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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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!

“Tomorrow” never comes.  Vote your conscience!

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!!!

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

Kerry in a Landslide!

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.

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.

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?!?!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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 !!!!

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.

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.

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?

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]

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.!!!!!!!!!!

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

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%.

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.&nb