there won’t be waves of shock and disbelief when Kerry turns out to be an imperialist war president dedicated to Bush’s agenda.

“Not ‘part of the system’? I must respectfully disagree that Nader is better than Dennis.”

I’m voting for Nader because he has largely maintained his arch-liberal stance on many important issues since accepting the Reform Party endorsement a few months ago. If accepting the Reform Party endorsement had evolved into a train wreck, I would have written off Nader as a Perotesque crackpot. As for accepting petition signatures from…

Posted by G. R. from on 08/02 at 10:30 PM

“I have to agree with Susan Lynn Rapp re her statements about Dennis Kucinich. He is acting responsibly, and even though I, too, am dismayed that we got so little from the Platform Committee, I am more optimistic about the future of our people than I have been for a long while (and I think I am quite a bit older than most of you).”

Take my advice and jettison all your illusions in the Democratic Party. The American political system moves in one direction only—from nightmarish to worse. When you decide which candidate to vote for in the general election, Democrat or Republican, the only thing you’re deciding is whether you want the situation to get worse under a Democratic administration, or under a Republican administration. As for holding out for an liberal candidate on the Democratic ticket in the primaries, or for the liberal primary losers to influence the party platform at the convention—pipe dream. The Democrats are cravenly/fanatically (yes, both seemingly incompatible attitudes simultaneously!) devoted to their moneyed constituency, who, in terms of politics, think of only one thing—how to get more control over the lives of ordinary people, and how to get ordinary people to go along with it.

“The Democrats regularly legitimize the right ward racheting of the Republicans. It is not about punishing the Democrats but looking at reality. The Democrats must be forcefully exposed as being equally culpable for the conservative agenda, and agenda which, historically, they have happily helped to promote! The empirical record is clear on this. But empirical evidence is not something brain-washed Democrats seem much interested in reviewing.”

I agree. What have the Democrats ever done to make up for their complicity in all that is wrong with the world today? When you read bourgeois accounts of Democratic presidencies, they always make the case that the Democrats are a leftist, liberal party, in stark contrast to the Republicans. My favorite conventional portrait is that of Lyndon Baines Johnson’s presidency—hey, he spoke for the need to have a Great Society Program to fight poverty in America! Goody! Hey, that’s a cute sentiment, but the reality is that he escalated the Vietnam War beyond imagination, pushing it into the realm of historically noteworthy Twentieth Century war crimes (and there was so much competition for such distinction, wouldn’t you agree?). What do you think of that? I really want to know. Why, when the Dem cheerleaders are defending their favorite party, don’t they ever bring up such obvious points of fact (do they sincerely believe their own arguments, or is it all just rhetorical flourishes concealing a less savory agenda?)?

Posted by G. R. from on 08/02 at 10:32 PM

Fools and dupes.

Posted by Doo Wah Didi Didi from Harvard on 08/03 at 12:26 AM

Thank you very much!

Posted by Sonta from UK on 09/17 at 03:48 AM

Your blog is realy very interesting.

Posted by Gaane from UK on 09/17 at 03:50 AM

Your site is realy very interesting.

Posted by Sofia from UK on 09/17 at 03:53 AM

pene pene monica monica cartoline cartoline ebay ebay stampanti stampanti fotografia fotografia pompei pompei accessori accessori mani mani

Posted by Halim from ... on 02/12 at 06:58 PM

risparmio risparmio abruzzo abruzzo pornografia pornografia struttura struttura auto auto posteriore posteriore milan milan campioni campioni appunti appunti

Posted by Cybil from ... on 02/13 at 07:51 PM

candele candele zucchero zucchero casa casa fuoco fuoco calciomercato calciomercato girl girl basket basket campeggi campeggi valentino valentino

Posted by Scott from ... on 02/14 at 08:26 PM

Next entry: Turning the Impossible into Possible

Previous entry: Ten Ways to Become a Better Democrat

[ads]

Friday, July 23, 2004

Donkeys Buck Antiwar Support: Unity a Futile Effort

Comments:

Support Press Action

Support Press Action

Search

Editor's Picks

Most Recent Entries

Archives

Best of the Web

Syndicate