Time to Commit

I think it says a lot that a true Progressive independent like Mr. Sanders is speaking the plain truth about why voting for Nader is a mistake. I just wish Nader would listen. This is not a Democrat talking, this is a pragmatic progressive member of Congress! Maybe we should have a new political party, the Pragmatic-Progressives (PC) just as they have Progressive-Conservatives (PC) in good ole’ Canada. How many disaffected Democrats (like myself) might join if we could offer a viable alternative or even a coalition within the Democratic party?

Posted by Jeremy Nathan Marks on Sep 21, 2004 at 6:36 AM

If I vote for Nader I can feel good about my vote. Nader stands for most of the things I believe in and think are right. Kerry does not. The only thing I can not understand is, why all the other people that want real change don’t have the brains or the fortitude to vote for Nader also. It seems like a no brainer to me but then I think, I don’t just follow and repeat what other people say. Get a brain folks.

Posted by Sherrod Smith on Sep 21, 2004 at 6:52 AM

The HR director of our small company just let it slip that benefits may be eliminated at the end of the year. Last year’s raise in both employee cost for the plan and co-payment for prescriptions wiped out that gracious .25 raise I received after a year.
Without health insurance my epilepsy medicine will cost me around $400 a month (It’s $44 now). I’ve already stopped taking one because I can’t afford it even with the co-pay.

That’s a crime, especially when I only
gross $975 and am asked to keep the overtime down, not because they don’t want to pay us but because we’re losing money like the majority of small businesses in this country.

How in the world do people believe this is a Godly man? Or that he’s doing a good job? According to the Bureau of Labor, his unemployment figures are worse than Sr.‘s. and second only to Hoover.

In the mid-1750’s, people would get so outraged at such injustices they would storm the governor’s mansion, tar and feather him, loot his estate and then burn his house down. It was such mob mentality that lead to change. But, also, the dangers of such mob reactions helped shape the Bill of Rights.
I’m not advocating that, though it would be hilarious. Rather, my wish is that flunkie in the White House and his father suffer the same fate as those of us struggling today.

Posted by Windex on Sep 21, 2004 at 7:11 AM

Ernie Sanders is one of my heroes
in this precarious time of our young republic. I hear him every Friday on Thom Hartmann show for Brunch with Bernie and have grow to admire him for his forthrightness and candor.
I am at a loss for words when I hear the doofus president stand up and outright lie to the people. I try to have more confidence in the people as a whole then, when I hear indirectly, the poll numbers
in dodo’s favor I am confused. How
can this be??? Are most Americans
stupid? Yes, because most of them get their news from the tv media
(heavily Fox) however, the others are not much better, even CBS, who is now being pillaged by the neo-
con fascists. Yes, I will say it since most of the media is scared to death…the bush power!!! The scary power people who will put you in prison if you dare speak against them. i.e. Mrs. Niederer
(mom who lost her son in Iraq) and who dared to ask the stepford wife about her daughters not going to war. Instead of asking god to bless this nation we better be asking for help to defeat these
ugly,selfish,greedy and uncaring
men.
Our GREAT MIDDLE CLASS wll be completely gone and I fear for my
and everyone’s grandchildren.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE VOTE FOR KERRY/EDWARDS AND SAVE OUR NATION.

Posted by Florence Murphy on Sep 21, 2004 at 7:23 AM

I like Ralph Nader.
He’s performed a tremendous service to this nation and we owe him a huge debt of gratitude.

But, there’s no way I’d vote for him. Big business sees him as an enemy and if they don’t they must be pretty forgiving. And as much as I loathe such companies right now, we still need them—we just need to re-direct their interests back to America and its people.

We had our shot with Dean. The propaganda machine of the GOP turned his campaign into a disaster—they were deathly afraid of him.
This should have been a warning to candidates. Bush has played the lowest, slimiest, vilest campaign tricks against Kerry. It’s successfully distracted people away from Iraq, as Iraq distracted people away from bin Laden.
And while the house that is the nation burns, Bush is arguing with his opponent over what color to paint the servant’s quarters.

Nader will distract people away from Kerry and then fascism will really wipe out all the work FDR accomplished—just as those low IQ, mouth-breathing, inbread, drug swilling, self-righteous, hillbilly fuck Bush boys want.

Posted by Neil on Sep 21, 2004 at 7:27 AM

Please put me back on your list
to receive follow up comments I hit the url by mistake. Thanks.

Posted by Florence Murphy on Sep 21, 2004 at 7:35 AM

Hi Folks,
I vote, the only one that I regret is my ‘80 ballot for John Andersen (sp?). At the time I thought that he was THE ANSWER. He spoke truthes and made sense. Unfortunately the split vote lead to the election of Ron Reagan….This is not the time to begin to organize a third party - it is a time to cast a defensive ballot that will give us the time needed to reclaim our country.
During the last election I voted Nader because my state will probably never produce a democratic electoral vote (we have 1 for the state) and I felt that populating the third party vote might lead to third party funding…This time around we need the popular vote to be overwhelming.
BE A CITIZEN NOT A SERF!
Veteran & former Vermonter

Posted by Dave Russell on Sep 21, 2004 at 7:41 AM

I’m voting for Nader. Kerry has already blown it and I see no reason to vote for that loser.  You would have thought the 2000 election would have been an eye-opener for the Democrats, but they continue to ignore us. Maybe if Dean had proved to be a little more stable I would have voted for him but he blew it too. Let’s face it people, Kerry can’t win. He’s trailing by 20 points on national security and doesn’t have the nerve to repudiate his VOTE for the Iraq war. I voted for Gore in 2000 because at least he had the balls to distinguish himself from Bush. Kerry won’t even do that explicitly. If I’m going to cast a losing vote it’s going to be for someone who actually speaks for me.  Maybe I’m speaking too soon, but if Kerry doesn’t get his ass in gear soon I say we teach the Democrats a lesson AGAIN. Maybe this time we’ll get their attention.

Posted by Tim on Sep 21, 2004 at 7:45 AM

Put Howard Dean & John McCain on a 3rd party ticket and I’d vote for that.

Posted by Neil on Sep 21, 2004 at 7:52 AM

I have to disagree with you, Dave. Now is the time to throw our weight behind a third party. Kerry is the worst candidate the Democrats have run in my lifetime. This campaign is a three-ring circus and it’s mostly Kerry’s fault. If not for his relentless Vietnam posturing what do you think the reaction would have been when a bunch of over-the-hill Vietnam vets came out and contested his medals? They would have gotten laughed at. Sure, the Bush supporters would have loved it but Swiftees would be preaching to the choir and it wouldn’t have cluttered the news for a month. If Kerry hadn’t made Vietnam such a big deal then his enemies wouldn’t have been able to make an issue of it. And when that finally blows over what does Kerry do? He tries to make a controversy of Bush’s Guard service. Now that that story has imploded Kerry is finally addressing the mess in Iraq. And he still won’t admit he was wrong to vote for it. He’s behind in almost all of the battleground states and slipping in New York and New Jersey. To think that a Democratic presidential candidate is going to have to fight for those states is not a good sign. I agree with Tim, if Kerry doesn’t turn this around there is no reason to waste a vote on him. They say a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. I say a vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush’s policies under a different president.

Posted by Richard on Sep 21, 2004 at 8:05 AM

I wholeheatedly agree with Mr. Sanders. He has always been the most progressive vocie in Washington, especially after we lost Sen. Wellstone.

But I will have to give the Republicans a hand—they have managed to squander the country’s surplus, engage America in a horrible war, write policy strictly for the benefit of corporations and the wealthy (and allowing those corporations to write the laws), decimated OSHA and EPA, eviscerated education, ridiculed science and yet they STILL manage to get the support of a large percentage of Americans. Am I missing something?

Posted by Geoff S. Fein on Sep 21, 2004 at 8:16 AM

This piece is superb! I’m a staunch support of Senator Kerry who is ashamed that our system is rigged against “outside” candidates. In 2000, Al Gore almost supported inclusion of Ralph Nader in the debates with Dubya. At the time, I wish that he had and I still do.

I, too, have great respect for Mr. Nader and would think about voting for him in a different time. Now is not that time. We’re heading straight for World War III and we need a veteran with his head on straight in the White House to prevent that horrible fate.

Posted by Corbett Kroehler on Sep 21, 2004 at 8:19 AM

OK, look:  In 2000 you voted on principle for Nader.  Did you think that (a) Gore was a loser, so you might as well vote for a third party; or (b) Gore was going to win anyway, so you’d show your “true feelings” and vote your heart?  Well, great:  You elected Bush. 

Now you say “Kerry is a loser” so you will vote for Nader ... again.  So, you will elect Bush, again.

Do so, and you will never have the chance to form your third party.

jw

Posted by Jerry Wechsler on Sep 21, 2004 at 8:27 AM

While everything Rep. Sanders said is correct, he doesn’t make it clear why voting for Democrats is going to fix (or at even stall) the trends he is talking about.  After all, the loss of good manufacturing jobs is a long-term trend; it happened under Clinton as well.  Why is it so “essential” that Kerry get elected in November?  Well, a Kerry administration will be slightly less-bad for poor and working class people—that’s enough reason for progressives to vote for Kerry if they live in swing states, but let’s keep everything in perspective: We need to focus primarily on building a movement, and spend a little less time fretting about the prospects of four more years of Bush.  Fundamental U.S. social, economic and foreign policies are the real problem; not George Bush.

See:
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2004/09/20/10263

Posted by Nick Woomer on Sep 21, 2004 at 8:38 AM

FYI Jeremy re: the Progressive-Conservative party in Canada,

In Canada, the Progressive-Conservatives no longer exist.  The right wing of the party joined with the Canadian Alliance to form what is now called simply the Conservative party.  These guys are essentially Northern Republicans (indeed leading members attended the RNC in NYC to “get ideas” to win in Canada.  In Canada, we now have the Liberals in a minority government.  These guys are the analogue to the democrats.  They are neo-liberals. Both mainstream parties are basically corporate creatures.  They differ mostly in the speed and aggressiveness with which government is privatized for corporate benefit.  The Conservatives would likely be more aggressive about it, while the Liberals work quietly behind the scenes (bringing corporatismn on ‘little cat feet’).  From here, the situation in the US looks pretty bad.  This should be of no solace to Canadians since trends in the US mightly impact the situation here (democracy is in peril here too).  Overall, Prime Minister Paul Martin is very similar to Kerry (a soul-less sytems man) and it’s still bad news because governments are totally on-side for the corporate model of economics.  Privatize and commodify eveything. I’m not sure what the best strategy is, but I do know that if you elect Kerry, it’s just the begininng of saving democracy.  Best of luck to real freedom-loving Americans.

Posted by gha on Sep 21, 2004 at 8:44 AM

Jerry Wechsler:

I assume you’re referring to my post because I did say Kerry is a loser. He is. And a month and a half is not long enough for him to make up for his countless mistakes. If you’re going to be a smartass and ridicule my support for Nader you should at least read my entire post first. Once again, I voted for Gore in 2000. Unlike Kerry he had a chance. Also unlike Kerry, he wasn’t scared to openly run to the left of Bush. In fact it was Bush who had to hug the center. So to answer your question, smartass, I did not vote my “‘true feelings’” and elect Bush in 2000. And no, my vote for Nader will not elect Bush in 2004.  Kerry has been doing that all along, most notably with his ridiculous Vietnam posturing, refusal to divulge his position on the war, and complete waste of a convention. Don’t blame his imminent loss on me.

Posted by Tim on Sep 21, 2004 at 8:52 AM

When this election season started, I said I would vote for a monkey on a bicycle to get Bush out of office. I never thought the democrats would give me that choice.

I’m still voting for Kerry but the Democrats could have done better.

Posted by Steve on Sep 21, 2004 at 9:13 AM

Michael Moore got ridiculed when he called some Americans ignorant, while speaking overseas. After reading the comments concerning why someone would vote for Nader, it’s crystal clear where the ignorance is! Get a grip! If you can’t see that Nader is a puppet for these ‘warriors’, Michael Moore is right.

Posted by Paul on Sep 21, 2004 at 9:41 AM

In 1953 CBS produced a program narrated by Walter Cronkite named “You are There”. It revisited important historical events, using live actors on sets, to place us viewers as witnesses to events “occuring before our very eyes”. It was excellent television and brought history alive for its audience. George W. Bush is now narrating a similar production for us on television. We can now witness Hitler’s Third Reich propagandizing its people as it takes their freedoms away. We can also witness the Vietnam War again as our government piles lie upon lie with Iraqi distortions. “You are There”, America! How can we export democracy, when we are unwilling to maintain it here? Vote Anti-Bush…

Posted by Mark Cartwright on Sep 21, 2004 at 9:47 AM

While I agree that Kerry is not much to brag about, I’m still going to vote for him because I want Bush out at all cost.  If that neo-Nazi and his co-horts have another four years to squander our resources and wage war on the world in order to enrich themselves, our nation and its citizens may never recover.
I voted for Clinton because I wanted Bush senior out of the White House and would vote for Clinton again.  So given a chance, Kerry may surprise us.

Posted by Maria on Sep 21, 2004 at 9:52 AM

It’s John Kerry, Damn It!

By Donna Marsh O’Connor
Mother of Vanessa Lang Langer, WTC Tower II, 93rd floor

I can hear it all now.  Last night John Kerry appeared on David Letterman.  John Kerry, I said, you know who that is—the guy most who most people who get to speak call anyone but Bush.  Billy Crystal made a joke, something like this:  John Kerry, do us a favor.  When you laugh, tell your face.  I laughed when I heard that.  Everyday I hear the good folks at CNN (You know they don’t care who wins.  They only report what they hear.), I hear them say Bush is ahead in the polls because Kerry just doesn’t get his message across, doesn’t say who he is.  That’s the problem according to CNN or NBC or ABC or Fox or…does it matter who says it?  We’ve lost because John Kerry doesn’t get his message across and we blame the media. 

So I watched last night because I do know who John Kerry is.  And because I fall into the category of human, I am going to say who he is by articulating who he is not. 

•He is not currently the President of the United States of America, the man who I think had a hand in my first born child’s murder;
•He is not a man who decided in January of 2001 to look for every opportunity to begin a war in Iraq for the sole purpose of removing Saddam Hussein, maintaining political power and dominance over the middle east and, thus, the world, and lining the coffers of his friends (only some of whom work for Halliburton);
•He is not a man who seeks to make his personal relationship with G-d the determining factor in the future of all of the remaining children of the world;
•He is not a man who is the beneficiary of the office of President based on (at best) a controversial issue in the voting in one state (a controversy so fundamental to who we are in this nation that the fact that no one stormed the state to rectify this problem throws us back to thinking pre and post Civil War) and the granting of the office by the Supreme Court;
•He is not a man who said he is a uniter, not a divider and then took his finger or his armies or his hateful speech against women, gays, liberals, anyone who does not agree with him and used that as a weapon to polarize like never before this nation, this geographic space, this place I and most of us call home;
•He is not the man who took this notion of home and made it profoundly ugly and indecent in the eyes of many of the people outside of our borders.
•He is NOT, do I have to say this again, NOT George W. Bush.

Nor is he “anyone but Bush.” 

He is man whose voting record in the Senate is consistent with his party affiliation.  He votes consistently with the issues we might expect.  Boring? 

He doesn’t smile easily.  In fact, when he does, the outer corners of his eyes droop a bit.  In sadness?  In humility?  Not in bravado, for sure.  He doesn’t seem to be very good at bragging.  Boring?

He is against the war in Iraq under the terms through which it was engaged.  He voted to grant authority to George W. Bush to pursue all avenues short of war and then war if it was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein.  The key point here is no authority, no power to convince, no chance for diplomacy. And, he can articulate the difference between voting for the granting of authority and voting for war.  I am guessing, though, that he did not vote for George W. Bush for President.  Boring? 

He is against the no-bid contract granted to Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton.

He did not see Fahrenheit 911.  He is the only public figure to say in this particular way what I need to hear—I don’t need to see it, I lived it.  For three damn years.  (Is that why John Kerry doesn’t smile easily?)  And please don’t misunderstand me:  I am happy this film was made.  I am happy if one person saw what was previously a secret—that George Bush is totally corrupt, morally bankrupt, and in very important ways intellectually shallow. 

He admits that abortion rights are what he votes for, but he states so clearly that abortion is a moral issue.  And you better believe it is. 

He is a liberal Senator from Massachusetts and, unlike some liberal Senators from Massachusetts, his voice doesn’t always resonate.  His sentences don’t fall poetic, they just land.  And David Letterman is a venue that is not usually his stomping ground.  Boring?

For months now, I have heard my friends and fellow liberal Democrats, or radicals, or even just some reasonable Kerry Republicans lament the sad state we are in.  (Florida?  I ask myself.  Is that the metaphoric state we’re in?)  Bush is ahead in the polls, they lament.  It’s not my country anymore, they lament.  This is America? they ask.  Maybe I’ll go to British Columbia.  Or France.  Or the Fuji Islands.  If only Kerry would yell, would scream, would confront?  Because I’d vote for anyone but Bush…

Well, how the hell can Kerry counter that? 

Does he know how enraged we all are?  Did he know how enraged we all were when he granted Bush the right to go to war?  He voted so he could get elected.  Isn’t that what we want? 

It’s John Kerry, G-d damn it.  Write to him.  Be on his side and tell him what you want.  Tell him you’re enraged at Bush and Cheney and Rice and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.  Tell him what we say around the quiet tables of our perceived final America feasts—that we are filled with hate and rage and it hurts and we want it to stop.  We want this war over.  We want terrorism to stop.  We want more nuanced ways of stopping it—with some real force directed at the real culprits, and some mediation with the rest of world, some giving policies, some kindness.  Tell him that at the quiet of our dinner tables, with enough wine to say it outloud, tell him we sometimes say, though we really don’t mean it, we wish Bush dead because we fear he will kill literally our own children and spiritually the rest of our world. 

Tell him, G-d damn it!  Or it’s going to drive our own good people to self destruction.  Something we really don’t want. 

Because enough towers have fallen.

Posted by Donna Marsh O'Connor on Sep 21, 2004 at 10:08 AM

John Kerry IS a pretty lousy candidate, but he’s all we’ve got.  Nobody could be worse than Bush, so a vote for Kerry is a vote for the chance of something marginally better, hopefully more than marginally.

Since it’s impossible to know what the vote distribution will be on Nov. 2, and given the tight race, there’s no way to know beforehand whether Kerry will lose and therefore one “might as well vote for Nader.”  As someone above pointed out, that was the philosophy in 2000, and look where that got us.  To repeat it is stupid.

Another person said “At least I will feel good about myself voting for Nader on Nov. 2.”  Really?  What about helping to re-elect Bush will make you feel good?  Do you enjoy screwing your fellow Americans?  These votes don’t occur in a vacuum.  There are REAL CONSEQUENCES.  This isn’t a college course in theoretical ethics.  People may die because of a vote for Nader.  As far as I’m concerned, Naderites can stand shoulder to shoulder with Bush while he tries to explain why our boys are dying in Iraq.

Yet another person moaned that Democrats STILL haven’t listened given the debacle of 2000.  While I admit Kerry has proven himself most comfortable as the Republican-Lite candidate, it’s also foolish in the extreme to presume that Democrats need only to embrace the Progressives, the sun will come out, the Contract with America will be reversed, and a Liberal/Progressive paradise will reign in the United States forever.  Fact is, right now, given current regulatory law, campaign finance law, given mainstream Americans’ current love-affair with with the ungraspable illusion of personal wealth and happiness just in reach if only Bush’s tax cuts become permanent, a 100% progressive-friendly campaign would LOSE more voters than it would gain—solidifying Republican control of the federal government, NOT ending it, as Progressives fantasize it would.  The idea progressives have of Kerry riding to victory on a flood of their 2% of the vote by shifting far to the left is ludicrous on its face.  It also occurs to me, as it apparently has not occurred to them, that if the progressive agenda was so electable especially if only the Democrats would adopt it, why do they perennially ONLY get 2% of the vote?  They can’t blame it all on major-party corruption and recalcitrance, not by a long shot.  Two other candidates besides Nader have ridden waves of their own:  Anderson and Perot:  They both enjoyed popular votes in the double-digits:  Not so Nader.  There is something fundamentally wrong with Nader that doesn’t resonate with the mainstream voter that represents the great bulk of the vote, be it the way he campaigns, what he represents what have you—I have no idea what the problem is, I’m not saying Nader’s wrong, it could be a boneheaded electorate weaned to political morbid obesity on reality shows, sitcoms and Paris Hilton, but the fact is, Nader as a candidate is a total loser in this country at this point in history.  If the Progressives are serious about running a successful Presidential campaign, they need to quit whining about the Democrats, pick a new candidate, PICK A PLATFORM THAT APPEALS TO MAINSTREAM VOTERS, and get out the vote.  Righteous indignation has its uses but practicers need to GROW UP when having a tantrum causes REAL and DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES for the rest of the country who are being forced to go along for Bush’s hay ride by the selfish 2%.

Sure if Kerry were a better campaigner, or even a better man, all this might be moot.  But the issue is not, ultimately, about whether Kerry is a good campaigner.  The issue ultimately is, do we want Bush as our President?  If we don’t, we need to make up for Kerry’s shortcomings by doing EVERYTHING we can to make sure he gets every single vote he can and worry about any policy differences between progressives and Democrats on a day when the consequences of a lack of unity aren’t so dire.  If, however, getting Bush out of office is not your overriding concern, despite all obvious evidence that the man is a disaster, particularly to all Progressive causes, then have at it—but personally, I think it’s a quaint application of principle when its exercise directly results in the destruction of all that such principle holds dear, and I also think people who can call this “feeling good about one’s vote” are victims of a myopia rivalling that of those who cling fast to the belief that killing innocent people in a foreign country that was no threat to us is morally defensible.

Posted by Edward on Sep 21, 2004 at 10:09 AM

Three years ago the USA had the sympathy and support of the world following 911. We are now hated by the majority of world citizens. Three years ago the USA had a budget surplus. We now have a deficit that may bankrupt our children’s children. All of the current administration’s international and domestic policies have been a failure, unless you are tied to them (Haliburton, Eli Lilly, etc.). Geoff asks “Am I missing something?” Yes, you have neither been brainwashed by the Patriot Act tactics of fear nor have you been paid off. As Woodward and Bernstein discovered 30+ years ago, “follow the money”. Michael Moore has a point: our government was overthrown by a coup in 2002 when the Supreme Court handed the Presidency to the candidate with fewer votes and the people did nothing. We’ve invaded a foreign county without a declaration of war by Congress and the people did nothing. Unless the people get their heads out of the sand, we’ll have at least another four years of this aristocracy and have only ourselves to blame.

Posted by Barney on Sep 21, 2004 at 10:13 AM

Right on, Bernie. From a long time Nader supporter (voted for him in ‘96 and almost did in ‘00 - chickened out at the last minute and threw my vote at Gore)who still believes in everything he stands for and would love to see America wake up and elect someone like him (ie. Kucinich, my other hero), but am too damn scared to see El Fascisto Shrub-boy sneak away with an actual victory in November.

I vowed to vote for a smelly gym sock if it could defeat bush, and still would, but Kerry is a much more appetizing dish than the sock. Let’s get Kerry in there and then start the long job of fixing-up this ugly mess!

Posted by Allen Brooks on Sep 21, 2004 at 10:25 AM

I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, and I don’t have any misgivings about that, but this election is different.

None of the policies that Ralph Nader wants to change can be changed for the better if Bush gets a second term.  None.  In fact, if Bush isn’t thrown out of the White House, the reforms that Nader is calling for may very well become impossible.

If you believe in what Ralph Nader is advocating (and I do), then it is imperitive that Bush be prevented from returning to the Presidency.  Only a vote for Kerry can do that.

Concentrate your progressive energies on local elections.  Fight for progressive representatives and progressive congressmen and progressive city council members and progressive, shool commitee members, etc.  Start at the bottom, and, over time, we might be able to reach the top.  It worked for the religeous right, and it can work for us, too.

Posted by Andrew Nicholson on Sep 21, 2004 at 10:27 AM

I agree with all of those who thow not behind Kerry 100% realize that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.  Our number 1 priority has to be to get that idiot out of the white house and start rebuilding our nation’s future.  Given a chance Kerry may perform alot better than we expect and he certainly can’t do anyworse thant the present group of misfits in the White House.

Posted by Maria on Sep 21, 2004 at 10:37 AM

Yikes!! In this eleventh hour, now is not the time to indulge in debate between voting for Kerry or Nader. What we progressives all agree on is the removal of our domestic “axis of evil” misleadership, and get rid of the Bush Gang.

Does Nader have a snow ball’s chance in hell of accomplishing this? Not this time around. Yet the Kerry/Edwards ticket is poised to get the job done. Once we redirect the public policy of our beloved United States, then we can discuss alternative choices for progressive leadership. If we do not change direction NOW, we may not have a future to even allow for choices. This is pretty dang clear!

Posted by Jim on Sep 21, 2004 at 10:54 AM

Wow, brilliant — You wanna “teach the Democrats a lesson” by voting for Nader. Because apparently four more years of FUCKING EVERYONE ON THE PLANET is really gonna sock it to those darn Democrats! Yeah, the roof, the roof, the roof is on fire, wooooo! Awesome!

Posted by Patrick on Sep 21, 2004 at 11:13 AM

“Tomorrow” never comes.  Vote your conscience!

Posted by J. Hill on Sep 21, 2004 at 11:17 AM

Andrew Nicholson hit the nail on the head! Listen to this guy. Patrick (a couple of comments down) bluntly hit my head with a nail, listen up, there is no other choice this election, time to Kerry on!!!

Posted by Allen Brooks on Sep 21, 2004 at 11:25 AM

This is pathetic.  The election is a month and a half away and the Left is still trying to talk people out of voting for Nader.  I can understand the frustration.  It looked like Kerry had it in his back pocket for a while, but he really pissed it away when he decided to use his convention to brag about Vietnam instead of talking about why he would make a good president.  Since then his campaign has been a complete mess.  He panicked over the Swiftboat ads and looked like a whiny prick, he made that desperate midnight speech after the Republican convention, and then tried to make an issue out of Bush’s hitch in the National Guard, which really blew up in his face yesterday.  Most importantly, he has a 20-year Senate record he can’t run from.  Unless the voters decide that national security isn’t the most important issue Kerry doesn’t have a chance.  Maybe he should fire some more of his handlers.

Posted by Ted on Sep 21, 2004 at 11:38 AM

Cast a vote for Kerry/Edwards in 2004.
(I can’t vote for Nader this time around)

Posted by Mark R Gallagher on Sep 21, 2004 at 11:38 AM

But Bernie, John Kerry IS the corporate class and the Democrats have long abandoned working Americans.The election should be about clearly-defined ideology which is in opposition to the Bushistas, but the bottom line is that it is about POWER. If Kerry wins we’ll be treated to more Clintonism, triangulation,trade union abandonment,aggressive foreign policy, more catering to the military industrial complex, more tax breaks for the wealthy. If the Demrats had’nt spent so much energy keeping Nader of the ballot in New Mexico, I could have voted for him. As it is, there’s no one I can in good conscience support. The future will show that the Dems will become a permanent minority party because they seem inacapable of showing enough people that they stand for something… THE NEW WAY?  PUUUHHHLEEEZ.

Posted by Harry Norton on Sep 21, 2004 at 11:41 AM

The idea that Kerry didn’t talk about why he’d make a good President is absurd at best. Sure, the handlers framed it all against a red, white and blue background, and he did that silly salute thing at the beginning of his keynote, but the unquestionable majority of the time was spent talking about A) why Bush is terrible, and B) why he’d do better. Also, what exactly about his 20-year Senate record does he have to run from?

Posted by Smedley on Sep 21, 2004 at 11:46 AM

I agree that we need more than two parties but not right now. Do you Nader supporters understand that the results of your vote for Nader will at best be a waste since there is no chance in hell he could win this year. If you want to support him get involved for the 2008/2012 elections. If you throw your vote to Nader you may never have the chance to vote again REALLY. Think very hard about your decision to give bush more votes by not giving them to Kerry.
Additionally I am always skeptical of people. Kerry is no exception. But I do not believe that Kerry is being given a fair shake. From what I have researched and come to know. He is an upright guy. He is not going to take control of the WhiteHouse and then rape our country. He should however pull our troops out but whether he does or doesn’t he already said that they would not use the draft. If Bush wins you can bet there is gonna be one! And then if our kids make it back here to the US they will be treated to a impoverish nation not different from the one they were fighting in.

One side note: whats the deal with the CBS/Rather fraud papers if the media want to talk about fraud shouldn’t they be talking about election 2000, Iraq and Medicare? But then they would have to come clean to there complicity wouldn’t they.

Posted by Doug on Sep 21, 2004 at 12:14 PM

We’re going to see Kerry-Edwards tonight in Orlando.

Kerry in a Landslide!

Posted by Suzanna on Sep 21, 2004 at 12:20 PM

I believe that any voter who does not vote for Kerry has failed to take advantage of verifiable, documented news on the internet about what the Bush regime has done to our country. Please do not listen and view biased TV programs and newspaper articles which are designed to be incendiary and to literally pull wooly hoods over truth, as Al Franken describes in “Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them”. This is an abrasive book meant to shock you into investigating statements on your own, (ask google on all his subject matter—you will be bowled over. His reference footnotes (and endnotes),which are a treasure trove of facts from such documents as the report of a royal snake oil selling job by the 9/11 ommission now found in the Congressional Record. This is truth and cannot be ignored or we will have it take two generations to regain out power and prestige in the world, and to have our citizens get back their lost security.

Posted by Pat Stephens on Sep 21, 2004 at 12:38 PM

What a bunch of incredibly ill-informed whiners—or perhaps politically cunning Bushisto double agents!  Kerry has an excellent chance to win in November, and the progressive movement has an equally crucial opportunity to slow the juggernaut of conservatism.  Why will Kerry win?  Because the decision scenario for swing voters and progressives is analogous to the below:

You walk into an ice cream store.  The owner locks the door behind you and says, “you can choose any flavor you like, but there is no way that I will ever be able to give you anything Rancid Turd with Vomit Sprinkles or Stale Vanilla—and you have to eat one of them.”  You really want Double Fudge Chunk.  What do you do?  Should you demand Double Fudge Chunk, knowing that 1) there is a 0% chance that you will get it, and 2) there is a better than 50% chance that you will be forced to eat Rancid Turd with Vomit Sprinkles instead?  Or should you take the Stale Vanilla and pledge to eat right during the next 1481 days until you have to come back to the ice cream store?

Truth is, we all make compromises in our political lives.  If that bugs you, then be sure to be less compromising during the 1480 days that do not include a presidential election.  On Nov 2 do the most good with the limited power given to you by the franchise.  Vote for Kerry.

Posted by YoloMike on Sep 21, 2004 at 12:40 PM

How ‘bout a third party with leaders like Bernie Sanders, John McCain, Dick Luger, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and my new personal favorite Chuck Hagel?!?!

Posted by Sue Turner on Sep 21, 2004 at 12:48 PM

Thank you Donna Marsh O’Connor for your poignant insight and heartfelt comments. Your personal loss makes it more pressing when listening to your plea to remove this current Administration. I feel duped how Colin Powell lied to us when addressing the UN before the invasion. My son-in-law will soon head to Iraq and we have not yet heard Bush’s plan to get the hell out of there. Nope, we’ll be guarding the oil fields in 2008 if Bush is reelected and my son-in-law’s potential death will be for that cause only. Vote for Kerry.

Posted by George on Sep 21, 2004 at 12:50 PM

Sanders is highly disaappointing. He could be a model, but instead caves into continueing the Bush Doctrine. Let us not forget the neocons came from the Democratic Party.

Nader did not receive my support in 1996, 2000, and he definately will not this time around. I am supporting the Green Party this year, in large part because they knocked the monkey off their back.

If Sanders truely felt that the solution to the crisis was a two party solution, then he would do better to support Bush. A vote for Kerry is a major win for the New Democrats. This is of great historical importance.

Another 4 years of Bush, gives us 4 years of a unified left. 2nd term Republicans tend to move to the left. Another 4 years of Bush, gives us 4 more years of great political music. Most importantly history will have given the DLC Democrats a slap in the face. In 2008, the Democrats will need to put forth a candidate who actually runs on something besides a Republican platform.

I believe the future is in a multi-party system, so it does not matter to me which goon wins. My only question is after the Republican primary on November 2nd, when will we have a general election.

Posted by nate on Sep 21, 2004 at 12:51 PM

I think there are some GOP operatives on this blog. Vote Nader? That’s like voting commie in Germany 1933 to teach them “soft” socialists a lesson, we all know how that ended. Get a grip people!

Yer mad as hell? You want to riot? You need to hit back hard? Channel your anger. Focus it contructively.
You can help Dean make the Democratic Party more progressive
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/
You can help the Moveon folks speak over the media to get our message to the American people
http://www.moveon.org/front/

You can do a lot of constructive things. But what you can not do is the easy thing which is to sit at your kitchen table yelling at radio when another GOP outrage comes accross the wires and stoke your impotent rage by deciding to vote Nader regradless of the cost.

We need you to help
We need you to stay sane
We need you to fight

For the love of America
For the love of the Good
For the love of God

Please vote for the Democratic ticket in November

If you can’t do it for yourself, then please do it for me.

Posted by Scott McArthur on Sep 21, 2004 at 12:55 PM

Well, as I said if its a two party choice, then the choice is Bush.

I do think a relook at German history is needed. It was the choice of lesser evilism that gave one Hitler. If more voted the communist ticket it maybe would have ended differently.

I also dislike Nader enormously, so I can’t be accused of being a GOP hack. I also dislike Republicans no matter what party they come from.

If Kerry want my or my families support he can propose,

1) National Living Wage (ties to standard of living)

2) Single Payer Healthcare (every one is covered no tax credit scams)

3) Get out of Iraq immediately.

4) Support IRV, and constitutional amendment overturning electoral college.

When that is completed, we’ll talk.

Posted by nate on Sep 21, 2004 at 1:11 PM

Vote for Kerry and you vote for a candidate you hope is lying to win because he really is a progressive. Vote for Kerry and you vote against health care for all, for four more years in Iraq, etc. Maybe, you call this compromise. I call it selling out.

Posted by steve conn on Sep 21, 2004 at 1:28 PM

Everybody go back and read what Donna Marsh O’Connor Mother of Vanessa wrote .  She is so right. She expresses exactly what I and alot of people feel. John Kerry is an honorable man.  Please for the sake of your children, my children, our grandchildren support John Kerry. Ralph Nader is a pipe dream at best.  Let’s get back to reality and help those sleepers wake up before what happened in Germany happens here.  It happened in the blink of an eye before anybody was aware. All I can say is wake-up, if you are voting for Bush you have been brainwashed. Educate yourself, stop watching Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, and for God sakes stop reading the fictional “Left Behind” series.

Posted by Cindy on Sep 21, 2004 at 1:32 PM

Nate,

National Living Wage is unlikely with Bush, and more likely with Kerry or any democrat.

Single Payer Healthcare—I would go with that if it was modeled on Finland, Sweden or Canada—that way we would live 2.5+ years longer on the average and pay 1/2 of what is paid now.

Both parties will get out of Iraq in the next twelve months (no choice).  The Draft will damage the GOP to much and Novac outline the Republican plan to jump ship today in the Chicago-Times?!

Democracy verse a Republic, hum, that assumes the ultra right wing will not continue to brainwashed and not grow to polute the American mind.  I believe America population in general with its greed and SUV mentality is getting what she deserves in Iraq—Failure… and will elect Bush because the average IQ of the American electorate is well below 100 (not adjusted since 1914).

I will vote in a Red State (Red hum, commie?) this November, because I want to be able to say I voted against the most stupid ignorant SOB on the planet.  America is a Facist state or close to it, and the Bush family since 1933 has been its Nazi ringmaster.  The world hates the USA for good reason.  Sometime in fifty years when China is the new world superpower and we are deep in our post-British Empire experience, we may get it—most likely when China gives it to us.  Bush (2) is just like his grandfather Prescott who ran and organized the German/Polish death camps for cheap Polish, Russian, and Jewish labor.  The American worker is now the Polish, Russian and Jew (cheap labor for the rich master race), but it is 1940 (2004—one year into World War III).  This time the Fascists win.

Posted by Murray on Sep 21, 2004 at 1:33 PM

To the Nader in ‘04 voters:

First, let’s both concede that there is zero chance of Nader winning the election.

That, alone, is not a reason to not vote for him, nor a reason not to vote for any other 3rd party candidate.
Votes of conscience do matter.

Let’s look at a reason that will have decades-long ramifications.

Who would you prefer appoint 2, 3 or possibly up to 4 Supreme Court justices during the next term?
In good conscience, can you support the appointment of Bush-selected candidates?

If you have to hold your nose to vote for Kerry, then do so. That still leaves one hand free to cast the vote

Posted by notmax on Sep 21, 2004 at 1:40 PM

1. I agree with not max. Nader is a lose - lose - lose choice. First he will not win. Second he will not move the Democrats to the left. Third he is not party building. I certainly was not advocating a vote for Nader.

2. Murray, I am not sure that is correct. History tends to point to the opposite. We used to say the same about the safety net that protects the most vulnerable of our citizens, but Bill changed that.  I’m with David Cobb, if Kerry wants my vote he’ll half to earn it. Sadly, the ABBers are forcing Kerry further to the right. Without them Kerry would have more widespread support because he would have to broaden his base.

3. Cindy, I said if it a two party choice which I assume you do, vote for Bush. Not because you agree with his policies, but because you will accomplish more for healthcare reform, labor issues, women’s rights etc. You will do this because the man is weak, and would be weaker if the Dems grew some balls. Remember Clinton, when we regressed and regressed and the left went away for 8 years.

Lastly, most I know who will vote third party will either do that or not vote. Voting for Kerry or Bush for that matter are not options. In all honestly its like choosing between Stalin and Hitler not as an evil comparison, but as an end result is no different comparison. What if all DSA Dems jumped ship and supported a third party. They certainly would make more waves that sell out Sanders.

I think the real issue is the Dems know that true Socialists, Greens, and Naderites, will never vote for Kerry, but they can suppress their vote by frustrating them so badly they stay home. Again,  I’ll wait to see what happen in the Republican primary on November 2nd.

Posted by nate on Sep 21, 2004 at 2:32 PM

Yep, a bunch of GOP operatives on this site encouraging y’all to eat Rancid Turd with Vomit Sprinkles ice cream (that’s Bush) instead of Stale Vanilla (Kerry).  Despite Bernie Sanders’s plea, they seem to be convincing a few of you.  I don’t know, maybe that Rancid Turd will turn out to taste pretty good after all—it’s probably an acquired taste.  In that case, I guess all us pro-Kerry folks will stand corrected…  Bon appetit!

Posted by YoloMike on Sep 21, 2004 at 2:49 PM

Naderites!  Even if Ralph won the Presidency, who will he caucus with?  Where is the mighty reform movement in the House and Senate?  Nader doesn’t even have the loyalty to stand with the Greens anymore, he is the latest Reform Party candidate… let’s see, Perot, Buchanan and Nader (now there is a roller coaster party for you).

Voting for Nader is pissing in the wind.  We must face the fact that America will simply not jump on the Progressive band wagon and ride.  America will move leftward only in small, measured steps.  Step one… Vote for the candidate of the Democrats.  Support the platform of the Democrats.  It is America’s only progressive hope.

Posted by Mark on Sep 21, 2004 at 3:05 PM

If Nader wanted to run for President, why didn’t he get in when Kerry and the rest of the candidates did ? Why did he wait until Kerry was chosen ? Now he has the same lawyer in Florida as Bush to get on the ballot in Florida. UHMMMM, doesn’t that sound fishy ??? I am scared to death to have this SOB back in office again. Get the Jimmy Jones Kool Aid out for the ones that believe Bush and everything he says.

Posted by Darlene on Sep 21, 2004 at 3:19 PM

Get out the Jimmy Jones Kool-Aid for the believers in Bush. If Nader wanted to get in the race, why didn’t he do it sooner. He waited until Kerry was chosen and then got in. Sounds fishy he got the same lawyer as Bush to get on the ballots in Florida…. Give um Hell Kerry !!!!

Posted by Darlene on Sep 21, 2004 at 3:47 PM

Ralph Nader is perhaps the greatest American citizen in the past 100 years.  George Bush is, without a doubt, the worst president in American history who has created the gravest foreign policy crisis in American history, not to mention the disaster he has been in every other area.  John Kerry has built a formidable reputation in the Senate fighting for the environment and against powerful interests even in the Democratic party like Clark Clifford because that is where the truth took him.  He has all the dirt on the Bushies from his investigations into BCCI and other scandals.  And he is the only choice we have right now.  We must defeat the neo-con crazies.  It is imperative.  The alternative is the demise of America.  Period.

Posted by Vinnie on Sep 21, 2004 at 3:49 PM

I voted for Ralph in 2000, and I will most likely vote for him again this year because he is the only candidate to recognize we are so dangerously close to total subjugation by a sinister globalist plot perpetrated by the Bilderbergs and the CFR, using corporate power to minimalize our constitutional rights. Kerry and Bush both have to bow to this enormous power; although I believe Bush is a willing participant and Kerry just has to go along to get along. Our personal freedoms have been slowly eroding over the last twenty or thirty years as a result of this elitist/corporate junta, now, with G.W.B at the stick, personal freedom is disintegrating rapidly.If we still have any hope at all, it rests in the courageous and honest personna of Ralph Nader.

Posted by Dr.D on Sep 21, 2004 at 3:51 PM

Well, I can’t in good conscience support either of the candidates, because both of them are big-government liberals.  Both want the government to spend more on social programs, Kerry by raising taxes, Bush by inflating the currency.
Both will do nothing to protext our borders from unchecked illegal immigration.
And I have a feeling that neither one will extricate us from the mess in Iraq (btw, I don’t consider invading Iraq to be a particularly right-wing act; as a paleoconservatism, I see isolationism as right-wing, where the neocon imperialists are a part of the left).
In short, I’m voting third party for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party.
http://www.peroutka2004.com
Perhaps rather than trashing Nader, you should be encouraging Republicans to vote for third-party candidates who are real conservatives, instead of globalist-statist sellouts like Dubya. 
I see Bush as marginally better than Kerry, but I’m voting my conscience, for Peroutka.  Anyone on this board gonna tell me that I shouldn’t vote third party?

Posted by Glaivester on Sep 21, 2004 at 4:22 PM

Vote Republican because you want other people to fend for themselves.

Call Walmart at 1-800-966-6546 and demand they help extend unemployment benefits and increase the minimum wage to 9 dollars an hour or you will not buy from them until they get the Republicans in Washington DC to extend unemployment benefits for those whose benefits ran out as far back as August
2003 and increase the minimum wage to 9 dollars an hour.

Call Eckerd Pharmacy Corporate Headquarters at 800 325 3737, Call CVS Pharmacy Corporate headquarters at 888 607 4287 and Call Walgreens Pharmacy Corporate headquarters at 800 289 2273 and tell them we will not purchase any products from their drug stores but will patronize them in the future if they can get the congress to pass a prescription drug benefit as described in the petition at

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/383366962

Please read and sign the petition.

Thank you.

1. John Kerry will defend America better than George W Bush. George W Bush provoked the 9-11 attacks by attempting to force the Taliban to accept an oil pipeline through Afghanistan under threat of invasion. This got them mad and they got Al Qaeda to strike back. On 9-11 George W Bush failed to defend America. The Spanish conservatives failed to defend Spain on 3-11-2004 and got voted out. Now we should vote for Kerry because he will defend America better than George W Bush.

2. John Kerry will set a climate for creating jobs. Under George W Bush 3 million people lost their jobs. Forget about the computer model “fake recovery” that the Bush administration used to lie about improvement in Jun 2004.

3. John Kerry will set a climate for honesty in the private sector by getting congress to regulate private companies in the area of stocks and accounting. George W Bush presided over Enron and other scandals. George W Bush once represented Enron and knows Ken Lay well.

4. John Kerry will not declare war on false premises for oil resources. George W Bush declared war against Afghanistan in secret and provoked the 9-11 attacks. George W Bush declared war against Iraq based on lies for oil, and for diverting the public away from his domestic failures. John Kerry will defend America better than George W Bush. Over 1,000 soldiers died for a lie and for oil, just like the 2750 people died on 9-11 for oil.

When Republicans lead, people bleed.

5. John Kerry will keep Social Security and Medicare safe and will reverse the damage that the Republicans did to Medicare and Social Security in the form of a meager prescription drug benefit and a 17 percent increase in Medicare premium which functions like a social security benefit cut.

6. John Kerry will treat the unemployed with dignity. George W Bush in his poor economy refused to extend unemployment benefits to people whose benefits expired after 6 months and still looking for work every day despite the fact that in his poor economy alot of people cannot find jobs after 6 months of looking. George W Bush has left people to fend for themselves without income while they still seek work.

7. John Kerry will get congress to increase the minimum wage to 7 dollars an hour or more. I believe it should go to 9 dollars an hour. The cheap labor conservative Republicans have refused to increase the minimum wage for 7 years which left hard working people who cannot even afford a decent place to live or to afford the normal items in life to live a decent life. George W Bush beleives in the fend for yourself philosophy.

Vote for John Kerry, retire the meanspirited Republican party in congress and the presidency. Pass this letter to others.

Jesus wouldn’t vote Republican. Why should you?

Thank you.

From Jay Marvin’s Secular Talk Radio & Arts Gas Tank via a message on DU.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002606/2004/06/21.html

President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief
June 1, 2004

From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then Governor Bush said: “I think credibility is important. It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations.” But President Bush’s serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.

1. OPEC

BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES…“What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots…And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price.” [President Bush, 1/26/00]

...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to “personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds.” [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

2. Iraq Funding

BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004…“We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for ‘04” [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]

[sigma]BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 [base “]I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops.[per thou] [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

3. Condoleeza Rice Testimony

BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON’T TESTIFY AS ‘A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE’...[base “]Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it’s a matter of principle, not a matter of preference.[per thou] [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]

[sigma]BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: [base “]Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony.[per thou] [President Bush, 3/30/04]

4. Science

BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE…“I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good.” [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE “60 leading scientists[~]including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents[~]issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels.” [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]

5. Ahmed Chalabi

BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS…President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]

...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI’S HOUSE"U.S. soldiers raided the home of America’s one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers.” [Washington Post, 5/20/04]

6. Department of Homeland Security

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY…“So, creating a Cabinet office doesn’t solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn’t solve anything.” [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY “So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people.” [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

7. Weapons of Mass Destruction

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION…“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories[sigma]for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.” [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN’T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION “David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven’t found stockpiles yet, and there’s theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we’ll find out.” [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

8. Free Trade

BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE… “I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue.” [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE “In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection.” [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

9. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE… “I want justice. And there’s an old poster out West, I recall, that says, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’” [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN’T CARE ABOUT OSAMA [base “]I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him[sigma] I truly am not that concerned about him.[per thou] [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

10. The Environment

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE… “[If elected], Governor Bush will work to[sigma]establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide.” [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE “I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a ‘pollutant’ under the Clean Air Act.” [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

11. WMD Commission

BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE… “The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency.” [NY Times, 1/29/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE “Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction.” [President Bush, 2/6/04]

12. Creation of the 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION… “President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11.” [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION “President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.” [ABC News, 09/20/02]

13. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION… “President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.” [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION “The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work.” [CNN, 2/4/04]

14. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR… “President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel’s top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday.” [NY Times, 2/26/04]

...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY “The president’s going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody’s watching the clock.” [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

15. Gay Marriage

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE… “The state can do what they want to do. Don’t try to trap me in this state’s issue like you’re trying to get me into.” [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE “Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife.” [President Bush, 2/24/04]

16. Nation Building

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING… “If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road.” [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING “We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people.” [President Bush, 3/6/03]

17. Saddam/al Qaeda Link

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM… “You can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.” [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11.” [President Bush, 9/17/03]

18. U.N. Resolution

BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT… “No matter what the whip count is, we’re calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It’s time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.” [President Bush 3/6/03]

...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE “At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written.” [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

19. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict

BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS… “Well, we’ve tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn’t all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area.” [President Bush, 04/05/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS “If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I’m committed to working toward peace in the Middle East.” [President Bush, 5/23/03]

20. Campaign Finance

BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD… “George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold…as an infringement on free expression.” [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW “[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law.” [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]

Posted by buckfush on Sep 21, 2004 at 4:31 PM

Glaivester,
Hey vote your conscience. It’s still a free country, vote for who you want. In a few years you can tell your children or grandchildren that once upon a time in America we had that right. Keep up the good fight for protecting the constitution and our Bill of Rights. I agree that Republicans should vote for the third party candidates. Bring um on!

Posted by Cindy on Sep 21, 2004 at 4:57 PM

I think you gentlemen and ladies need to educate yourselves a little in how polls such as Gallup are done. You seem to take them a little too seriously. They skew to Rebulicans, do not call cell phones, do not take into account the largest new voter drive in modern political history, and do not tap into the palpable rage of injustice flourishing in everyday America. Bush is gone. Help him out the door a little, won’t you? Then you can look back upon this dark age in democracy and know on which side of justice you stood. Vote for Kerry.

Posted by Betsy on Sep 21, 2004 at 5:29 PM

Isn’t it true that it’s the Primary process that gave us Kerry? That the progressives in the Democratic party are held hostage to the choices of people who, while registered as Democrats, live and work in Red states? It seems to me that a lot of Republican-lite Dems, voting in Iowa etc., eliminate Dean-type candidates and we’re left again and again with these Pelosi-Daschle me-too kind of candidates. How do you see it?

Posted by Lane on Sep 21, 2004 at 5:44 PM

I think you take yourself a little to seriously Betsy. If you are so sure Bush is gone why then post a Vote for Kerry? I think we gentleman and ladies understand the polls.

Posted by Karl on Sep 21, 2004 at 6:12 PM

Thanks Bernie, but what we need is not someone to tell us how bad Bush is (we all know it), we need to know concretely John Kerry will be any better than Bush on anything that FUNDAMENTALLY MATTERS. HOW will John Kerry save us, in what we keep having to hear is “THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR LIFETIME”? Please. If its so important, there’s no way in hell I’d trust it to John Kerry. Kerry sucks worse than Gore, and I didn’t think that was even possible. Democrats want us to take it on faith that they’ll be better just because they’re Democrats. Well, I’m not a religious man. Prove it. They may make the devastation SOUND better, like Bill Clinton did, but did Bill Clinton fundamentally change anything about the direction of this country since WWII? Will John Kerry actually help the environment thats gonna kill us all if we keep doing nothing, or just prolong the inevitable, making death slower? Will John Kerry reverse the role of the US as destructive, terrorism-inspiring Empirical Hegemon or will he simply do more to bring other countries in line with our wrongheaded direction?

And lets establish some ground rules now as to how bad Kerry has to be before we’re allowed by the liberal intelligentsia to vote third/independent party next time with no browbeating.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush. Vote Nader or Cobb, or stay home.

Dr. P.

Posted by Dr Paul Proteus on Sep 21, 2004 at 6:37 PM

I too would like to thank Donna Marsh O’Connor for her expressions of grief and hope that we united can take our country and dignity back.
I don’t believe the polls but I also don’t believe that the election will be fair…questions about who owns the voting machines and who they financilly and politically support, voter intimidation in many states, and even demonstrations of just how far they will go to take control (what was the name of the minnesota senator who along with his wife and daughter were killed in a plane crash on a perfectly clear and beautiful day?)He would have been a swing majority vote for the Democrats but my memory fails me as to the details.
I would like to see Scott Ritter and Patrick Leahy elected but they do not have the support of the BANKS and big businees so it will never happen. I do not want to see George Bush anywhere near Washington in January, in fact, he should be impeached and help criminally and financially accountable along with his band of theives. thank you Bernie for always leading the way. We have an election to win and much healing to do. Like the teachings of the native americans say, we have 7 generations into the future to consider. to the innocent peoples of Iraq and Aphganistan and the rest of the world who have suffered because of my government, my heartfelt apologies. Judy Therriault

Posted by Judy Therriault O'Connor on Sep 21, 2004 at 6:59 PM

Something that I have yet to see in print:

A vote for Bush equals one vote for Bush and the GOP. 

A vote for Kerry equals one vote for Kerry and the Democrats.

A vote for Nader or any of the the other candidates equals TWO VOTES for Bush and the GOP!

Please keep that in mind if you are supporting any of the alternate parties. Granted, we need more of a voting choice in this country, but now is not the time.

Posted by Eric on Sep 21, 2004 at 7:04 PM

A vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush!

This is just a lousy argument that you democrats use to guilt true progressives from voting in what we believe in. How can you argue that democrats can vote for what they believe in and conservatives can vote for what they believe in but that us progressives can not vote for the candidate that speaks to us (Ralph Nader)? Moreover the democrats have shown us over and over why they are truly undemocratic by consistently fighting to keep Nader off of the ballot. How many of you truly think that we will have national health care under Kerry? Now how many of you know we will have national health care under Nader? John Kerry will not bring our troops home and will continue our illegal occupation of Iraq, Ralph Nader will bring our troops home. And now you democrats tell us that now is not the time to build our third party. You say this because you are afraid of what would happen under a truly democratic party, not the undemocratic democrats. With Bush being as right wing as he is more and more of us on the left are moving farther left and now is the time to put our support behind Nader.
I would spit on Bush and I would never shake John Kerry’s hand

Posted by Richard on Sep 21, 2004 at 8:32 PM

It’s obscene for Nader to raise his hoary head every four years at election time and be a spoiler with no point other than to get the most reactionary administration into office that we’ve ever had. If he was serious about a third party he would be working tirelessly during all the intervening years building and organizing, like Dean, Moveon. and the Wellstone sons are doing. Bush is a radical threat to the world and to all our traditional institutions—-a vanilla flavored Democrat who’s just an ordianry politician would be an immense relief at this point. You Naderites who foist Bush on us again ought to have the courage to keep a fatality and casuality counter, for the next four years, on your computer’s opening page.

Posted by Lane on Sep 21, 2004 at 8:58 PM

I admire Rep. Sanders for his unwavering support of progressive politics (and all of the Democrats in the Progressive Caucus, including my Congressman Mel Watt), but he has to realize that Kerry will receive most progressive votes reluctantly simply because Kerry has sought to distance himself from this crucial base of support.  Although Nader is not officially on the ballot in this state, I do intend to vote for him as a write-in (if I can).  Here’s why.

In addition to running a fumbling campaign that started as a phallus-measuring contest with W, Kerry has foolishly sought to distance himself from his solid (and active) base, namely anti-war activists and people of color (who tend to be more anti-war) in order to appeal to voters already firmly locked-in to the Republican ticket.  Kerry “reported for duty” and the Republicans immediately diluted this “strong point” by attacking Kerry’s perceived strength, and he acts as if he didn’t see it coming.

The Republicans have been whipping the Democrats for decades by pandering to their regressive base (especially neo-Crusader Christians who seek to expedite Armageddon and the Second Coming) while the Democrats have been trying to run away from their base.  Kerry is trying to replicate Clinton’s success by following in the footsteps of ignorant DLCers seeking to appeal to surburban soccer moms, NASCAR dads, and other constituencies unlikely to vote Democratic for one reason or another.  The Democrats JUST DON’T GET IT!

Kerry hasn’t questioned the sanity of waging a “war on terror”, but only promises to do it better.  This is why anti-war voters feel turned off by all this macho, pro-war crap, and it is in this potential voter pool that you’ll find the folk who actually get out, organize and motivate.  When Kerry’s campaign made sure to let the mainstream media know that they had nothing to do with the thousands of protesters at this year’s RNC, he might as well had shot himself in his proverbial foot.

Kerry can’t “out-war” W because W’s fascism-ready voter block is blinded by their right-wing ideology; Kerry and his advisors either don’t understand this or still think they can say something to appeal to these sheepish citizens.  The best thing for Democrats to do is to actually LISTEN to their solid base, but that seems hard for them to do.

If Kerry doesn’t see the light before November and loses the election, he pretty much deserved it.

Posted by C. Shawn Freeman on Sep 21, 2004 at 9:50 PM

If a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, then I hope you won’t mind if I vote for Bush.

Gore never had my vote for Nader to take away. And who will be the choice next election? Hillary vs McCain? I choose neither.

I’m voting for Nader because Kerry doesn’t support my views on the one most important issue- The Iraqi occupation/War. And it doesn’t even matter why he doesn’t, whether it is ‘positioning’ whatever.

www.wordsareimportant.com/kerry.htm

peace is only achievable with justice
AG
Mad River, CA

Posted by AG on Sep 21, 2004 at 10:48 PM

do you people think you’ll change anything by voting?

Posted by the mad bomber on Sep 21, 2004 at 11:22 PM

If “A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush”, who do I vote for if I want to vote for Nader?

Posted by Conundrummer on Sep 21, 2004 at 11:28 PM

I know that those of you who are posting your many reasons to vote for Nader will very probably do it, but I want to point out to you that there are an extremely large number of people in this country who are absolutely convinced that Tom DeLay, Don Nickels and the rest of the Republican MAJORITY in the Congress are the right people to vote for.  They each have as many votes as you do, even though I think you are right and they are wrong.
If Nader was elected President tomorrow he still would not be able to deliver single-payer health care (for example) unless he could get a majority of Congress-people to vote for it.  Face it.  Kerry doesn’t agree with you on all issues because he needs the vote of a lot of people who don’t agree with you at all and if he is elected he will have to represent them too.  IF NADER WAS PRESIDENT HE WOULD HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM.
We need to get the media back so that we can at least talk to the people we really need to convince - the millions of Americans who vote against their own economic interests.  Won’t you please vote for Kerry and push him to stop media de-regulation - you know Bush won’t do it.
Won’t you please vote for Kerry because his lifetime environmental voting record is great and if you elect him, he will have a mandate to protect the earth because that is how he has been voting publicly all along?
Won’t you please vote for Kerry because you (and I and a lot more of us) don’t want to live under the judges Bush will appoint?
Won’t you please vote for Kerry because he never would have started the Iraq war and, now that we are there, at least he has been considering the same issues - what are we doing in an illegitimate war and how can we safely get out (and keep from doing it again) - since 1971?
Won’t you please vote for Democrats across the board - or if you won’t now, will you please listen to C-Span’s broadcasts of Congress so that you see what actual elected Representatives and Senators are up against before you cast you lily-white vote for complete agreement with your priorities?
Like someone already said, if we are to build a progressive movement in this country, it has to be done vote by vote, small seat by small seat.  That’s how the conservatives have been doing it and that’s how we’re going to have to do it.
It’s NOT OK to keep Republicans in power so that things become so bad that Americans see the error of their ways become third party progressives.  For one thing, I don’t think the natural world, the US court system or the Constitution can take much more, and for another, I don’t think Americans will independently come to the conclusion you hope for.  You still have to convince them one by one.  Why not do it with Kerry in power?

Posted by Sally on Sep 22, 2004 at 12:26 AM

Just can’t stand the thought of picking a saluting war monger over an oil grubbing one when someone (RN) is actually running on a peace platform. We all have to do what we believe is the right thing and hopefully some day there may be a better world awaiting because of everyone’s sincere efforts.

Posted by Bob on Sep 22, 2004 at 3:08 AM

You ABBer’s remind me of the old Saturday Night Live “low expectation” skits. How low does a Democrat need to go before you choose not to support him.

There is a reason a large % of the working class no longer support the democrats. They are the great manipulators of our day, but most do not have the courage to have ideals that influence reality.

1. Kerry is great at manipulating the right to healthcare but then offers Bush’s 2002 healthcare plan. 

2) 4 more years, 4 more years, 4 more years of war under Kerry. It does not take a brain scientist to know we will be in Iraq longer with Kerry. Just like our war in Afghanistan would have needed to start September 12th with Gore.

3) A living wage was rejected in the 2004 platform because Kerry did not support it. Solving the problem will take away the every 4, 10 year proposal to raise the minimum wage.

I refuse to leave my children the remains of a Demopublican tit for tat strategy. The Republicans increase the deficit through corporate giveaways and then conservative democrats reduce it and move the electorate to the right on many social issues.

The DLC strategy has been one of abandaning the workingclass and nullifying ecomonic differences. You take away the # 1 reason the workingclass supoorted Democrats and then wonder why workingclass congressional districts are supoorting Republican by an 80% margin. This is a direct result of Clinton’s policies. BTW voting against ones ecomonic interests and for these fuzzy social issues is about as stupid as it gets.

I also suggest the first thing ABBer’s do November 3rd is institute IRV. Nader will move to the wayside, but third parties are here to stay.

Posted by nate on Sep 22, 2004 at 3:18 AM

Tim,

No, I did not mean to speak to you, sorry if it appeared that way to you.  Since you did NOT vote for Nader, you might have considered that my post was not a personal attack on you.  I was thinking more generally, of those who voted for Nader in 2000.

Donna Marsh O’Connor, thanks again for your moving and rational post.  And thanks to all for your heart-felt expressions.

Kerry is not a loser.  He is a man, like other men:  Imperfect, yet complex and striving to understand this world.  He is spiritually far deeper than Bush, obviously.  He will be open to constructive ideas from all corners, while Bush is closed to everything but the mirror. 

Just look at the women these men have merited.  I don’t despise Mrs. Bush - hell, at least she got a job all by herself at least once in her life.  But as Teresa Heinz Kerry is complex, educated, subtle, introspective and radiant with soul, so Laura Bush is placid, stereotypical, mundane and unimaginative.  Laura married George maybe because he was the cutest, richest guy in town; Teresa did not marry John Kerry for his money, certainly. 

Politics, like all secular activity, is full of compromises.  Every time we open our mouth we are compromising.  It is now time to make the most obvious compromise in my lifetime, remembering Yeats’ words:

“The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”

Respectfully,

Jerry Wechsler

Posted by Jerry Wechsler on Sep 22, 2004 at 3:54 AM

Those proudly voting for Nader, just might want to consider that his largest support in this election cycle has come from right wing republicans. By voting for Nader they are doing just what right wing republicans want them to do. Sure, Kerry is far from ideal (I would have much preferred Howard Dean), but sometmes you have have to correct a situation ones step at a time. Kerry is a step (and quite a large one) in the right direction.

Posted by Chris on Sep 22, 2004 at 5:01 AM

We have the opportunity to delay and perhaps permanently derail the rise of fascism in our country. This is the time, this is the moment. This is no time for “third parties,” or “feeling good about your vote,” or anything like that. This is the moment that the Germans never had in 1936. Iraq is W’s Spain, a chance to test out weapons and strategies before the big one. Fascism is knocking on our door—we must not let it in. Vote for John Kerry. To do otherwise, no matter what you tell yourself, is to deliberately open the door to fascism. Yes, the very fascism you learned about in school. The fascism of Europe in the 30’s, re-emerging with improved weaponry, improved surveillance, and improved media and propaganda skills. This is our moment.

Posted by Shawn on Sep 22, 2004 at 6:44 AM

I have read all the remarks from both the repugs and the democrats.  I believe a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for Bush.

Hes still arrogant and one sided.  Does he have a clue as to how to run this country.  He bassically is a born again, with no concern about his own people, just Iraq.  I also feel there will be a civil war upcoming in the Mid-East and the theory of a democracy upcoming is blown to hell.  Any person that elects GW for four more years deserve whats coming down in the next four years.  At least give Kerry the chance to show that he can lead this country for the next 4 years, he possibly cannot do any worse than GW.

Posted by betty a. cook on Sep 22, 2004 at 6:59 AM

Thank you Bernie Sanders:

For illustrating how Republican policies are redistributing Americas assets.  People don’t realize it but economically and politically the U.S. is a “second world” country and another four years of Bush would push us into “third world” status.  Middle/working/small entrepreneurial class Americans no longer enjoy the highest standard of living in the world, are over burdened with personal debt and taxes and have been reduced to various “consumer market segments” by corporate media.  If the federal government were a corporation it would be in bankruptcy liquidation by now and Asia and Europe would be taking title possession of entire states with our taxes being paid directly to them.  At that point we’d know that we are just a consumer plantation.

Posted by theloneous on Sep 22, 2004 at 9:49 AM

Bernie Sanders, you’re our hero! Ralph Nader supporters, please listen to the advice of Bernie Sanders and vote for Kerry. He can and will do better for this country. How sad that the Democratic Party couldn’t embrace Nader and make him part of the absolutely vital need to remove Bush from office. Our rage against this administation is beyond description. It’s truly upsetting that Ralph Nader, a wonderful advocate for progressive causes, won’t accept reality and throw his support behind Kerry. The old saying of “first do no harm” should be Nader’s motto now. And harm he will do by running in this election. We hope and pray his decision will NOT mean another four years of Bush and Co.!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Elissa Menconi on Sep 22, 2004 at 10:13 AM

Like many information technology workers who have been betrayed by both elected Democrats and Republicans, I’m not happy with Kerry. (I can name well-known Democrats in Congress who are as much sell-outs to the pro-outsourcing and worker replacement lobby as Bush and the Repubs.) But Rep. Sanders has it correct: Bush is so clearly the enemy of the middle class that he must be defeated. (Bernie should have it right; I’ve sent him plenty of email.) IT and white collar workers reading this email should be aware of the fact that among W’s recent initiatives is a new FTA with India which will open the floodgates allowing into the U.S. without restriction an even larger number of low-wage Indian guest workers—across all skilled and professional employment categories. The problems we’ve had with the H-1b and L-1 visa programs will pale in comparison. If you are a middle class American, George Bush is your enemy.

www.techsunite.org
www.itpaa.org
www.rescueamericanjobs.org

Posted by Info Tech Guy on Sep 22, 2004 at 10:43 AM

No Naderite has explained to me yet why it’s the Democrats’ fault that Nader’s consistently shut out of elections, despite that Anderson and Perot managed to be taken seriously.  The problem in this country is not that Democrats REFUSE to cater to the Naderite 2%; the problem in this country is that Naderites REFUSE to cater to the Democratic 48%.

Posted by Edward on Sep 22, 2004 at 11:10 AM

Until Kerry won the Democratic nomination, I gave my full support to Kucinich, who was such a strong, clear voice for progressive ideas.  He has shown us the way by backing Kerry with humility and grace.

Not so Nader, whose intellectual egotism seems to have blinded him to the common good.  We do owe him gratitude for his pioneering efforts in the past; but the personal stake he has in his own ideas has made him arrogant and (in my opinion) odious.

I fervently hope and pray that progressivism will triumph someday; but I believe that this can only happen gradually, in incremental steps.  When I lived in the Bay Area, I was fascinated by the changes in landscape on the drive from San Francisco to the Sierras - the ever-so-gradual rise in altitude, the increasing size and number of boulders, the changes in soil and vegetation.  In most parts of the world the transition from sea level to the high country is not sudden and dramatic; one must have the patience to pass through the foothills first.

Clearly Bush is leading in the wrong direction and will take us to the bottom of the sea, if given the chance.  Like the captain of the “Titanic,” he is a weak man who listens to bad advice, such as Cheney’s advocating that we go “full speed ahead” in the war against terrorism.  By contrast, Kerry exemplifies the old adage, “Discretion is the better part of valor.”  I trust the sober Kerry to lead us through the dangerous waters of our times; and I have nightmares about the trigger-happy Bush sinking the global ship in World War III.

Kerry has been a disappointing candidate in many ways, but I think he will make a good president, leading us in the direction of the foothills.  He is intelligent and responsible and not possessed of the stubborn arrogance that both Nader and Bush have shown.

I loved the analogy about ice cream flavors and believe that compromise is an essential part of human wisdom.  My favorite quotation on this subject is from Edmund Burke, the great English orator who tried to persuade the House of Commons to see the viewpoint of the American colonies in the critical years before the American Revolution.  “All government - indeed, every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act - is founded on compromise and barter.”

I see Kerry as the candidate of compromise who can guide us safely through the present crisis, which is dire indeed.  Those progressives who are so inflexible as to hold out for a utopia that can’t be instantly established are instead contributing to an unspeakable global catastrophe.

Ellen, Sept. 22, 3:15 p.m..

Posted by ellenbacon@baldcom.net on Sep 22, 2004 at 11:19 AM

Betsy is correct in her comments about the polls.  For your edification: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002806.html

Posted by Kathy Maffei on Sep 22, 2004 at 11:30 AM

Thank you Jerry Wechsler for your last comment.  I think it’s important to remember that these are just people, as imperfect as any of us.  I, personally, would loathe being in the spotlight under the ever-critical media eye, subject to rumors, smears, pundits, and pop-culture.  The sad thing about politics is the disconnect from the reality of the job.  An amiable personality is useful, but it’s not the most important quality in a president.  Unfortunately, it seems that it’s the most important quality to get elected.  My top choice of all contenders was Dennis Kucinich, but – alas – he lacks a telegenic persona even while he stands for all the right things.  Even though the primaries are a done deal by the time our state gets around to voting, I stopped at the polls to place my vote for him.

Posted by Kathy Maffei on Sep 22, 2004 at 11:30 AM

Now, Ralph is known as a single-minded, no-nonsense, stubborn crusader for the people. I agree with much of what he stands for, and I feel he deserves a lot of respect for his hard work. I also agree with his position that he has a right to run, and I don’t think it’s very useful to try to pressure him to quit. Through his candidacies, with his ascetic lifestyle, and throughout his writing and speeches he has demonstrated his idealistic viewpoints and his aversion to compromise. He is principled and unwilling to back down. He is exactly the kind of person who you want advocating for consumers, for workers, for the environment, for the general public. But is he really the kind of person who you’d want as the president of the United States?
In an ideal world, money would have no bearing on elections, people would have an interest in the issues and take the time to become informed, the news media would spend time objectively covering the issues rather than fluff pieces and dirt, voters would come out in large numbers and vote their consciences. In an ideal world, democracy would result in policy that benefits the greater good. But it doesn’t right now. Ralph Nader functions in the real world as if it were the ideal world. He handles people and situations as if those ideals were a given. It’s an effective approach for a defender of rights, for a public advocate.
My concern is that it’s the wrong disposition for a president (or any politician). For good & for bad, holding elected office means haggling with the opposition, compromising with those with alternate viewpoints to produce legislation that works for everyone, playing political games to get things accomplished, dealing with the media and a culture of sensationalism, rumor, trends, & stereotypes. It also involves diplomacy and strategy in managing foreign affairs. We’ve seen in Bush what happens when things are run by people with strict ideologies and unbending goals. It seems, also, that ideological people can be arrogant, presumptuous, and stubborn. Bush’s team demonstrates this, and Nader is also said to have these qualities. We’ve seen the harm that can come of presidential hubris.

Posted by Kathy Maffei on Sep 22, 2004 at 11:31 AM

Bravo to Ellen Bacon! I agree with you one hundred per cent! I’m a progressive and though I would have loved to see Kucinich be our candidate I’m for Kerry all the way. Kucinich sees that compromise is necessary and is supporting Kerry. If only Nader would do the same. He needs to think about the well being of the country more than his own goals. We can’t have four more years of Bush and Co.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Elissa Menconi on Sep 22, 2004 at 11:50 AM

Naderites might consider waking up to a hard and unjust fact of life: the electoral college and winner-take-all system makes the presidential election a 2 person race in all but the most unusual years (‘80 was one, ‘92 was one, and this year _ain’t_ one of them).  If absolutely every last one of the voters who prefer Nader to Kerry voted for Nader, Bush would win, Kerry would come in a close second, and Nader would be a distant third (probably less than 5%).  So the argument that progressives just need to trust their hearts and they will be swept to victory in November is ludicrous.  I want to stop the conservative juggernaut as much as any of you folks, but I know that making a trivial statement on election day that directly helps the most conservative viable candidate is not the way to do it.  I’m going to vote for Kerry, then I’m going to continue the progressive work I do the other 364 days out of the year.  No doubt in my mind that at the end of the month, the year, my life, I’ll have done more to further just social and economic causes than some chump who just couldn’t stand to vote for that moderate Kerry.

Posted by YoloMike on Sep 22, 2004 at 12:22 PM

Hello,

I know that is is very tough to vote our conscience because any choice we make will have severe consequences. Some say, ‘grow up and vote for Kerry because that is how the real world works.’

I disagree. It is how they want us to think the world works so it can continue working this way.

I don’t want to vote for a ‘winning’ candidate. I’ll vote for the candidate that supports solutions, not 4 more years of war/occupation in Iraq. If you want to vote for the winning candidate, maybe you should consider voting for Bush.

The current choice of Bush is Kerry are not my choices. It is like being offered two brands of cigarettes that are made by the same company. I don’t have to choose between two brands of cigarettes, and I can choose not to smoke (until the government forces me to).

Brian Willson, a peace activist, Vietnam war veteran, and originally a Kerry supporter has written some words about why he cannot support Kerry. It is very eloquent. Check it out.

http://www.brianwillson.com/awolobsession.html

Basically, he questions Kerry’s committment to peace and justice. But read his words.

peace, and justice
AG
Mad River, CA

Posted by AG on Sep 22, 2004 at 1:38 PM

This is what we get from a dysfunctional government… Halliburton.

We need INSTANT RUN-OFF voting and get rid of both the democrat and republican corporate shills. That’s the problem right now. We are under a stranglehold, and the middle class is losing.

As I keep saying to all my friends, I would vote for Nader in a heart beat, but the 2 party system is not set up for third party participation, and actually denies third, fourth, fifth voices to be heard. Tell your Green friends this is the wrong election to be casting a third party vote.  If you don’t know what IRV is, check this site out:  http://www.fairvote.org/irv/

Get educated and read more then the mainstream media!!!!!

And, after Kerry wins, begin to demand INSTANT-RUN-OFF voting from every politician!!!

Aren’t you tired of not being heard in your own government?  - Juan St. Mane

Posted by Dissenter on Sep 22, 2004 at 1:45 PM

I almost convinced myself in recent weeks that Kerry would be a plausible choice, but a couple of pertinent facts kept getting in the way. First, Kerry’s membership in Skull& Bones disturbs me( even if it was thirty odd years ago). Second, Edwards’ speech this past summer at the 2004 Bilderbergs conference in Italy, at roughly the same time as his selection as Kerry’s running mate really disturbs me. I don’t think that I’m privy to any exclusive information, I guess that’s why I can’t understand why there isn’t a lot more noise about this. Listen, Bush may well be the devil incarnate, and I wholeheartedly agree that he must lose this election, but just who will we be handing the reins to?  This whole situation scares the hell out of me. I refuse to have a part in the destruction of democracy and the death of personal liberty as we know it. That’s why Ralph Nader is getting my vote. How about you folks?

Posted by Dr.D on Sep 22, 2004 at 2:05 PM

Hey Dr. D.

Stop using fear as a motive to vote, get educated and read more then the skull and bones and bilderbergs, yeah, yeah, yeah, we all know about those secret societies, that’s not the problem we are having. The problem is the dysfunctional fools that run our government. Did you read what I wrote: “the 2 party system is not set up for third party participation, and actually denies third, fourth, fifth voices to be heard.”  Voting for a third candidate is not going to defeat bush.

Please, please, please I ask that you NOT vote for Nader at this time.

Kerry at least will think about what he actually says, versus that fool we have in the White House.

Change the 2 party system after this election so that you can vote your true conscience.

INSTANT-RUNOFF-VOTING!!!!!

Posted by Dissenter on Sep 22, 2004 at 3:11 PM

I have to vote for Nader because the Democratic party does not care about the American people anymore.

With over 50% of the population being anti-war, the Democrats couldn’t even promote one of their promising anti-war candidates: Kucinich or Dean. I have no problem voting Democrat; unfortunately, the Democrats don’t want the progressive vote.

Posted by Chris on Sep 22, 2004 at 3:24 PM

I’m a gal who was alive when Roosevelt was, so listen up, you idealists who are going to vote 3rd party and “teach the Democrats a lesson.”  I voted for Nader in 2000 but not this time.  We need to get the Bush Crime Family out NOW because if we don’t, there won’t be any elections in the future where we can get rid of the neo-cons.  If the neo-cons get in this time, there will be devastation on such a scale you’ll wish you were dead. And we are all going to die a lot sooner than we wanted to because of the economic devastation, environmental destruction, police state (for real, folks), people dying in the streets or from foreign wars (and, idealists, who do you think is going to be shipped overseas to fight them? YOU!!!)

This is an election to the death, folks!  Yeah, Kerry isn’t my first choice, but he will at least be a little better than Shrub and the Thugs.  Heed my warning.

Posted by Hildegaard on Sep 22, 2004 at 4:24 PM

Yo, Dissenter, I agree that we have a bunch of dysfunctional fools running the show in, not only Washington, but our state, county and local governments. How can this happen? Are voters fools too? maybe too many people don’t give a damn and leave it to somebody else to determine their condition, maybe the lowest common denominator theory is correct. I know Kerry is bad, I know Bush is worse. What I dont know is how to convince people to care about their own interests; If I could do that, I think we’d all vote for Nader. I may actually end up voting for Bush Lite if worse comes to worse, but I hope not. I may be scared, but I’m also an eternal optimist. Later.

Posted by Dr.D on Sep 22, 2004 at 4:27 PM

Dissenter, IRV,s sound like a good idea, But how do you get all of these folks to get up off their asses to vote in the first place? If George Bush had to rely only on his true base of support, he would probably garner no more than 10% of the vote at best. What does it take to get people to care for their own interests? A military quagmire coupled with domestic and foreign boondoggles don’t seem to be working. later.

Posted by Dr.D on Sep 22, 2004 at 4:57 PM

I’ve watched Sanders on C-span.  I remember one time in particular when Sanders was railing against all of the deregulation that the Republicans have been forcing through.  This guy has integrity.  If he says vote for Kerry, then i must.

Posted by Deanna on Sep 22, 2004 at 5:21 PM

All you ABBer’s besides the desperate pleading, and awful manipulation, why ought one vote for Kerry?

I am not hearing a case. No one has defended his progressive healthcare plan, no one has defended his progressive Iraq policy, and no one has defended his progressive labor policies.

Someone said to me recently if we can prevent 1 oil well in Alaska voting for Kerry will be worth it. Geez, now that’s just W.

The solution to W will not come from the Democratic party. I’ll tell you this the most thought provoking, passionate critiques of W have come from Republican not Democrats.

Posted by nate on Sep 22, 2004 at 5:41 PM

Dr D,

Alot of my co-workers are voting for Bush.  It’s so frustrating. They agree with most progressive and liberal issues, but bottom line for them is money. “Taxes” Working class people are struggling to feed their families. That is where their interests lay.

Don’t lose heart, John Kerry is an activist, a fighter and defender for the common good.

Posted by Cindy on Sep 22, 2004 at 6:17 PM

Hey Nate, & “All you ABBer’s “.....

You obviously have not paid attention to the campaign and heard the message from John Kerry.  Health Care won’t get fixed with the democrats, neither will it be fixed with the current bush direction, but at least it will be a 180degree turn from bush and his foolish arrogant policies.

I ask, what do you do for a living and have any bush policies affected you?

Nate, what is the last political book you read on foreign policy? Who is your most read political writer?  Please write more than general blanket statements.  Secondly, please offer a specific statement where “ the most thought provoking, passionate critiques of W have come from Republican not Democrats”????????

Please think b4 you write and speak, and read, read, read, read, read anything but the main stream media!!!!

INSTANT-RUNOFF-VOTING!!!!

Posted by Dissenter on Sep 22, 2004 at 7:13 PM

It’s like this. There are three teams playing in the playoffs. I am on one team, and Bush and Kerry are on the other two teams. I would rather Kerry’s team win than Bush’s team, but I’m going to play for my team and play to win, even though there is a good chance my team won’t come in first (or second), at least not this year.

But I don’t think of quitting the team just because it may not be the winning team. It is the team that I choose to play on. I don’t like how the other two teams play, and I wouldn’t be happy being on those other two teams.

The problem with the other two teams is that they cheat, lie, kick everybody else down (sometimes even players on their own team).

so it goes
AG

Top 10 reasons Bush went to war in Iraq - www.wordsareimportant.com/codeblack.htm

Posted by AG on Sep 22, 2004 at 8:58 PM

People who are committed to voting for Nader are going to vote for Nader. Don’t waste your breath on ‘em. If George W. Bush hasn’t changed their minds, they can’t be taught. Don’t think you can succeed where someone as brilliant as Bernie Sanders has failed to persuade. If voting for Nader makes them feel more self-righteous than those of us who sully our hands with real politik, then I certainly am not going to ruin it for them.

Instead, use that same energy to get Democrats who skipped 2000 to the polls. Just in my home county, more than 90,000 Democrats stayed home in 2000. A few might have voted for Bush, but most would have voted against him. I’m working with a group called Stand and Be Counted. Their goal is for each Democrat to get three more to the polls. That’s do-able. And that would give it to Kerry in a landslide. I’m canvassing in the adjacent swing state of Ohio. It’s two hours to Cincinnati, but we’ve got to make a difference.

Arguing with the 1-3 percent of the electorate that’s going to vote for Nader is a waste of time. He’s not even on the ballot in most states! (In my state, for example, they don’t allow write-in votes unless you’ve petitioned the state board of elections to count them 60 days in advance and collected a bunch of signatures. In other words, it’s just as easy to get someone on the ballot as to allow write-ins.) But getting out the vote, that will make a real difference.

Posted by Ivonne Rovira on Sep 23, 2004 at 2:29 AM

Disserter,

I am not clear what blankrt statements you are referring to.

I only suggested that an argument for FrankenKerry be based on facts and issues instead desperate leads and manipulation.

Sorry foreign policy is not as the top of my list. The last very good book I read was Joshua Franks, What Happened to Kansas.

So, yes there are plenty of Bush policies that affected my but no more than Clinton and any of the democrats.

Social change does not occur at the ballot box. Changing presidents or parties do not change the shift of the country. On issues that matter most- economy and foreign policy -  there is a consensus between the parties. A vote is a symbolic act, and at best I should make it mean something.

You are certainly right with IRV, it would quiet much of the drival.

Vote Peace, Vote Green, Vote Cobb

Posted by nate on Sep 23, 2004 at 2:57 AM

GET WITH REALITY, NAIVE NADERITES !!! 
In 1976, the Supreme Court equated speech with MONEY.  If you don’t think that has had a huge impact on American politics, you are out of touch. 

It requires MONEY to get a message out and where do you think Democrats or ANYONE else are going to get it?  Hardly from the corrupt mainstream media that has its (military-industrial complex) vested interest corporate agenda.  If you don’t think Ralph Nader hasn’t already sold out for and to MONEY just to secure ballot petitions, you are either ignorant or deluded.

Get off your sanctimonious soap boxes of utopian fantasy and GET WITH THE WAY THE WORLD REALLY IS !!!  A vote for Nader is logistically a de facto VOTE FOR BUSH/CHENEY.  Four more years of Bush/Cheney will be the ultimate devestation of industrial/economic/naturally balanced eco-systematic/civic ordered America.  As others have commented on this thread, there will effectively NOT BE another chance four years from now. 

A Kerry/Edwards victory will at least provide us an administration to advance a more progressive agenda through 527 pressure groups and other avenues.  A Bush/Cheney re-selection would be the nail in the coffin for any democratic lobbying.

Posted by horrified heartlander on Sep 23, 2004 at 9:42 AM

90% of the world population belives that GW Bush is the greatest threat to global security today (yes, I sort of made that up, but there are recent suverys that say much the same thing) ... and they are right. If W is re-elected, John Ashhole, DICK Cheany, Rummy, and the rest of the neo-fascist, er, neo-con freak show get 4 more years to remake the U.S. gov. & society in their warped image.

J.F. Kerry may, in fact, be a wimpy sellout to the DLC, but HE IS NOT G.W. BUSH. Repeat after me: John Kerry is NOT George Bush.

THAT, for me, and hopefully for at least a majority of U.S. voters, especially so called swing state votes, is enough to make me hold my nose and vote for John Kerry. Look, if I thought
Barney the Big Purple Dinosaur was the alternative to Bush, I’d vote for the purple guy.

Peace,

- Sequoia

Posted by sequoia on Sep 23, 2004 at 12:55 PM

Kerry is far from my first choice, but at this point he is clearly the best there is. If enough of us vote for him and other Democrats (or Independents?), we should see some postive changes in the way the U.S. is doing business.

Ralph Nader is on his every 4 year ego trip. He will affiliate with whatever party will help him get on a ballot. Think of what he (doesn’t) do in between presidential election cycles - WISE UP. He was wrong about the Chevy Corvair (I had two) in `Unsafe at Any Speed’ and he is still wrong. The only thing he believes in is Ralph.

Posted by Paul Nelson on Sep 23, 2004 at 1:15 PM

Yo, horrified heartlander, just how do you think corporate free speech rights got to be the law of the land in the first place? How could American citizens allow this to happen? Were the majority of Americans just asleep at the switch when all of these Supreme Court decisions leading up to this outrage were allowed to happen? Or, could it possibly be that we are seeing a culmination of many years of effort by large corporations, backed by some incredibly rich individuals to literally control the whole world? Ralph Nader is the only guy with enough courage to stand up and tell the truth. Unfortunately, the majority of people don’t seem to be listening. p.s to Cindy; Kerry may be a temporary solution, but he is certainly not the answer. later.

Posted by Dr.D on Sep 23, 2004 at 2:29 PM

WHAT IS AN INDEPENDANT, ANYWAY?
  HE/ SHE IS A POLE SITTER WHO IS AFRAID TO COMMITT TO AN IDEOLOGY OF THEIR OWN.  I WOULD SAY MOST ARE WAITING TO SEE WHICH WAY THE WIND BLOWS AND JUMP ON A BAND WAGON PULLED BY SOMEONE ELSE’S HORSE.
  I AM A VETERAN, VIETNAM ERA. I COULD HAVE BEEN SENT THERE BUT UNCLE SAM SENT ME TO MAINTAIN NUCLEAR MISILES ( THE ULTIMATE WMD’S)
  I LOVE OUR FLAG AND STILL GET A LUMP IN MY THROAT WHEN I HEAR OUR NATIONAL ANTHEM.
  I LOVE WHATS RIGHT EVEN WHEN ITS NOT THE EASY THING TO DO.  GOD BLESS AMERICA

Posted by JOE SWARTZ on Sep 23, 2004 at 3:10 PM

To loyal Americans in general, and JOE SWARTZ in particular; Our great republic was built on the foundation of independent individuals ideals and ideas, without which, we would still be vassals of a corrupt monarchy. Without independent thinkers, the slavery and subjugation of people of a minority or feminine persuasion would still be status quo. I could give more examples, but it’s redundant. MR. JOE SWARTZ and folks of a similar bent should realize that we independents get a lump in our throats (goosebumps too), when we hear that tune or see our flag. It’s just that we don’t allow ourselves to be led around by the nose by some old dumb, swaybacked nag;ie; republicans and democrats. We say neigh to horseshit.

Posted by Dr.D on Sep 23, 2004 at 3:54 PM

For those of you that are voting for Nader, check out this site,  upforvictory.com   Also check out workingforchange.com , a great little piece by Molly Ivins 9-23

Posted by Cindy on Sep 23, 2004 at 5:29 PM

TO THE TYPOGRAPHIC DR. D, WHO AMONG OTHER THINGS HAS LOST HIS IDENTITY IN THE FOG OF INDEPENDENCE, I WAS NOT REFERRING TO INDEPENDENT THINKING.  I WAS SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO INDEPENDENT VOTERS, THOSE OF THEM WHO DO VOTE.  SUCH AS MR. B. SANDERS WHO IS ABOUT AS MIDDLE OF THE ROAD AS KARL MARX.  CURRENT LIBERAL THINKING OR “BENT”, AS IT WERE, WILL INVITE ATTACKS THAT WILL MAKE 9-11 PALE IN COMPARISON.

Posted by JOE SWARTZ on Sep 23, 2004 at 5:50 PM

I disagree with your statment, “Current liberal thining will invite attacks that make 9-11 pale in comparison.”, Joe

Are you telling me the right-wing plan ISN’T inviting attacks in Iraq? No beheadings, no car bombings, no kidnappings, nothing like that?

No, the current ultra-right wing approach in Iraq will only lead to more terrorism. Iraq was never a threat to the US but was attacked as a diversion from the failure of that useless piece of shit in the White House to capture bin Laden.

And if a draft were ever reinstated to keep feeding the resource-stealing war machine of that waste of a human being Bush, then no way I’d go.

Posted by Neil on Sep 23, 2004 at 9:12 PM

I will be voting for Mr. Nader, all the same. RN is better than JFK2 on pretty much everything, and far better on Iraq and GW’s planned further neo-con wars.

The Senator has chosen a “Mr. Me-Too,” “I can do it better” response to the invasion of Iraq. That was his right. But it is worlds away from anything I could support.

If Mr. Nader withdrew I would write in Mr. Kucinich or stay home. I absolutely will not vote for a war candidate.

While Mr. Sanders and many others are violating their own principles and voting for their “lesser evil” I will vote my conscience.

I will not waste a trip to the polls to vote for someone I despise because the elites who run the Two Big Machines have decided for war on their own.

Posted by Marcus Tullius Cicero on Sep 24, 2004 at 2:19 AM

It is sad to see some Naderites still seeking some sort of utopian presidential selection process. This is not what America is all about. No one will be totally happy about any presidential nominee, but it is a matter of selecting the candidate who has the best chance of effecting the changes one would like. You must ask yourself “who would I like to least see in the office of President in the next 4 years?” - and then vote to make sure this does not happen. I dread to think of what this country will look like after 4 more years of Bush.

Paul Nelson

Posted by Paul Nelson on Sep 24, 2004 at 4:53 AM

Good debate:
Some of it is very confusing and i would like to join in. It states on this page that i will be identified as twain. I wonder where this will be seen, upon submit box being clicked.
twain.

Posted by twain on Sep 24, 2004 at 10:56 AM

I am shocked:
I have finally posted. I am flabbergasted by the reasons people choose to vote for George 11.
George 1 invaded Iraq. Months before Iraq invaded Kuwait, George 1 was informed, unless you believe that J. Baker withheld vital information from the President. George 1 went to rescue the royal familly of Kuwait. This must have scard the hell out of the Swiss because over 200 members of the Kuwaiti royals had been living in their country for over three months.
A coalition was formed. This was easy because the US is not the only country with oil interests in the middle east. George 1 was not given a second term. Two things would have secured a second term….The complete destruction of the Saadam regime or the promise, to the Israelis, of complete control of Jerusalem.
George 11 presents a scenario which visualizes stockpiles of weapons in a country which has been under 7 day, 24hour surveillance since 1991.
Can any American really vote for Bush ?

Posted by twain on Sep 24, 2004 at 11:16 AM

Paul Nelson,

What are you talking about? I don’t think politics   that leaves the center-right quadrant is utopian in nature.

Kerry’s healthcare plan is to the left of the Heritage Foundation. If your self esteem is so low that you’ll settle for Kerry that is your choice, but don’t critisize those who actually stand by their convictions.

All I’ve heard from the FrankenKerrys is Bush is so bad but they never mention why to vote for Kerry. I think we all know Bush is an idiot, but that does not make Kerry any less so.

Maybe if all you FrankenKerrys worried a little less on how to get Naderites and other 3rd parties to vote for Kerry and instead held Kerry’s balls to the fire, by November 2nd Kerry would be a cadidate one would hold their breath for.

Posted by nate on Sep 24, 2004 at 12:33 PM

I’m totally confused here. Why are we arguing amongst ourselves again?

First, for Kerry supporters, whether enthusiastic or reluctant. The 1 percent of the population that is committed to Ralph Nader’s independent candidacy (I believe that’s what the latest polls show) is *committed* to him. No amount of facts, fright tactics or anything else is going to sway them. Forgive me for repeating myself, but, if four years of George W. Bush’s misadministration doesn’t convince them, there’s nothing we Kerry supporters can do. It’s as much a waste of time as arguing with my cats. Actually, more so, as my cats do purr and do quite cute, if stupid, pet tricks. Why waste your time arguing? Use that time to call old college chums in swing states, on get-out-the-vote drives, on getting Democrats to the polls whenever and whereever you can, on sending cash to MoveOn.org—or whatever.

Now, Nader supporters, why are you wasting *your* time? Granted, Kerry is not the most scintillating candidate ever. But those who fear four more years of George the second are really frightened. No lullabies from you are going to make us dream of a Nader victory—or even a Big Statement. Why are you wasting *your* time? Why not do ... well, whatever productive thing you can do to make a better America. (Clue: bashing Kerry to people who are going to vote for him regardless, that’s a waste of time by definition.)

I can’t believe everyone else isn’t tired of the recriminations.

Posted by Ivonne Rovira on Sep 24, 2004 at 1:40 PM

NEIL,
  I AM SPEAKING OF ATTACKS IN THIS, OUR, COUNTRY.  NEIL, THERE IS A WAR GOING ON IN IRAQ(THIS WOULD BE THE SAME WAR SEN. KERRY VOTED FOR) (OOPS, BEFORE HE VOTED NOT TO FUND OUR TROOPS) NEIL, ATTACKS OCCUR IN WAR, THATS WHY WE CALL IT “WAR.”  THE TERRORISTS ARE TRYING TO UNDERMINE A LEGITAMATE ATTEMPT TO SOW THE SEEDS OF A FLEDGLING DEMOCRACY. BIN LADEN WILL FALL. THAT resource-stealing war machine WILL BE WHAT ALLOWS YOU TO CRAWL ON YOUR YELLOW BELLY TO CANADA WHEN, IF NECESSARY, THE DRAFT IS REINSTATED. THANK GOD AMERICA HAS MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE WILLING TO SERVE THEIR COUNTRY TO PROTECT THE waste of human beingS LIKE YOURSELF. SLEEP WELL.

Posted by JOE SWARTZ on Sep 24, 2004 at 3:32 PM

Joe:
If Iraq had invaded the US of A and the American public had fought back, would the Americans, who fought back, be terrorists ?
twain

Posted by twain on Sep 24, 2004 at 4:36 PM

Hey Joe:
Have you researched where most of the troops “joyfully” fighting in Iraq and Aphganistan are coming from…follow the recruiters to the towns and cities where the jobs have gone overseas and the youth have no “future” other than to enlist, believing the promises of adventure and education…one small catch..should they live that long. Barbara Bush spoke of the sacrifices our young people are making to protect our freedoms, that doesn’t include her children, nor 99% of the elected officials who voted us into this morass…how about the biggest proponent of privatization being the one most likely to benefit, that would be our non elected vice president….the national guard men and women do take their duty seriously…but is it right for thier duty to be extended indefinitely, or to recieve NON combat pay….this is a lying, deceitful, immoral administration who profess to value life and family while being responsible for the massacre of uncounted innocent hundreds of thousands…will you explain to me why our government supports the extermination of Palistinians in thier homeland by Isreal, who learned some holocaust lessons better than others. Could it be the profit to be made in arms sales, which has been VERY lucrative for many years…ever heard the saying you reap what you sow? We are playing furthur into their hands by becoming a nation divided, more easily wraught assunder. Just out of curiosity, do you listen to Rush Limbaugh, O’Riely, or Savage?
peace V

Posted by Judy T O on Sep 24, 2004 at 4:58 PM

Joe,
You fought in Vietnam? You say you fought for my freedom? Didn’t we LOSE that war?

Interesting…I’M STILL FREE! So, no thanks for anything done in Vietnam.

Iraq, an illegal invasion, is not being fought for my freedom—never has and never will be. Kerry voted for it because Bush LIED to the nation, to Congress, to the UN and to the world. Remember that? And I’d vote for Kerry anyday.

See how Republicans react to comments. They call names, like this Joe guy has called me. I never called him a single name or made slight of his character, just made points about this war. Sure, I’ve called that worthless piece of shit in the White House, Bush, a waste of humanity, rotten fomunda, rancid smegma and a lying fucking asshole. But didn’t call Joe names. Knee-jerk reactions are so typical of pro-war, pro-Bush people.

Did Joe care to ask me why I wouldn’t go? No, just assumed, as most Republicans do. Just yelled and breathed out of his mouth and made grunting sounds while typing with the Caps Lock key on as if screaming.

Do I bear him any ill-will? No. But he sure didn’t fight for my freedom in Vietnam and I’m getting really sick of this guilt-trip shit Republicans and pro-Bush vets try to lay on people. And those lying Swift Boat assholes? Don’t get me started…

Posted by Neil on Sep 24, 2004 at 5:08 PM

The Kerry Rally in Orlando was very well attended.  The T.D. Waterhouse was packed out.  Grant Hill(basketball player)gave the candidates a lovely introduction and jerseys.  Both John Kerry and John Edwards spoke well.  John Kerry outlined his plan to get the country on course.  Nothing flashy, empty, or over the top- just common sense. (Which it seems is not so common in the White House these days) 

We had a laugh as we saw Fox only just begin their reporting after both John Kerry and John Edwards left the stage and hit the floor to meet and greet.  The cameraman seemed to be filming the seats that folks were vacating since the rally had ended.  So manipulative of & deceitful to their viewers. 
 

There were 6 Bush supporters outside; a grandma and her friend and 4 underage (recruitment age, that is) kids who looked like they were having fun staying out late and getting some attention.

Kerry in a Landslide!

Posted by Suzanna on Sep 24, 2004 at 6:14 PM

Joe, The caps lock on your keyboard should be in the middle of the extreme left hand file. I’m telling you this because your ruminations ain’t that prophetic,dig.Facts are facts. We all got sucked into this war by a president with an axe to grind, or an agenda to implement. Either way, it really sucks for the average Joe or Jamal. In my view, the only real answer is NADER, but most folks think Kerry is a viable alternative. bush must lose——bush must lose——bush must lose. Get the point?

Posted by Dr.D on Sep 24, 2004 at 7:15 PM

The posts I have read make me want to vote for Ralph Nader more and more - I’ve been so disappointed in the re-writing of history, blaming Nader for Gore’s “loss” (he won, folks, remember??).. If I hear one more time how Nader can’t win (of course he can’t win in a rigged unfair undemocratic system!!). The dems nominate the wrong candidate (Kerry) and then expect true progressives to lose their minds and vote for someone who will not change the things that most need changing. I like Al Gore, but I voted for Nader. This time my choice is between Nader and Cobb. If Bush’s second term truly is as awful as is predicted, this will HELP us get back on track as a nation, since clearly the dems still haven’t gotten the message that they are nominating the wrong candidates, but maybe this will wake them up. With that said, I actually think Kerry will eke out a win in November. Lastly, I have been shocked by how intolerant Kerry/dem supporters have been during this election cycle, and how they continue the myth that Nader is the reason they lost in 2000 (which is so totally absurd and insane). So, thanks for making my choice for me: Ralph Nader will get my vote, because he is the candidate who would actually do all of the necessary actions that need to take place for real democracy to exist here in the (dis)United States.

Posted by Rich Griffin on Sep 25, 2004 at 4:45 AM

Rich,  Isn’t a vote for Nader what the Bush campaign is counting on?  If the vote was 49/51 in favor of the democrats and then you split the 51 between two candidates, you have 49/26/25.  Bush wins, again.  If the goal is to remove, by popular election, the incumbent president, shouldn’t the opposing vote be united in a single opposition be it Nader or Kerry?  At this point, Nader has a snow ball’s chance in hell of winning.

Posted by ML on Sep 25, 2004 at 9:12 AM

notice to Neil (who at least uses part of his name) and those of you deep thinkers who apparently have a problem signing with your given names:I will not be responding further as I have a life and a job and it takes too long to respond to misrepresentations of what I have said.  I truly appologize for leaving my caps lock on, I didn’t realize it was a conservative givaway.  Thin skin and small letters must be a liberal/ third party thing. GOD BLESS YOU ALL AND THANK GOD THAT US VETERANS AND THOSE CURRENTLY FIGHTING FOR OUR COUNTRY (NOT “JOYFULLY” BUT PROUDLY) HAVE KEPT AND KEEP THIS COUNTRY FREE; ALLOWING OPINIONS, SUCH AS THOSE EXPRESSED IN THIS SITE, TO BE AIRED WITHOUT RETRIBUTION OR REMOVAL OF YOUR HEADS. and remember, noone prays for peace more deeply the the American Soldier. PEACE AND SLEEP WELL.

Posted by JOE SWARTZ on Sep 25, 2004 at 12:49 PM

A vote for Kerry is a vote for corporatism, but with a few environmental regulation, so I’m going to have to hope he wins.

Still, I live in a safe state, so I’m voting for Nader, if I can get up the energy to vote at all. It’d probably be more useful to go throw a rock through a window at CNN.

Posted by ThisGuy on Sep 25, 2004 at 2:37 PM

Joe wrote: appologize for leaving my caps lock on, I didn’t realize it was a conservative givaway.

No, it’s just rude. I think your comments were what pegged you as a conservative.

There’s nothing wrong with being a conservative—it’s just the far right is gleefully destroying many of the things that once made this nation great. It’s why many Republicans have come out against Bush, only to lose their jobs or favored position.

Speaking of the troops, why is the National Guard fighting in Iraq? I thought, by the very name, these troops were responsible for protecting America. Yes, Joe, serving in the National Guard is protecting freedom. But not by fighting in Iraq.

Whatever deity you worship bless America.

Posted by Neil on Sep 25, 2004 at 2:54 PM

Well I see you all in a tizzy because you cannot understand why you lost the Congress& the White House. You flip out that Bush is Gasp- religious! You of the left who try to lie to people and call yourself"progressive” beacuse people started to wake up and realize that liberal is just another word for socialist. Just like Bernie in VT calls himself “independent”. He is not fooling anybody. He is a hardcore leftist socialist. We’ll see in these next elections where “independent” gets him.Take back Vermont and America. How about a slow boat to France or Cuba for all the libs in America. Like they used to say in the 60’s - America Love it or Leave it.

Posted by Chris on Sep 25, 2004 at 4:10 PM

Hey,JOE. I know that you’re not responding anymore, but I hope that you’re still following this discourse. First of all, I’m sorry for mocking your style, it’s just not conducive to an honest exchange of opinions. I can’t represent everyone in this forum obviously,but I have always had the utmost respect for all of our folks in uniform and I feel that it is my job to make my objections heard. In my opinion, we have a madman running the show right now, and we have to vote him out. Then we can really honor our troops by bringing them home. This unjustified fiasco will not end with bush in the White House. Keep listening in, you can still be turned away from the dark side.

Posted by Dr.D on Sep 25, 2004 at 4:44 PM

Hey Joe:
looks like Dr. D and I both heard what you were saying…I don’t recall ever hearing America say thank you to the youth of the sixties who gave their lives and souls (willingly or not) for the belief at the time that they were protecting the folks back home…so I say thank you to you and all of your brothers and sisters in uniform, then and now, for the ideals that you have. I can not even imagine what it was like. My heartfelt prayer now is that all nations see the folly of war and instead start to imagine…what the the world could be like…we say “may God provide for the wants of others…” I think he/she did a pretty good job…it’s people, and greed that have made a mess of things. We are no less a great nation than any other on this earth and I for one want to see us start to heal and work towards the potential for good that we all have…hatemongering is a dead end Chris, and we are fast heading that way…yes folks, do take back America and never send our youth to do the bidding of the people who dwell in the dark again.

Posted by Judy Therriault O'Connor on Sep 25, 2004 at 5:07 PM

I live in Bush country, so I’ll proudly cast my vote for David Cobb.  Go Green!

Posted by Cobb in 2004 on Sep 25, 2004 at 6:07 PM

after reading twilight of the idols, by Nietzsche, the paralles are amazing between his Germany and our America. The way the “majority” of people are somehow convinced into supporting the president even though he in no way represents them or has their best interest in sight.
We ARE becoming a imperial military state. The party of small government wants no government besides the military. Everyday I seem to loose faith in America. People seem to grow even more apathetic, our freedom is becoming our source of apathy. We seem to be too languid to get up and think past a thought or a statement beyond “you’re either with us or agaisnt us.”
it seems everyone is against us. but who is the us now?

Posted by dead fish on Sep 26, 2004 at 8:26 AM

Chris says, “We’ll see in these next elections where “independent” gets him. Take back Vermont and America. How about a slow boat to France or Cuba for all the libs in America. Like they used to say in the 60’s - America Love it or Leave it.”

Chris, that’s the beauty of America. People who disagree with the government don’t have to go into exile! It’s not like Chile under Pinochet (who we installed, by the way) or Burma under the military dictatorship or Cuba. Dissidents don’t get arrested or deported. That’s why it’s America.

Didn’t you notice during the ‘90s when the far Right did nothing but complain about every single thing that President Clinton did that none of them were forced into exile to Paraguay, Chile, Singapore or some other libertarian or fascist stronghold? That’s because it’s America. See? We have the First Amendment rights to free speech, assembly and petitioning the government.

Why is it unpatriotic to criticize Bush when it wasn’t unpatriotic to criticize Clinton during our foray into Yugoslavia? If liberals should be ousted for criticizing Bush’s America, why weren’t you calling for Tom DeLay’s exile for bashing Clinton during the siege of Kosovo? Maybe the best way to resolve it is to grant everyone First Amendment rights. After all, that is the American way.

Posted by Ivonne Rovira on Sep 26, 2004 at 5:13 PM

To dead fish, All I can say is Wow!. I was never a follower of German existentialism, but now I just gotta read this book. Thanks for your insight. I’m sure I’ll run into you on a future In These Times commentary. Later.

Posted by Dr.D on Sep 26, 2004 at 5:18 PM

Her*e’s a news flash. Nader for all his warts is not sabotaging the Democratic Party’s bid for the White House, John Kerry and his DLC handlers in the DLC are. Period. The lack of committment to aggressive voter registration in the Black community brought Kerry a rare rebuke from none other than Jessie Jackson Jr in W. Virginia recently. Democratic leaders in in another battleground state - Wisconsin - are complaining that the lack of enthusiasm for Kerry among potential African-American voters could cost the Dems that state - the margins are that close.

Add to this, Kerry’s continued inability to mobilize the hundreds of thousands of anti-war voters galvanized by both Dean and Kucinich primary campaigns, ( promising four more years of war and occupation and continued support for the PATRIOT ACT ain’t exactly a sentiment that resonates with these voters.)

Yet,instead of consolidating his base, Kerry continues to court the mythical ‘undecided’ center - a mistake, btw, the Bushies are not making. And that strategy will fail.

Indeed, you have to wonder if the DLC and their corporate donors would rather tank this election than see a Democrat stuck with an increasingly unpopular war, an economy in the toliet, and a House and Senate still in Republican hands.
Better to wait until the balance of power can be changed in the Congress, and concentrate on positioning Hillary as the great White hope in 2008.

Posted by Rick on Sep 26, 2004 at 11:29 PM

I’ve been thinking the same thing and said so in an e-mail response to Kerry…I asked for him to honestly state why he would even WANT to be president, and that from my perspective, it looked like he is throwing the game…your comments make sense so let’s all write in Scott Ritter instead…he’s military with a conscience and Patrick leahy as VP could show him the ropes of government…this is a combination that would be good for the people and the world but I know will never happen because it would not be good for business

Posted by judy oconnor on Sep 27, 2004 at 4:40 AM

I am so fed up with all the Kerry apologists, the poor excuses in support of voting for this pro-war candidate, and worse, the fear, promoted by those who think Kerry offers a viable alternative to Bush. Kerry and the Democrats, like Gore, like Clinton before, have failed miserably to articulate a platform that clearly distinguishes the Democratic Party from the Republican.  I don’t see any substantive differences, and if there are any, Kerry better hop to it and make them apparent!  A Bush victory might finally motivate the apathetic progressives in this country to do what is long overdue: overthrow the king.  In this case, the king is not just Bush or his band of sycophantic cronies, but the entire military-corporate dictatorship that is running this country and ruining the earth.  Kerry is part of that dictatorship, otherwise he wouldn’t be the Democratic candidate.  The donkeys are just as owned by corporate politics as are the elephants.
The two-headed monster of American politics is only interested in its own preservation and that of its power base: the wealthy and the corporations they control.  Real progress does not, and apparently cannot, originate from within the halls of Congress, or from Washington at all.

What the hell is wrong with Kerry?  He supports U. S. intervention in the Middle East, indeed for sending more troops to Iraq to bludgeon more civilians and to further antagonize all of us who cherish self-determination.  He has not made the environmental degradation of the Bush years a focus of his campaign - not surprising since the Democrats in Congress have done little but lie down like dogs in the face of Republican-led environmental devastation and the erosion of the great environmental legislation of the 1960’s and 1970’s.  Kerry has said nothing about restructuring the federal tax code to require that corporations pay for the poisons and worthless products they produce.  I say he doesn’t stand for establishing a new course in American politics, otherwise he and the Democrats would embrace more of the progressive politics espoused by the Greens and Nader. 

Sorry, I’m not voting for Tweedledee or T-dum!  No elephants, and no donkeys, allowed.

Posted by Peter Warner on Sep 27, 2004 at 12:32 PM

To Peter Warner, Bravo! You have succeeded in stating almost exactly what I have been trying to say through this whole discussion, though somewhat more eloquently. Now if only we could convince 10 people, and they each in turn could convince 10 people, and so on, and so on…...I could almost hear it. President Nader.  pinch me.

Posted by Dr.D on Sep 27, 2004 at 1:03 PM

Think about what type of (Narcissistic) personality can move forward and spend money merely to get his name on a ballot when he can raise money instead for the direct assistance and furtherance of the causes he claims to support.  I used to respect Nader way back when but he is a radically different person now.  He is not selfless and working for others but he is acting selfishly and working to merely see his name on a ballot - paying tens of thousands of dollars to lawyers to fight to have his name of the Florida ballot where he can only upset the election - again.  What can he be THINKING????? Seriously.  He is not thinking clearly about the nation.     

People please - don’t feels good about a vote for this guy, think about what he is doing?  Don’t help him get Bush elected again.  This is the single most important presidential election of the century and you know - absolutely in advance of casting your vote - that your vote cannot advance the Nader platform but will advance the polar opposite.  Nader is merely boosting his ego and working hard to go nowhere and accomplish nothing for us.

Posted by Donna Goldman on Sep 27, 2004 at 2:45 PM

Donna, Al Gore’s incompetence coupled with corruption in Florida and a conservative Supreme Court gave George W. Bush the White House. It wasn’t Ralph’s fault. The fact is, Ralph Nader is the only candidate standing up for common sense.He’s the only credible candidate talking about the real issues and offering real solutions, and he’s being shunned by the corporate controlled media and the two major political parties, why? Portraying him as a potential spoiler is an effective smoke screen, thereby marginalizing him so that they do not have to answer questions of any real substance. I just wish folks like yourself would understand, and see through their bull——.

Posted by Dr.D on Sep 27, 2004 at 3:51 PM

I can not understand why Ralph Nader was NOT a keynote speaker at the GOP convention. That is who financed him and got him on various ballots. Whatever good Mr. Nader has accomplished has been nullified by his inability to see the writing on the wall. Mr. Nader’stubbornness is matched only by our current president. Remember, a good portion of the electorate believes that Saddam was implicitly involved with 9/11. Mr. Sanders hits the nail on the head.
          Sincerely,
          Robert Murray

Posted by Bobby Murray on Sep 28, 2004 at 6:50 AM

Looks to me that the Kerry bunch is skillfully snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. If the democrats are deliberately throwing the election, they couldn’t have done much better than run
Kerry.  Face it, he looks like a real dud.  Much as I loathe Bush & the neocons, their portrayal of Kerry as wishy-washy appears on the money. Perhaps it’s his handlers, or perhaps it’s Kerry likely both—but in the strategy to be all things to all people, he is not much to anyone at all.  To those who desire greater participatory democracy, Kerry is merely a stopgap “answer” to the symptom of Bush. The fault lies mainly with the increasingly corporatized political processes which bodes badly for the future.  Nader may have a lot of flaws, but he’s right about that. Best of luck to all who cherish a decent, humane and free future.

Posted by gha on Sep 28, 2004 at 7:27 AM

I guess nobody remembers Iran-Contra or who lead the investigation. The Luddites, er I mean Naderites gleefully can bask in the glory of knowing the Corvair no longer exists. Still, the question is, why wasn’t Nader allowed to speak at the GOP convention? Michael Moore has apologized to Al Gore, admitting he made a mistake in backing
Nader.
            Respectfully,
            Bobby Murray

Posted by Bobby Murray on Sep 28, 2004 at 7:42 AM

You know, I am really not at all focused on this “spoiler” idea with Al Gore.  Al Gore did win but Republican cronyism as well as the unjustified interference by the Supreme Court in interfering with s state election recount were major factors in Gore’s loss.  I believe that Gore’s “stupidity”  was by his failure to involve one of the very most charismatic, intelligent and masterful speaker/politician in history, that being, Bill Clinton, was unforgiveable if only because he allowed his personal feelings interfere with what he claimed to be his caling.  His calling being to lead the country.  Whatever happened between him and Clinton should never have caused him to allow it to hurt his election - perhaps he failed to see that Clinton would have helped him tremendously in his election and in fact I believe I read that it was exactly that belief that caused Gore to shun Clinton’s association.  Frankly if Gore was that foolish and short sighted he likely would have been the same as a leader.  MY PROBELM now is that Bush must not be re-elected and you Nader people must admit that Nader cannot defeat or harm Bush’s re-election and therefore you all owe it to our country to help defeat Bush with a realistic candidate.  Failure to do so is akin to what I described above in Gore’s failure to associate with Clinton (it is undisputed by all major political parties that if Clinton could have run for a third term of Presdient he would have easily won), where Gore distanced himself on principle, not on strategy and the big picture was lost on him.

Are you people who are expecting to actually vote for Nader doing so on principle as opposed to who will then be the US leader and world representative?  If your thought process is realistic as to outcome then unless you are satisfied with the direction our country is going, you must cast your vote for the Democratic candidate because both a Nader vote for Nader or a Nader vote because you think “anyone but Bush” is no good.  Anyone but Bush only applies to a Kerry vote since Kerry is the ONLY one who can make win!  I read a post that said something like “we” deserve to have Bush again anyhow and then Hillary can step in.  Well you need to think that Bush will be a lame duck who can and will do anything for all his and his friends for the next four years with ZERO repercussions.  He has proven himself by his acts and misdeeds during the past 4 years.  Fahrenheit 9-11 was a call to the nation because what he filmed were facts but in an entertaining way and of course the film was meant to inflame us and not show Bush in a good light.  That was the point of the film, hyperbole is necessary to get and keep our attention but the facts are the facts.  How would you all interpret the things Bush has said and done over the years, or even during the film? 

I am not crazy about Kerry but I am inline with the Democratic party platform.  That platform and what it stands for is what you are voting for.  Freedoms that are being eroded will hopefully be restored, bans on stem cell research removed, no fears that a women’s (or their partner’s) right to choose will be taken away, and please don’t forget that Bush is stacking our courts will ultraconservatives that are appointed for their entire lifetime without fear of reprisal.  The republicans control EVERYTHING.  I am an attorney.  You all need to be worried, believe me.  Again, make your voices truly heard by voting Democratic. 

PS I am not active in politics other than I have an opinion.  You all need to read “Rematch; Bush vs. Gore, part 2” posted on The New Republic for the upcoming week.  There are also some great commentaries from leading and mainstram journalists about the Bush Whitehouse and his worker bees and how the journalists are literally fearful of Bush and the fear of reprisal against freedom of press.)     

Thanks for listening.
Donna G.

( I am not proofing for mistakes)

Posted by Donna Goldman on Sep 28, 2004 at 8:06 PM

After reading just about everyone’s views, it is obvious that they all make some sort of sense. For progressives you shouldn’t have to settle for a candidate like Kerry, which is all very nice, until you look at the fact that it really is too important to risk Bush for four more years. It is quite reasonable for someone to vote “consciously” and vote Nader, but the fact is that it will not matter when everyone will be suffering under the tyranny of W. Bush.
Kerry is not even close to a good representation of the democrats. It is not an issue of voting for a great candidate, there will never be another election where that is an option, it is who will be less destructive. The answer to that is not even a debate. Vote Kerry, your conscious will feel better when Bush is on a plane back to Texas and the rebuilding of our nation can begin.

Posted by Jared on Oct 2, 2004 at 11:34 AM

Jared, until I watched the debate I couldn’t have said it better.  But now, I feel so much better about Kerry, proud even, that one needn’t feel that it’s a vote against Bush.  I can say I want to vote for Kerry.  Defeating Bush is the ultimate necessity however.

Donna Goldman

Posted by Donna Goldman on Oct 3, 2004 at 7:40 PM

Or re-defeat him for his brilliant way of speaking:

<i>Free societies are hopeful societies. And free societies will be allies against these hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat.”
—President Twit, Washington, D.C., Sept. 17, 2004

Posted by Neil on Oct 4, 2004 at 6:47 PM