Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) got a letter the other day from the Illinois chair of the Dennis Kucinich for President campaign. In These Times got a copy of the letter, too—after all, it was an open letter intending to provoke controversy over Jackson’s decision to endorse Howard Dean. Lance Del Goebel, depicting Dean as Bush’s immoral collaborator, wrote, “Will you,… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (60)Page 1 of 1 pagesBoy, when you are wrong, you don’t hold anything back. “... the larger goal is to defeat Bush…”?!!
That’s the same thinking that got us into this neo-con wet dream ofr a ‘gubmint’ in the first place. Dean may well defeat Bush, but he will do nothing to push a progressive agenda once in office. And then we can look forward to next excruciating series of abuse of federal power when Jeb Bush gets elected president. We either draw a line in the sand or give up and go home. A vote for Dean is a vote for the next right wing moron we elect president.
Posted by Paul Rayhorn on Nov 12, 2003 at 8:27 PM Howard Dean is no progressive. We can work for what we think the conservative voters will accept, or for what we think is right. We can seek to be all things to all people or take a stand.
Will Dr. Dean now proclaim he wants to be the President of those with swastikas tattooed on their forearms because their children need health care too? After all, the swastika lovers share common beliefs with many of those who love the stars’n'bars.
Dean’s pragmatism (“reaching out”) appears to know limits which should have deterred Jackson. Jesse Jr. has seen which way the wind is blowing and made his decision not on the basis of ideals, but in consideration of potential deals.
And that is a shame.
Posted by Rik Reynolds on Nov 12, 2003 at 8:37 PM I agree with Jeff—Congressman Jackson is one of the savviest progressives out there, and if in his judgment Dr. Dean is worthy of an endorsement, that should cause Dr. Dean’s stock to rise among progressives, not Congressman Jackson’s stock to fall. And while I was an avid Nader supporter in 2000, the larger goal of the 2004 presidential election *is* to defeat Bush. The “lesser evil” really is better for us than the greater evil (though I think Dr. Dean is anything but evil. Maybe more of a centrist than we’d like, but after all, the country is more centrist than we’d like). Finally, on Dean reaching out to those with Confederate flags on their cars, I think we should celebrate that a Democratic presidential candidate is explicit about trying to pull in uneducated folks in the south to the left-of-center coalition, based on their economic interests (as anyone earning less than 40K a year should be voting Democratic or lefty third party, but not Republican as many poorer southern whites continue to do).
Posted by Dan Johnson-Weinberger on Nov 12, 2003 at 11:26 PM I think that it is just that persons approach on the issue and perhaps, a little too aggressive. But can I ask you Jeff Epton do you think that
your negative comments about
Del Goebel are any different than his of Rep. Jesse Jackson?
I think it’s a blow to all and we need to help each other pass through the anger that may arise around the inconsistencies of what people say they stand for and the actions they take which say other.
I don’t think there is a choice. people say they want “any body but Bush” mainly because he took us through an unjust war but is America ready to admit that “Any body but Bush"could entail War once again? Has America done her
homework to see that a Mr. Dean plan to expand the military is another plan to go to war?
Perhaps, America still hasn’t learned the lesson.
Posted by Kfairbanks on Nov 13, 2003 at 12:41 AM “When did punk rock become so safe?/when did the scene become a joke?” asks NOFX in the song “Separation of Church and Skate” [sic]. The same could be asked of Mr. Epton’s left—a left more concerned with the “larger goal” of defeating Bush, than supporting a true progressive candidate like Kucinich (who could, given enough support and resources, very well defeat Bush). If progressives ever hope to be taken seriously, they sure as hell better start supporting those candidates who best represent them—and cease with the lame excuses. Our candidate, Dennis Kucinich, has stepped forward; it is up to us to get him elected.
Posted by James Seckington on Nov 13, 2003 at 1:34 AM Sigh. Dennis Kucinich, I feel, would do more to help the majority of Americans, as well as the majority of the world’s population, than any other Democratic Candidate. Through the re-implementation of regulations + laws that would protect workers/environment from being exploited, as they are being done on an extreme scale now.
Over 3 billion people in the world live on less than $2/day.
Meanwhile the top 400 wealthiest Americans have over a TRILLION in assets!
Now, CEOs on average earn 411 times the average worker’s salary. 20 years ago, it was only 50 or so times.
Massive deregulation of Corporations has led global poverty to skyrocket, + environmental pollution to cause disasterous health problems to occur worldwide for the under-represented majority of the world’s population. Meanwhile, every year, our Government increases it’s Corporate welfare handouts, in an attempt to placate their ravenous appetites for stealing anything and everthing they can from the average American!
Our natural resources are declining at a frightening rate. Less than half of the rain forest still exists today.
Our televised media has become nothing more than a propaganda machine for the interests of the select few. There is very little investigative journalism anymore (However, thank the man upstairs that we still have some thought-provoking and progressive publications out there such as ITT!).
Mr Dean, Mr Lieberman, Mr Gephart and the majority of the other Democratic hopefuls, are nothing more than moderate Republicans. Don’t expect any change in policy under them. Is it a wonder why we as voters have become so apathetic when we see what choices we have to represent us?
However, Mr Kucinich is wonderful. As is Mr Jackson, and Ms Braun. Any one of those I feel would represent a true change in American politics, and policies, and would stop us from this ever-widening and deepening abyss between the have’s and the have-nots.
If we continue down this path of capitulation at every whim for multi-national conglomerates, the US will in a very short time become like a bunch of other 3rd world nations - a Banana Republic, if you will, bankrupt and broken.
We will continue to ‘liberate’ more and more countries in an attempt to liberate those people from their resources and to suppress contrarian opinions or governments.
This is a pathway of madness! I hope and pray for a true leader to represent the will of the people!
Is that too much to ask?
Posted by Mr Patriot on Nov 13, 2003 at 3:06 AM ” But the larger goal is to defeat Bush, build unity among progressives who must work together after the election, and create the capacity to put post-election pressure on the president, any president, to roll back the neocon agenda and enact elements of ours”. Attacking Howard Dean because he isnít Dennis Kucinich wonít get us one step closer to national health care, a progressive tax system, or peace and justice for the world.
I will address the issue of the first statement of this paragraph: “But the larger goal is to defeat Bush.”Is it the larger goal to defeat Bush? Or is our main objective as citizens of this nation to endorse and vote for a BETTER presidential candidate than what we currently have in the White House???
Are we just going to bury our heads in the sand and say to ourselves this such and such candidate is so great let’s forget about the mistakes or faults he created in the past and/or creating in the present for the sake of unity to our democratic party?
If we cannot address the issue and bring forth to the forefront the darkside of any of our democratic candidates who are running for the presidential primary, then when will we be able to do it?
It is not about attacking anyone, but an honest evaluation of the candidate who is campaigning for the Oval Office .
As citizens, we have the right and we owe it to ourselves to know the history of each of these candidates ...good or bad… and to make our own judgment as to who will be best suited to govern our nation in the next election.Case in point, this great website - In These Times - is a good example of educating the public in terms of the political arena. The website portrays an honest evaluation of what truly is going on in the Bush Administration.
By creating and printing these different articles do you consider the authors attacking the President?
Or are your reporters educating the public in terms of history/reality and the truth about this administration?Sincerely
Chris
Posted by Chris on Nov 13, 2003 at 5:06 AM Dennis Kucinich is the only true progressive running for president. Howard Dean is George Bush Lite. The media declared him the Democratic candidate and the world stepped in line. Jesse Jackson Jr. should have given his support to the liberal candidate, not the lite candidate. I have a question for ITT - where was the “open” letter first published? How did you obtain a copy of it?
Posted by Joni Handley on Nov 13, 2003 at 5:51 AM Remove the mote in thine own eyes before attempting to dig the boulders out of others’. Your remarks are no more fair or sensible than delGoebel’s, in my opinion.
I’m not one bit impressed that Jesse Jackson has endorsed Dean. There are bound to be a lot of endorsements tossed around at all of the candidates.
I don’t back, or vote for, a candidate because of who endorses him but for what he stands for and for his track record.
Endorse away all you want. It is going to be the ordinary folks out here who will ultimately decide for themselves, which Democratic candidate that they want to support.
Posted by K.A. Kincade on Nov 13, 2003 at 11:25 AM Good points, everyone.
You’re helping me to decide more and more for Kucinich.What’s REALLY needed, in my opinion, is public recognition of this candidate and his intentions for him to stand a chance to survive past Iowa. Most people I talk to, when mentioning Kucinich’s name, have never heard of him.
Love the “neo-con wet dream of a ‘gubmint’” remark, Paul.
Posted by neil on Nov 13, 2003 at 2:22 PM If you believe Dean is the better candidate, then you should work dilegently to elect him. Support him with all your heart and passion and get him elected. For me, I will work for Dennis, I will spread his message, my message, to help him get the media recognition and to fill in the gaps where I can. I will call, write, and talk his issues 24/7.
—Which Way for the Democratic Party?
http://www.kucinich.us/whichway.htmIs Kucinich Electable? Can He Beat Bush?
http://www.kucinich.us/electable.htmA BOOST FROM FORMER DEAN SUPPORTERS
http://kucinich.us/doctorisout.php
Posted by Jean Robertson on Nov 13, 2003 at 4:45 PM WHat a sell out piece of junk this magazine has become.
Shame on you.
When the going gets tough- give up! Great message you wimps.
I’m supporting Dennis. And the rest of us true progressives will as well.
Now I just have to find another news outlet that shares (most of) our views.
Posted by Mart on Nov 13, 2003 at 6:26 PM Why are you saying this?! This is the PRIMARY election! What is going on here?!
Universal health care, a peaceful world, real gun control, etc. etc. do you need to be told more?!
My family and I decided, after seeing this mess, to only vote for the candidate that shares OUR VIEWS and who WE BELIEVE IN.
We will never vote for a man like Dean.
I’m certainly happy to see these postings though. Obviously we are a mass that is committed to the right candidate and will do whatever it takes to elect him.
Respectfully,
Thom
Posted by Thom Szars on Nov 13, 2003 at 6:53 PM dear lance del goebel-
thank you for having the guts and gumption to work for rep kucinich.
jesse jackson is nothing but a shakedown artist like his dad. do not worry about losing his support.
your candidate is the only true liberal on that stand. you know it, we know it, and the world will know it when he is elected.
please let us know what we should do to insure that he is the democratic nominee.
thom- couldn’t agree more- i will never vote for dean. if it’s him i’m going green.
and you’re absolutely right about the fact that it’s a primary- a primary- election!
Posted by elect dennis! on Nov 13, 2003 at 8:03 PM dean used to be the darling of this magazine, what happened? Dennis Kucinich is not getting elected president. But even further, he has no chance at the nominee spot either. So progressives SHOULD vote for him now. Because Dean (or whoever else is the candidate) will notice it. But Kucinich’s ideas are not popular, and I believe that a lot his ideas won’t come into play until 2008, when Hillary Clinton will be the favorite for president and she is extremely liberal.
Posted by brad on Nov 13, 2003 at 8:26 PM dean used to be the darling of this magazine, what happened? Dennis Kucinich is not getting elected president. But even further, he has no chance at the nominee spot either. So progressives SHOULD vote for him now. Because Dean (or whoever else is the candidate) will notice it. But Kucinich’s ideas are not popular, and I believe that a lot his ideas won’t come into play until 2008, when Hillary Clinton will be the favorite for president and she is extremely liberal.
Posted by brad on Nov 13, 2003 at 8:26 PM did i just read what i think i read? great, we’re fighting, and apparently endorsing…...dean?
if anybody needs me i’ll be in the kitchen bumping my head against the door saying “idiots (thump) idiots (thump) idiots (thump)....”
Posted by Garet Midsone on Nov 13, 2003 at 9:04 PM Dennis Kucinich is a genuine progressive. He voted against the Iraq war and against the Patriot Act. He has a plan for universal health care. His candidacy is an opportunity to frame the issues from a progressive perspective, and to do so from inside the Democratic Party. But the larger goal is to defeat Bush, build unity among progressives who must work together after the election, and create the capacity to put post-election pressure on the president, any president, to roll back the neocon agenda and enact elements of ours. Attacking Howard Dean because he isnít Dennis Kucinich wonít get us one step closer to national health care, a progressive tax system, or peace and justice for the world.
Please read the above paragraph again. Tell me where it endorses Dean?
As a staff member of In These Times let me first say that I intend to vote for Kucinich as do many other staff members. The point is progressives need a long-term strategy that looks beyond this election cycle.
If Kuncinich wasn’t running would you support any other Dem running? Nader?But at this point in the Democratic primary campaign, progressives need to be doing the things that could make a long-term differenceóbuilding networks via the Internet, registering voters, maintaining voter databases, fostering coalitions, focusing on defeating Bush, electing progressives, and skipping the pointless, non-strategic and too-often personal debates that divide us.
I voted and worked for Nader in 2000 and I don’t think that has advanced the progressive agenda much since then. Why? Because their was no strategic plan? What is the next step? What have those 2.7 million been doing since? ?Individually working against Bush instead of a unified effort and much more powerful effort that is necessary.
But the larger goal is to defeat Bush, build unity among progressives who must work together after the election, and create the capacity to put post-election pressure on the president, any president, to roll back the neocon agenda and enact elements of ours.We know Dean is not a progressive, Dean will tell you that himself. If a Dem besides Kuncinich wins the primary and then the presidency what is your strategy to hold them accountable. The left needs some long-term thinking every 30 years or so and we trying to provide it.
Aaron
Posted by Aaron on Nov 13, 2003 at 10:00 PM Jeff and Aaron-
A whole gaggle of us want to put Dennis up- a guy that we all know is the only progressive in this race. I know you do too- put your editorial sounds defeatist, has no specifics, and reads like an endorsement of Dean over Kucinich.
I’m sorry but it was just the absolutely last thing this eager progressive wanted to read.It’s very grand that you’re trying to put forth a “30 year strategy” but do you think that maybe, just maybe, that’s a bit much? How about a 1 year strategy?
And I’m sorry if I sound like a jerk but Aaron, you need to check your writing for grammatical errors (especially the last paragraph). It doesn’t matter if I mess up, but I’m not an editor at In These Times either.
So to end on a good note- Even though a lot of us (it seems so anyway) think you dropped the ball here you do very good work and In These Times is a great magazine!
Posted by Garet Midsone on Nov 14, 2003 at 12:26 AM “If Kucinich wasn’t running would you support any other dem running”? - NO!
What would the late, great Wellstone say about this? He would admonish us to fight for our beliefs. What a leader he was! He wouldn’t hold his nose and pull the “Dean” lever (a vote for no universal health care, a…you know the rest I’m sure).
Progressives go with progressives! As Nader has shown there is not much difference between conservative dems/centrist dems- and idiots like Bushie baby.
I’ll vote Democrat if it is Mr. Kucinich. I’ll vote and work for the Green Party if it’s _centrist, screw public financing,walk away from gay marriage,states rights on all controversial issues_Dean. I will always stay a Progressive and will always be able to sleep soundly at night knowing that I always had the stuff to vote my mind. Unlike Jackson. What a staggering disappointment from him!
“We know that Dean is not a Progressive”- DUH!
Posted by Mart on Nov 14, 2003 at 3:13 AM Jean- Excellent Links! Everybody should check these out (just scroll up a bit)! You’re doing what In These Times should have done. Thanks for the post, thanks for the info, thanks for the support and keep it up!
Posted by Mart on Nov 14, 2003 at 3:26 AM Jesse Jackson Jr. for Congress Committee
P.O. Box 49286
Chicago IL 60649———if anybody wants to send jess a piece of their mind on his betrayal on his give in to special interests on his complete rollover and vote for the guy that will help him out on his rejection of the values that he so previously stood for on his turn his back on the only man to espouse what we want.
del goebel wrote a great letter and called little jess out to the mat but now you admonish him and not jess how can you not support him?
looks like this website is caving into the corporate special interests of every other media. trying to get the moveon.org people to come support you by bashing the kucinich campaign people?
Posted by trey g----- on Nov 14, 2003 at 6:49 PM Dear ITT readers—a clarification; Lance wrote that letter on his own, and did not speak for Rep. Kucinich or the campaign with it. Obviously we would all have preferred that Cong. Jackson, Jr., endorse Dennis rather than Gov. Dean. However, it is also obvious that Dennis does not play “personal attack” politics, and would not have approved a letter attacking Cong. Jackson, Jr., had he seen it first. He admires both Jacksons, Sr. & Jr., often cosponsors bills with Rep. Jackson, and will work closely together with him when he is President.
Peace, Steve Cobble
Kucinich Campaign
Posted by Steve Cobble on Nov 15, 2003 at 5:37 PM PART 1 of 2
If I were publisher of IN THESE TIMES and I were going to attack a letter from a reader…..I would post the letter at issue FOR ALL TO SEE…in the name of FAIRNESS.
Mr. Epton apparently doesn’t share my view on this matter, and feels safer attacking my letter without others having the chance to read it.
What Mr. Epton did to the letter I sent to Jesse Jackson Jr. was SPIN.
In my opinion no real liberal practices SPIN. To me, spin is what Republicans and DLC Democrats do to keep the truth from the people.
If Jesse Jackson Jr. had just endorsed Ann Richards for president then I’d have mentioned her role in the Sierra Blanca affair. However, Jesse Jackson Jr. had just endorsed Howard Dean….and Governor Dean did work with Governor Bush to dump toxic waste on the hispanic community of Sierra Blanca…and Paul Wellstone did call this Richards-Dean-Bush collaboration “environmental racism”.
What Jeff Epton tries to spin….. out of my not mentioning Ann Richards, who is not the president, and who was not just endorsed by Jesse Jackson Jr. ....... seems like spin created to keep people from getting at the truth.
Another spin trick seemingly practiced by Jeff Epton was to gloss over my points about Dean being more Republican than Democrat as governor of Vermont. Now if Mr. Epton would have posted what I actually wrote, then people who possibly didn’t know could have become aware that Governor Dean cut Medicare and Medicaid benefits in Vermont, and tried to cut benefits for the blind and disabled as well, against the efforts of the Democratic members of Vermont’s legislature.
What Mr. Epton did by not allowing my letter to be seen against his rebuttal, was to intentionally soften Dean’s horrible record, and keep the truth far from the people, which is always the goal of spin.
If Mr. Epton would like to publicly debate me about Mr. Dean’s moderate republican record, then please let me know, because I’m right here, I’m ready, and I don’t spin.
So Mr. Epton thinks all debate should be over and all us good little liberals should just become Deanites….....a year before the election…....months before the first primary vote has been cast ?
Posted by Lance Del Goebel on Nov 16, 2003 at 2:10 AM Part 2 of 2
Sounds like Mr. Epton doesn’t want people to think, or discuss, or debate…seems like Mr. Epton just wants us to do what he says….plain and simple.
That’s not healthy.
That’s not American.
I think it’s people like Mr. Epton, whether intentionally, or by willful ignorance, who have built the foundation that has allowed the corporations to take over the Republican Party and most of the Democratic Party.
“Eyes off the prize” ? Maybe the Democrats in Congress who have proven Ralph Nader correct…... had their “eyes off the prize” when they collaborated with Bush on the illegal Iraq war, tax cuts for billionaires, the Patriot Act, and ignoring all of the corporate crimes that are landing around us like so many cluster bombs.
We have to hold Democrats accountable BEFORE we take on the Republicans…simply replacing Bush with another Clinton-Republican will only keep the corporate game going. Bush vs. Dean is a corporate win and a working person’s loss no matter what the outcome.
Until we stop playing the corporate shell game of choosing between THEIR candidates….until we insist the Democrats run an actual Democrat and not a fraud like Howard Dean…then the game goes on and the people lose.
Unlike Steve Cobble (see post above) and Jeff Epton, I am not afraid to stand for the truth and it is my opinion that until Democrats stop spinning, like Mr. Cobble and Mr. Epton, and start standing up for the truth, and for the people the Democratic Party used to represent, then the game will go on, the corporations will continue to win, and the people will continue to lose, falling farther and farther behind as we go from a nation “of, by and for the people” to a nation of, by and for the corporations.
Spinning like Mr. Epton and Mr. Cobble, and selling-out like Jesse Jackson Jr. will only prolong the problem that we must tackle, if we are ever to reclaim our country.
How dare Mr. Epton tell the people that they should stop debate, and do what he wants. Who the hell made Mr. Epton emperor ? They haven’t taken away our right to think freely Mr. Epton….not yet
Lance Del Goebel
815-462-1961
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Posted by Lance Del Goebel on Nov 16, 2003 at 2:11 AM Ten Questions For Howard Dean
1. Why did you support sending Vermont’s nuclear waste to the poor, mostly Hispanic town of Sierra Blanca, Texas, 16 miles from the Mexican border—a plan described as “blatant environmental racism” by Paul Wellstone?2. Why did the Dean administration increase funding for Vermont’s state colleges by only 7% while you increased funding for prisons by 150%?
3. Why did IBM, the leading polluter in Vermont, receive your Environmental Achievement Award nine times?
4. What did you mean when you said, “I’ve had 40 or 45 private meetings with IBM since I’ve been governor. And IBM has gotten pretty much everything they’ve asked for”?
5. When you talked about moving the retirement age to 68 or 70 which was it? (Check Source)
6. Why did you wait for the courts and legislature to bring about the civil union bill before you supported it? Why did you sign the bill in private when you finally did sign it?
7. Why do you oppose the Israeli Labour Party candidate for prime minister Amram Mitzna’s call for unconditional peace talks with the Palestinians?
8. While you acknowledge that you “haven’t condemned Congress for passing the Patriot Act,” Bernie Sanders from your own state of Vermont is leading efforts in Congress to overturn the Act. Why are you not supporting Bernie Sanders’ efforts and condemning Congress for its attack on civil liberties?
9. How do you respond to Annette Smith of Vermonters of a Clean Environment who says: “Dean’s attempt to run for president as an environmentalist is nothing but a fraud. He’s destroyed the Agency of Natural Resources, he’s refused to meet with environmentalists while constantly meeting with developers, and he’s made the permitting process one, big dysfunctional joke. EP under Governor Dean meant Expedite Permits, not Environmental Protection”?
10. Since you pride yourself on your “fiscal responsibility” why do you refuse to even consider any decreases in the bloated Pentagon budget?
Posted by Lance Del Goebel on Nov 16, 2003 at 4:14 AM Goebel- I’m not really sure what your role is in this whole thing -or this cobble guy’s is- but you just amped it up. you smoked them out with facts. That was great and after reading your comments the girlfriend and I are psyched and ready to do what we can.
Voter registration, putting up posters, give some $ (sorry but not as much as you would hope for), whatever. Just give me a link so we can sign up and do something.—————————— ;———————————&# #8212;——————-Editors, writers, copywriters, people writing articles here…....goodbye. so long. disappointed. next!!!!!!!!
Sincerely- A person that cares about making the world better and isn’t easily intimidated or susceptible to having his mind changed.
Posted by The Edge on Nov 16, 2003 at 7:30 AM hey goebel and other kucinich supporters,
Do you think Dean is doing this because he wants to be president? I mean, you know Kucinich has little shot at the nomination and no shot at the presidency. So maybe Dean is trying to move away from being looked at as the uber-liberal. Being considered extreme means that chances of being elected are over. Personally I think that the Dean won’t end up as president either, because these inconsistencies will be attacked by progressives, moderate dems, and conservatives every step of the way. Bush would love to see Dean win the nomination. If he is alienating those on the far left and those on the moderate left (because he tries to be the candidate of the left wing of the left wing) Bush will walk.
So I’ll say what I’ve been sayign. Liberals best hope is Hillary in 08.
Posted by brad on Nov 16, 2003 at 10:55 AM This is how Jeff Upton and ITT messed up in this editorial: He should have endorsed Kucinich AND told people that they need to do more, i.e. building long-term networks, etc. So, while we work on the Kucinich campaign we should be pushing ourselves to be thinking more long-term and beyond just the Kucinich candidacy.
Goebel’s letter does talk about strategic debate - supporting Dean at this stage, whether you’re Jesse Jackson, Jr., SEIU, or whoever, is really bad strategy for progressives, because it sends the wrong message to people - that Dean is somehow better than Gephart, Kerry, etc. I would only support Dean if he is nominated and if my state is a swing state in the days leading up to the general election.
Posted by Tim Lohrentz on Nov 16, 2003 at 2:00 PM Dear Mr. Epton,
I cannot believe that yopu would recommend that real progressives should back Mr. Dean. I believe the term that is used to describe Dean is “Bush-lite.”
I agree with Mr. Del Goebel that Jesse Jackson, Jr. dropped the ball in not endorsing Kucinich. I also believe that by encouraging support for Dean so early in the campaign, you too are encouraging your readers to “drop the ball.”
The real democracy that should practiced in the United States is one of openess and debate for the common good.
Where is a copy of this letter. You know, or you should, that if you really want to establish an intelligent rebuttal, your obligated to provide the original document of your concern. Let your readers have access to its contents so that they may follow your reasoning. To do otherwise makes you no better than the media that quotes out of context or reports out of ignorance.
Mr. Epton, I truly feel you have the correct assumption that our “illigitimate” President Bush has to go, but let me remind you of something:
It was believed that when a person sneezed, their soul left their body. It was imperative for someone to say, “God bless you!” to return that soul back into that person. The United States has sneezed and its soul has been removed from its body. Instead of encouraging support for a “Bush-lite” like Dean, why not continue to encourage debate among the candidates so that Americans, not just progressives, have an opportunity to say, “God bless you!” to the candidate they feel with the “Spirit” to bring America back to its true calling: namely, peace, prosperity, justice and world leader, not world conqueror!
It seems you have decided to support Dean, good for you. But without honest debate of the issues most important to Americans, and the scrutiny of the candidates history of political decisions, you ecourage the censoring out of the truth, and that is bad.
In my opinion, when the United States sneezes, I say, “God Bless you, Dennis!!”Ruben Kanhai-Zamora
Aurora, IL
Dennis Kucinich supporter
Posted by Ruben Kanhai-Zamora on Nov 17, 2003 at 4:57 PM the fact that this is the editorial position of this magazine that is a position that is approved by everybody there and you have no freaking clue as to why it is a total and absolute cop out has me stunned beyond words.
and of course it makes absolute sense for jesse to hitch himself to dean as dean will win and jesse wants all the goodies he can get for himself. the apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree in this family. but it screws the progressive cause and its an action that moves everything to the right at the worst possible time. this entire thing sucks.
Posted by trey g..... on Nov 17, 2003 at 8:24 PM 1 of 2
As the writer of the editorial in question, let me clarify a few things. Neither I, nor In These Times, have endorsed Howard Dean. We have written about both Dean and Kucinich, but Dean is no “favorite” of ours. And a Kucinich op-ed piece recently on the East Coast/Midwest power blackout recently appeared in the magazine.
What the editorial did say was that activists should register voters, organize and other good things, and avoid attack politics at all times. It is not a question simply of whom we support. If progressives and left activists had the necessary strength, Bill Clinton would never have proposed “don’t ask, don’t tell,” he might have stayed focused on national health care plan, and probably would have passed less injurious welfare reform. Yes, Clinton was the archetypal DLC guy, but if the left were capable of electing progressives locally, and building on those successes to elect more Kuciniches to Congress, the left would be able to wage effective campaigns for universal health care, repeal write-to-work laws and pass the Kyoto treaty.
Vowing not to vote Democratic if Kucinich is not the winner, as some posters here have done, makes no sense. With the exception, perhaps, of Lieberman, itís hard to imagine one of the Democratic candidates who would have lead us into war against both Afghanistan and Iraq without the support of the United Nations, signed the Patriot Act into law, signed legislation banning partial birth abortion, and given us tax cuts for the rich. These are among the real differences between Bush and the candidates in the Democratic primary. Pretending that these are distinctions without a difference isnít a reasonable basis for activism.
During the upcoming year, In These Times editors, writers and freelancers will be reporting on grassroots initiatives that help to advance an already growing progressive movement. It is my belief that Dennis Kucinich is one of the few members of Congress who is rooted in that movement and, contrary to the wild assertions about what I said or implied, I urge every progressive who is moved to do so to volunteer for Kucinich.
Posted by Jeff Epton on Nov 17, 2003 at 9:08 PM 2 of 2
And a couple more points by way of conclusion:
Thanks to Steve Cobble for his note clarifying the position of the Kucinich campaign. I never thought for a moment that Lance Del Goebbel’s letter was an authorized campaign statement.
To people who think it is OK to post statements like ìJesse Jackson is nothing but a shakedown artist like his dad:î Itís not. It is a perception of both Jacksons that is framed and encouraged by a white, supremacist culture. We all ought to repudiate such thinking.
And to Lance Del Goebbel: I didnít attack a letter from a ìreader,î as you claim (is that your spin?) The letter in question was one that you addressed to Rep. Jackson and copied to media. In addition, though I didnít quote the letter in full, I quoted substantially from it, and made no reference to parts that I didnít quote. But you are free to post it in its entirety here, if you wish.
As for ìspin,î I plead innocent. I made no attempt to rebut the contents of your letter in any sort of detail, I simply argued that the tone wasnít and isn’t going to be helpful. Am I wrong? Perhaps, but if you were not inviting comment on your letter, why did you send a copy to us?
You close with a rhetorical flourish, to wit, ìHow dare Mr. Epton tell the people that they should stop debate, and do what he wants. Who the hell made Mr. Epton emperor? They haven’t taken away our right to think freely Mr. Epton….not yetî Do you really feel so threatened by my critical observation about the tone which one debates?
Posted by Jeff Epton on Nov 17, 2003 at 9:08 PM The endorsement of Dean, like those of Gephardt, Kerry, and even Lieberman is considered to be a ‘pragmatic’ strategy. Nobody is endorsing Kucinich because we all seem to have this ‘conviction ’ (to misuse that word) that he can’t win. How do we know this? By sheer instinct- just as we knew that Gorbachev could not succeed in USSR or Mandela could be released and become president of South Africa. Instinct is totally against the possibility that such a thing could ever happen. I think that people are closing the book on Kucinich a little too fast in their anxieties about the 2004 election. If you believe in what K. is proposing you should do everything in your power to support him. Trust in a Greater Power as it were.
Posted by Roger Lafontaine on Nov 18, 2003 at 1:36 AM Wait a minute here. This Lance guy isn’t even part of the Kucinich campaign? He’s just some schmo that wrote a letter?
A-What’s the big deal?
B-Why are you even talking about him?Everybody else- GET A CLUE! There was NO ENDORSEMENT OF DEAN!!! AHHHHH!!!!!! HOW DID THAT EVEN COME UP???????
“The larger goal is to defeat Bush”? That is “a” goal, it is not the “larger one”.
You know guys, we don’t stick together here and get our act together we’re going to be living under this administration another four years. Whomever wins the party better get ALL our support. Those of you voting Green are turkeys.
Posted by Delt on Nov 18, 2003 at 9:10 PM Epton, If I think Jesse Jackson is a shakedown artist, I’m a white supremecist?
He goes to companies, threatens boycotts unless they donate some money to rainbow/PUSH. And if they donate, no progress is made for the black community. So he is corrupt. Never mind that several incongruities were found on his tax forms, including a 5000 (business expense) to a woman who he paid off to not reveal that they had sex.
Nevermine how he once called NY, “Hymietown”.
I know it was off-topic but i needed to respond.
Posted by brad on Nov 19, 2003 at 5:56 PM Brad, no I donít think you are a white supremacist because you insist that Jesse Jackson Sr. is a shakedown artist. But I do think that your perception of Jesse Jackson is influenced by the fact that we all live in a white supremacist culture. Your assertions about Jackson Sr. may be correct, and they may be widely shared, but they are certainly not supported by any facts known to me.
As far as I know, Jackson and Operation Push approach corporations whose business practices raise questions about how they treat African Americans as consumers, business partners, job applicants and employees, Publicity and the threat of consumer boycotts are among the most potent weapons available for a campaign to get such businesses to change policies, pay damages, and invest in minority communities. Far from being a shakedown, this way of framing a grievance and reaching a settlement in a dispute resembles the process in civil suits, which such companies frequently prosecute or defend against themselves.
I also dispute your claim that the community receives no benefits from the activities of Jackson Sr. and Operation Push. I havenít researched that proposition, but if we continue this discussion, perhaps I will do so. In the meantime, Iíd like to suggest that the millions of dollars in investment, job creation and other benefits that Jackson Sr. has obtained for the black community are only a fraction of what it will take to address and correct centuries of discrimination, disinvestment and exploitation.
As for Jackson Sr.ís tax problems, I know little about them, but suspect that they are neither uncommon nor, by themselves, much evidence of moral failure. And into the mix, consider that there are corporations who regularly pay miniscule amounts or nothing at all in tax on hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. In doing so, they engage in practices that are frequently questionable, if not downright fraudulent, yet they retain public and investor confidence.
In the end, any assessment of Jesse Jackson that dwells on his mistakes, real or imagined, will only prove that, despite his accomplishments, he is about as human as the rest of us.
Posted by Jeff Epton on Nov 19, 2003 at 7:11 PM Mr. Epton-
I do hope that you research Mr. Jackson and write an article on him. After hearing the constant attacks on him on FOX news I decided to actually buy that “Shakedown” book.Needless to say, if 1/4 of what is written in that book is factual Mr. Jackson has an enormous amount of explaining to do. Since he refuses to discuss the facts of that book in any context except to say that it was “written by a right wing hit man” then I have no choice but to believe the allegations are true. Of course I will not post them here but I just wanted to respond to what you said.
Also, Mr. Jackson is a preacher and arguably the most influential leader in his movement (I won’t refer to it as “Civil Rights” b/c admitedly I don’t agree with many of his positions)- he is, by definition, supposed to be a moral and religious leader.
He is, obviously, human- but the standard by which he should be judged is greater than that of the average citizen. For a preacher to have a love child out of wedlock and pay hush money to cover it up (not to mention 50 other things) speaks volumes to his character.
I have no doubt that these posts will be forgotten soon and none of your writers will respond to the allegations that have been made against him (chronicled in that book, on FOX news, and other media outlets). But if you were too address those issues I would be greatly impressed by it.
Posted by Ty on Nov 19, 2003 at 9:18 PM Sorry, just one more!
Jesse Jackson Jr. proposed a constitutional amendment creating the “right” to health care (a laughably stupid idea for sure). Kucinich supports universal health care and Dean does not. You obviously know of scores of other issues that clearly should have lead to a Kucinich endorsement from Jackson.
As we know, this did not happen in this primary season. I would like to know why, before the Democratic nominee is even selected, Jackson would make this choice.
Was it a change of ideology, a lack of faith in Kucinich, or selfish political reasons? Perhaps Mr. Jackson could explain this to your readership. Within that explaination he should probably address what signal that sends to Mr. Dean on his designs to move right after the primary is over. If he knows the Progressive element will cave already….from your standpoint you’ve just bought a lemon.
In all honesty, I’m pretty impressed that you’re following through on your article and standing up to your aforementioned readership- they don’t seem too cheerful with you right now.
Posted by Ty on Nov 19, 2003 at 9:35 PM Part 1 of 2
Dear Mr. Epton,
You’re spinning your spin. You should contact FOX about a talk show.
You didn’t “attack” my letter to Jesse Jackson Jr. ?
You must not think very highly of your own readers. Do you think they have reading comprehension disorders ? I think many of them have got your number you don’t seem to care for that.
Why are you afraid of the truth Mr. Epton ? People armed with the truth are our best chance at reclaiming our country…but you used your publication to call for an end to debate and thinking….... and for your readers to blindly get in line and do as told, just like all of the right wing pundits and publications. Shame on you Mr. Epton.
You have shamelessly attempted to push people to blindly support Howard Dean, insisting people ignore Dean’s horrible record so that liberals can unite behind another fake Democrat in the intellectually dishonest propaganda game called “Anybody But Bush”.......months before a single primary vote has been cast, a year before the general election.
You can spin forever Mr. Epton but that will not change the facts
1. Howard Dean supports the death penalty, and has even made insane comments comparing government sponsored executions of innocent people on death row to random murders in the general public, seemingly oblivious to 200 years of U.S. law and a little document called the United States Constitution.
2. Howard Dean supports NAFTA.
3. Governor Dean cut Medicare benefits in Vermont
4. Governor Dean cut Medicaid benefits in Vermont
5. Governor Dean fought against Democrats and tried to cut benefits for the blind in Vermont
6. Governor Dean fought against Democrats and tried to cut benefits for the disabled in Vermont
7. After 9-11 Dean dangerously advocated reducing our civil liberties, just like George Bush
8. The Brady Campaign ( the Brady Bill folks ) put out a press release as well as emails to their members asking them to work AGAINST the campaign of Howard Dean, calling Dean’s gun policies “outdated” and “insane”
9. Vermont progressives united against Howard Dean in Dean’s last election - the Progressive Party candidate garnered 10% of the vote against Dean. Vermont progressives know Dean and rejected him to the point that 10% of the state’s vote went to a liberal 3rd party candidate going directly against Dean
Posted by Lance Del Goebel on Nov 20, 2003 at 4:38 AM Part 2 of 2
10. Howard Dean called funding public defenders a waste of money because “most of those people are guilty anyway”
What nerve you have Mr. Epton, pushing people to ignore reality and blindly support a “liberal” with a record to the far right of Dwight Eisenhower.
Liberals need to unite behind candidates that stand up for a progressive platform of economic justice and democratic principles and values…........... and stop selling-out our
beliefs by electing politicians who stand against the liberal policies that made our nation great.I think people like you Mr. Epton are not very sincere in your liberalism. I never sell out my beliefs, but you seem so anxious to sell out liberalism that you’ve declared debate over and that it’s time for liberals to shut up and support yet another pretender….... a year before the election.
Shame on you Mr. Epton
Lance Del Goebel
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
815-462-1961
Posted by Lance Del Goebel on Nov 20, 2003 at 4:40 AM Mr. Epton, I must confess being disappointed by the thrust of your response, even after reading the posts on the article. I’m glad I did read them because I genuinely would have thought you were suggesting your readers should support Dr. Dean.
I know Lance, he’s a good man. He’s also angry these days, and how many of us aren’t angry these days? He’s a private citizen with an opinion he wanted expressed both to Congressman Jackson and to at least your magazine. Would I have sent the same sort of letter? No, probably not, but then Lance has a lot more moxie than I do!
Should he have held his tongue, and if so, to what end? He has a duty to question those in positions of power at this point in the election cycle, as do we all. Certainly he’s entitled to call a member of Congress on what he sees as a bad decision. I’ve written some not very warm letters to members of Congress because that’s one of the ways we influence what happens in Washington, a fact I thnk too many people have forgotten.
I initially believed that this ABB Pledge was a sound call. I’ve reconsidered that notion since I volunteered to help Congressman Kucinich. ABB is not good enough for this voter. I know what I want in our next President, and oddly enough, it’s the same thing everyone I know claims they want in our next President.
Too bad they don’t believe in that man striongly enough to support and vote for him. I’ll carry on trying to change their minds and convince them to vote what they really want. I guess the big question is will you support those of us, such as Lance and myself, who are working furiously to see this happen?
I suspect you mean to, however, I’d like to ask you to ponder your decision to call Lance to the carpet for his questioning of a person in power. Is it really so bad a thing to ask Congressman Jackson why he would choose one of the least progressive candidates in the race when there is another more closely suited to his politics? Myself, I think it’s absolutely necessary under the current circumstances. If we don’t defeat the electability illusion, we’ll never get out of the mess we’re in.
Sincerely,
DS
Posted by diamondsoul on Nov 20, 2003 at 7:26 AM DS- Here’s your answer- The Editors at In these Times have a personal relationship with Jesse Jackson Jr. They’re both both from the same place- what do you think inspired the content of their last editorial that everybody is fussing against? They’re even supporting Jesse’s support for Dr. Dean!
Everybody caves to corporate special interests eventually. Stay as strong as you can for now. The Progressive Movement will contine on but obviously not here. Let’s not lose hope and continue to fight for is right, what is equatable, and what is not sexist.
Posted by Sar on Nov 20, 2003 at 8:13 AM Maybe I was unclear, Jesse Jackson has done a lot for the black community. That said, I still disagree with his methods. I don’t think Jackson was a ‘bad guy’. I just don’t feel he is all that people make him out to be. His methods are very questionable. He does shakedown companies. But the companies he does it to ususally have less than 13% black employment.
Jackson should publically defend himself to these alllegations made against him.
Posted by brad on Nov 20, 2003 at 5:21 PM Why are you afraid of the truth Mr. Epton ?
Sounds like a standard OíReilly line to me, did you ever think of giving Fox a call?
I think people like you Mr. Epton are not very sincere in your liberalism. I never sell out my beliefs, but you seem so anxious to sell out liberalism that you’ve declared debate over and that it’s time for liberals to shut up and support yet another pretender….... a year before the election.
Seem likes youíre very sincere in your self-righteousness.
Dean isn’t a progressive, that is shocking! What’s next your going to tell me Lieberman is the anti-christ.
Keep you head down and keep on charging!
Shame on you Mr. Del Goebel
P.S. I’m still not supporting Dean, no matter what you say.P.P.S I know I’m a fake liberal, sell-out, DLC-centrist, who is destroying this country so you can skip that in your reply.
P.P.P.S You make me want to impale myself with my Kucinich button, but we have enough martyrs on this board, so I won’t.
Posted by Aaron on Nov 20, 2003 at 7:40 PM Seems to me that Jeff Epton contributes at least as much to “sowing division” as Mr. Del Goebel. The oddest thing about the ITT editorial is its implicit assumption that Dean is already the Democratic nominee, months before Iowa and New Hampshire. I don’t think Howard Dean or anybody else should be attacked for not being Dennis Kucinich, clearly the most progressive candidate. But a progressive publication should be busy critiquing the candidates based on their progressive stands—or lack thereof—not attacking a volunteer campaigner for not being on the bandwagon.
Posted by Francis X. Tobin on Nov 20, 2003 at 7:52 PM “Dean isn’t a progressive, that is shocking! What’s next your going to tell me Lieberman is the anti-christ.”
Hey Aaron,
REALLY ?What’s shocking to me is calling a candidate like Dean “progressive”........shocking and or dishonest in fact.
1. Howard Dean supports the death penalty, and has even made insane comments comparing government sponsored executions of innocent people on death row to random murders in the general public, seemingly oblivious to 200 years of U.S. law and a little document called the United States Constitution.
2. Howard Dean supports NAFTA.
3. Governor Dean cut Medicare benefits in Vermont
4. Governor Dean cut Medicaid benefits in Vermont
5. Governor Dean fought against Democrats and tried to cut benefits for the blind in Vermont
6. Governor Dean fought against Democrats and tried to cut benefits for the disabled in Vermont
7. After 9-11 Dean dangerously advocated reducing our civil liberties, just like George Bush
8. The Brady Campaign ( the Brady Bill folks ) put out a press release as well as emails to their members asking them to work AGAINST the campaign of Howard Dean, calling Dean’s gun policies “outdated” and “insane”
9. Vermont progressives united against Howard Dean in Dean’s last election - the Progressive Party candidate garnered 10% of the vote against Dean. Vermont progressives know Dean and rejected him to the point that 10% of the state’s vote went to a liberal 3rd party candidate going directly against Dean
10. Howard Dean called funding public defenders a waste of money because “most of those people are guilty anyway”
Lance Del Goebel
815-462-1961
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Posted by Lance Del Goebel on Nov 20, 2003 at 10:40 PM Interesting. A lot of posts here, as well as the article itself call for some sort of unity. I was thinking about that whole ABB pledge thing again today, mulling over past elections and how I decided my vote, and considering Congressman Kucinich and Dr. Dean as candidates.
It occurs to me that the entire purpose of the Primary season is to allow the voters to ferret out the highest caliber candidate to run against the incumbent. Now, based on my experience, the majority of the people see Kucinich as the highest caliber candidate. I can’t help but wonder why there is any question then who to vote for or run against Bush.
You want unity, you’ll find it after the primary season is over. For the moment, we have 9 strong candiates to select ONE from, and there isn’t going to be any unity in that process. There will be “attacks” on one candidate because he isn’t enough like another, there will be suggestions of dihonesty among them, and dirt will be dug out and bandied. I limit my “attack” mode to issues, as much as humanly possible, however I get angry and sometimes fall short of that goal.
For instance, my bottom line against Howard Dean is simple- I do not trust the man. Call it instinct, gut reaction, whatever you like, but I don’t trust him at all. For me that’s a major issue in this election. We’ve seen what happens when we can’t trust our President and I’m determined not to see a repeat of the same thing. For that reason I will not support Howard Dean, period. He isn’t good enough, imo, and that’s that.
My point is not to go on about myself but to point out this is what every single voter in this country needs to be doing. Set your terms and choose your (wo)man, then don’t back down for anything. When the dust settles we’ll know we chose the best because we all did what we believed was the right thing. If we base it all on media, popularity and money, then we haven’t progressed an iota from the hopeless quagmire that earned us the Bush regime.
We HAVE to question now because after the fact is too late. Lance was right to point out the larger cracks in Dean’s facade, he was right to question a Congressional members decision to back a self-admitted “centrist” candidate, and he was right to call such a thing to the attention of media. If we don’t ask the questions, who will?
Sincerely, DS
Posted by diamondsoul on Nov 20, 2003 at 11:35 PM Part 1 of 2
I want to thank IN THESE TIMES for allowing me to defend against their attack upon my open letter to Jesse Jackson Jr.
Considering IN THESE TIMES chose to rebut my letter without letting people see it…I’ll accept the right to post on the internet as an attempt by IN THESE TIMES to tolerate some level of fairness.
At this time I’m going to suggest that our country is out-of-balance because of people like Jesse Jackson Jr., and because of publications like IN THESE TIMES.
To borrow from Al Franken…take a look at American politics today like a seesaw. For there to be balance the seesaw must be weighted properly, the right and left must have comparable weight to create a balance….so that one side can’t simply steamroll the other.
What we have in America today is far from balanced. On the right side of our teeter-totter we have the weight of Corporate America, the corporate media, the anti-American Confederacy and the corporate sponsored Republican Party.
In the middle of the American seesaw, doing nothing to create a balance, are the Clinton Democrats, Deanites and publications like IN THESE TIMES. These are people and publications that, from their claims, should be or should have been on the left side of the American teeter-totter, creating a balance, but for a plethora of reasons ( corporate bribes, greed, lack of conviction, lack of integrity, lack of vision, lack of courage, etc. ) they have decided to sit in the middle of the American seesaw.
On the left side of the American teeter-totter we have the corporate media marginalized Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich.
Under these bizarre circumstances and similar all American debate since 1980 has taken place between the middle of our teeter-totter ( Clinton-Dean-IN THESE TIMES, etc. ) and the right end of the American seesaw ( Corporate America, Limbaugh, American media, etc. ). The left side of the American teeter-totter is ignored, left hanging up in the air by the oppressive weight of the right and all those sitting in the middle refusing to set the balance.
When supposed liberal publications like IN THESE TIMES come out for Howard Dean a year before the general election, and call for an end to all debate about Howard Dean, his republican-like positions and previous republican-like record…… in the name of progressive unity (?)……. then there is no voice on the left.
Posted by Lance Del Goebel on Nov 21, 2003 at 3:51 AM Part 2 of 2
Instead of Bill Clinton, Howard Dean and IN THESE TIMES, America would be better served with representation from the left that actually represents liberal values and principles, especially in times like these. America needs another Roosevelt New Deal, not 8 more years of the Clinton Republican policies that abandon everything that made the Democratic Party the party of working people and the poor ( well, and now the hundreds of millions of working poor thanks to Clinton’s NAFTA ).
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to at least reply via the internet. I suppose from the middle of the teeter-totter that’s about as far left as IN THESE TIMES can reach.
Lance Del Goebel
815-462-1961
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Posted by Lance Del Goebel on Nov 21, 2003 at 3:52 AM Lance- Honestly man, focus on getting a girl and a life. Holing up in an apartment and obsessively checking a website is utterly pathetic.
Posted by Ty on Nov 21, 2003 at 5:59 AM A very good piece, Jeff. I am pleased that some people here have a pragmatic view of the world. The question all of you progressives have to ask yourselves is when Dean or another democrat is the nominee, will you vote for him (or her)? Whilst I would like Kucinich to run, I can’t see it happening. Being in Australia, I don’t care who wins, as long its not Bush.
Movements take more than 1 year, it takes possibly a generation to build up momentum and change the political landscape, as evidenced now by the right-wing tide in America today. I fervently hope that come election day you’ll turn up and vote for a democrat, whoever it is and defeat Bush, then work on Dean or whoever to turn him more left.
Ahh, if only it was compulsory to vote, as in Australia, and force you all to get to the polls. Then you wouldn’t have the pandering to the base and politically active in the country, and actually have candidates that speak to everyone because the all count. But that’s another topic.
Posted by Yaramah on Nov 21, 2003 at 6:52 AM Hi Yaramah, nice to hear from Down Under. :) If Bush gets another term, I believe I may head your way! I love the attitudes of the people in Australia, everything in stride and heavy emphasis on enjoying life as it comes.
To answer your question, IF, not when, another Democratic candidate gets the nomination what I do will depend on who the nominee is. I’ve see-sawed about that, and I expect to take some flak here for it.
I know who I want to be the next President, as I’ve said many times already. The question is do I vote for him no matter what, or do I cast a vote based purely on the desire to oust Bush. Right now I just don’t know.
DS
Posted by diamondsoul on Nov 21, 2003 at 8:59 PM I can not criticisize the Kucinich campaign from being disappointed that congressman Jackson has come out in support of Dean, who has done nothing but doubletalk his positions. His record speaks for itself. He is no friend of the working poor and his less than steller record of union support in his state, as well as his environmental record, should be enough. He is moderate in his approach to health care reform and refuses to endore a single payer system. He is a status quo democrat and does not hold a candle to the integrity and honesty of Kucinich; nor does he have a real vision. Kucinich has no significant contributions, if any from corporate america. If it wasn’t for corporate contributions Dean would be scrambling. All of his supporters that i talk to agree with Kucinich but are afraid to support him, using the tired old argument that we just need to get rid of Bush, and Kucinich can’t win. That is a negative approach and that is why we are where we are today. Voting with fear, and lack of courage and conscience, is why corporate America has, in the last 40 years, taken control, while the democrats went to sleep.
Posted by Ed Krasner on Nov 23, 2003 at 10:37 PM the premise to your story is flawed. none of the jacksons has ever formed a true coalition. read your history. they are narrow and venal folk…opportunist’s at best. bye bye to dean and bye bye to those step-and-fetch-its.
Posted by jeffery mcnary on Nov 28, 2003 at 11:25 PM Yaramah,
Here’s a way to help the cause without being a US resident:
Democracy Aid ‘04
One year from now, on November 2nd 2004, the next American Presidential election will be held. For the first time ever, because of the Internet, it is possible for non-American private citizens to participate in the campaign process.We claim that this unique opportunity should not be wasted. Isn’t it embedded in the very meaning of the word democracy that the individuals who are affected by a decision should also have the right to influence it? What the world needs is an American President who favours multilateral solutions, and who actively supports the UN’s Millennium goals. George W. Bush is not that man. This has become very clear during the last three years.
...
Posted by Andrei Smarandoiu on Dec 6, 2003 at 8:01 PM brad from ny, what is this nonsense about Hillary Clinton being “extremely liberal” ? Perhaps you should consult the following essay by John Nichols. The information you need appears in the last sentence:
http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=43
And if people want to compare the various candidates’ stands on issues, these sites might be helpful:
http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm
http://www.peace-action.org/2004/index.html
Posted by Andrei Smarandoiu on Dec 6, 2003 at 8:17 PM Should the media control the process?
Sign this petition today:
Posted by CLS on Dec 11, 2003 at 8:46 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Jeff Epton
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
