portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

economic justice | imperialism & war

Bu$h would lose to Democrat, poll shows

The Feb. 26-March 3 nationwide survey of U.S. voters by Hamden, Connecticut-based Quinnipiac University found that by a 48 percent to 44 percent margin, voters would pick the as yet unknown candidate out of nine Democrats running over the Republican incumbent. The survey of 1,232 voters had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent.
Poll Shows Bush Would Lose to Democrat in Election
Thu March 6, 2003 01:08 PM ET
 http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2338571

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush would lose narrowly to a Democratic Party candidate if the U.S. presidential election were held now because of concerns about possible war and the economy, according to an opinion poll published on Thursday.

The Feb. 26-March 3 nationwide survey of U.S. voters by Hamden, Connecticut-based Quinnipiac University found that by a 48 percent to 44 percent margin, voters would pick the as yet unknown candidate out of nine Democrats running over the Republican incumbent. The survey of 1,232 voters had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent.

"This month, we find that an unnamed Democrat would edge out President Bush," said Quinnipiac University Polling Institute director Maurice Carroll. "The political winds are hard to read this early, but we do know that war and a bad economy are not good for anyone, especially sitting presidents."

Bush is expected to run for reelection in Nov. 2004. Nine Democrats have announced their intention to seek their party's nomination.

Bush narrowly lost the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore in 2000 but became president by winning the decisive electoral college vote based on returns from the 50 states.

Carroll said the survey revealed that U.S. voters, even with no mention of weapons of mass destruction, support U.S. war against Iraq to force President Saddam Hussein from power by 57 percent to 35 percent.

By almost the same margin, 56 percent to 38 percent, voters said Washington should wait for United Nations support instead of going to war alone in the Gulf.

Bush's approval rating was at 53 percent to 39 percent, the poll found, but only 9 percent were "very satisfied" with the way things were going in the United States. Thirty-five percent said they were "somewhat satisfied," 28 percent "somewhat dissatisfied," and 26 percent "very dissatisfied."

The pollsters said that when asked what was the most important problem facing the United States, 31 percent said it was war with Iraq followed by 27 percent who believed it was the economy or unemployment and 14 percent terrorism or security.

homepage: homepage: http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2338571

Really??? 06.Mar.2003 18:50

gbv

Really?
Really???
Really???

whoop-dee-doo 06.Mar.2003 21:56

everything brown

Democrat: Republican :: Dachau: Auschwitz

elections are all ya got 06.Mar.2003 22:31

barfbag

I can't believe some of the anti-voting, anti-election sentiments on PDX indymedia, and the larger activist movement. Republican=Democrat=a bunch of shit. It's just not true.

To rip off JL, "you say you want a revolution, yeah...are you talking out your ass?"

Bush, or the government at large, isn't going to be toppled by some large scale movement. The support just aint there. But he is vulnerable, rightly so, and the activist community ought to get off of their collective asses and their voting-is-a-crock high horse and try knocking him off through conventional means. That's the only hope you really have.

Circle the wagons, damnit. Pick a realistic alternative and get to work. Oregon will be a critical state, make no mistake...check out your electoral maps. Bush won the bulk of his electors in states he won easily(save florida -- don't want to hear about it), while Al Gore picked up a bunch of squeakers. Oregon was one of those squeakers. Pick it up, or get ready for another four years of bitching.

re: barfbag 06.Mar.2003 22:46

Raven

you have got to be kidding

Just look what Clinton did in office! Look at the horror the U.S. inflicted on Yugoslavia. Look at NAFTA and on and on

Republican=Democrat

the differences do not matter - the end result is the same - you are living in a deep denial

he might lose if the vote wasn't fixed 06.Mar.2003 23:00

Raven

and even if you want to assume that there is some significant difference between republicans and democrats (which there isn't - just look at the stab in the back the Dems gave to Cynthia McKinney who was one of the only voices of value in Congress - btw, I personally will never vote for a democrat again after what they did to her - ever! the democratic party disgusts me)

So besides that - Bush lost the 2000 election - He is only in office because he and his brother jeb consipired to illegally defraud 90,000+ voters in Florida (who knows what happened in other states that has not been uncovered). Katherine Harris conspired with them, and was rewarded by being given an elected office while those voters were still not on the rolls for the 2002 vote (and the democrats did bugger all about it the bought and paid for spineless scum that they are)

The voting machines are controled by republicans and of all the nations in the world that use electronic voting, the U.S. is the only one which does not have open source code so that the public can examine if the machines are rigged or not. . .gee, why is that?

Have you seen the list of irregularities in the 2002 election results? the voting was rigged!!!

wake up! wake up! wake up!

barfbag, what the fuck are you smoking? 06.Mar.2003 23:11

dd

"That's the only hope you really have."

Ha...ha...hahahahahahahahaha

Do you remember how your beloved Dems got in line against "terrorism" after that whole WTC thing? They were climbing all over each other to be the first to sign off on the USA PATRIOT act. Your Dems are just as shitty and responsible for the death of this country as Bush and his cronies.

Wake the fuck up! I've had enough of "representative" deMOCKracy and want the real shit. When I look at Gore or any of these Dem fucks who want to be prex I don't see them representing me or anyone I know.

If you look at human history, you will find that probably 95% of all the murders throughout history have been committed by politicians in government or the church using either the military or police of one kind or another to butcher a lot of innocents.

Heirarchy is what has led humanity to this sorry state of near environmental collapse and permanent war, the bosses have had their chance for long enough and have fucked up for the last time. It is up to us...ALL OF US...the normal, average people to recognize our power and stop letting it slip between our fingers. How the fuck could we do any worse?

lucky 06.Mar.2003 23:31

to have indy

and to the comment about all this "anti-voting" on PDX indymedia... we're lucky to have an outlet for viewpoints that aren't taken from the bible or high school history classes. Defend yourself with your one vote if you wish, in a political system that is designed not to change. Donate to charity organizations, recycle your newspapers and don't forget to turn out the lights before you go to bed... fuck liberals, they're even worse than conservatives!

not 'democracy'--PLUTOCRACY 06.Mar.2003 23:43

ed crane

plu*toc*ra*cy Pronunciation Key (pl-tkr-s)
n. pl. plu*toc*ra*cies
Government by the wealthy.
A wealthy class that controls a government.
A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------
[Greek ploutokrati : ploutos, wealth; see pleu- in Indo-European Roots + -krati, -cracy.]
-----------------------------------------------------------
pluto*crat (plt-krt) n.
pluto*cratic or pluto*crati*cal adj.
pluto*crati*cal*ly adv.

Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
-----------------------------------------------------------

plutocracy

\Plu*toc"ra*cy\, n. [Gr. ?; ? wealth + ? to be strong, to rule, fr.? strength: cf. F. plutocratie.] A form of government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the wealthy classes; government by the rich; also, a controlling or influential class of rich men.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996
-----------------------------------------------------------

plutocracy

n : a political system governed by the wealthy people
Source: WordNet 1.6, 1997 Princeton University
-----------------------------------------------------------


Plutocracy
 http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Plutocracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A Plutocracy is a government system where wealth is the principal basis of power (from the Greek ploutos meaning wealth).

The influence of wealth on governance can be expressed either via the wealthy classes directly governing, or (more typically) by the wealthy classes using money to control the government. This control can be exerted positively (by financial "contributions" or in some cases, bribes) or negatively by refusing to financially support the government (refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, etc).

There have not been many examples of a "true" plutocracy in history as such, although they typically emerge as one of the first governing systems within a territory after a period of anarchy. Plutocracy is closely related to Aristocracy  http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy as a form of government, as generally wealth and nobility have been closely associated throughout history.

In the present era, there are numerous cases of wealthy individuals exerting financial pressure on governments to pass favourable legislation. Most western partisan democracies permit the raising of funds by the partisan organisations, and it is well-known that political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporate institutions). Ostensibly this should have no effect on the legislative decisions of elected representatives, however it would be a bit idealistic to believe that no politicians are influenced by these "contributions". The more cynical might describe these donations as "bribes", although legally they are not.

See also:

Pareto principle (on unequal distribution of wealth)
 http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
corporatocracy
 http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy
corporate police state
 http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_police_state

-----------------------------------------------------------


"Plutocracy" Defined
 http://progressiveliving.org/plutocracy_defined.htm

The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

Plutocracy may also have social and cultural aspects. Thus, in Democracy for the Few  http://progressiveliving.org/who_rules_samples.htm political scientist Michael Parenti is led to comment "American capitalism represents more than just an economic system; it is an entire cultural and social order, a plutocracy, a system of rule that is mostly by and for the rich. Most universities and colleges, publishing houses, mass circulation magazines, newspapers, television and radio stations, professional sports teams, foundations, churches, private museums, charity organizations, and hospitals are organized as corporations, ruled by boards of trustees (or directors or regents) composed overwhelmingly of affluent businesspeople. These boards exercise final judgment over all institutional matters."

The question of whether or not the United States could be said to be a plutocracy is discussed at length in Who Rules America  http://progressiveliving.org/who_rules_samples.htm by sociologist G. William Domhoff. There Domhoff remarks: "The idea that a relatively fixed group of privileged people might shape the economy and government for their own benefit goes against the American grain. Nevertheless, this book argues that the owners and top-level managers in large income-producing properties are far and away the dominant power figures in the United States. Their corporations, banks, and agribusinesses come together as a corporate community that dominates the federal government in Washington. Their real estate, construction, and land development companies form growth coalitions that dominate most local governments."

The argument to the effect that the US is a functional plutocracy (that is, that the wealthy exercise a preponderance of American political power) is different from, enormously better documented, and altogether more credible, than claims to the effect that there exists a small circle of conspirators bent on ruling the world, claims for which no credible evidence exists. (Domhoff explicitly disavows the existence of any such conspiracy.)

-----------------------------------------------------------

See the resource on the Bush cabinet, with links that illustrate its plutocratic nature
 http://progressiveliving.org/bush_cabinet.htm
Go to the Essay on Politics
 http://progressiveliving.org/politics_essay.htm
Go to the PL Political Field Guide
 http://progressiveliving.org/politics_frameset.htm
Return to the PL Site Map
 http://progressiveliving.org/site_map_2.htm


Some other enlightening and useful links:

Corporate Capitalist Plutocracy
 http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/plutocracy/RevealingQuotes2.html

The Plutocratic Presidency, 17892002
 http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/plutocracy/PlutocraticPresidency.html

The Corporate Domination of American Culture and Politics
 http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/plutocracy/CorporateDomination.html

Plutocracy.Net
 http://plutocracy.net/
not 'democracy'--PLUTOCRACY
not 'democracy'--PLUTOCRACY

not 'democracy'--PLUTOCRACY 06.Mar.2003 23:43

ed crane

plu*toc*ra*cy Pronunciation Key (pl-tkr-s)
n. pl. plu*toc*ra*cies
Government by the wealthy.
A wealthy class that controls a government.
A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------
[Greek ploutokrati : ploutos, wealth; see pleu- in Indo-European Roots + -krati, -cracy.]
-----------------------------------------------------------
pluto*crat (plt-krt) n.
pluto*cratic or pluto*crati*cal adj.
pluto*crati*cal*ly adv.

Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
-----------------------------------------------------------

plutocracy

\Plu*toc"ra*cy\, n. [Gr. ?; ? wealth + ? to be strong, to rule, fr.? strength: cf. F. plutocratie.] A form of government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the wealthy classes; government by the rich; also, a controlling or influential class of rich men.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996
-----------------------------------------------------------

plutocracy

n : a political system governed by the wealthy people
Source: WordNet 1.6, 1997 Princeton University
-----------------------------------------------------------


Plutocracy
 http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Plutocracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A Plutocracy is a government system where wealth is the principal basis of power (from the Greek ploutos meaning wealth).

The influence of wealth on governance can be expressed either via the wealthy classes directly governing, or (more typically) by the wealthy classes using money to control the government. This control can be exerted positively (by financial "contributions" or in some cases, bribes) or negatively by refusing to financially support the government (refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, etc).

There have not been many examples of a "true" plutocracy in history as such, although they typically emerge as one of the first governing systems within a territory after a period of anarchy. Plutocracy is closely related to Aristocracy  http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy as a form of government, as generally wealth and nobility have been closely associated throughout history.

In the present era, there are numerous cases of wealthy individuals exerting financial pressure on governments to pass favourable legislation. Most western partisan democracies permit the raising of funds by the partisan organisations, and it is well-known that political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporate institutions). Ostensibly this should have no effect on the legislative decisions of elected representatives, however it would be a bit idealistic to believe that no politicians are influenced by these "contributions". The more cynical might describe these donations as "bribes", although legally they are not.

See also:

Pareto principle (on unequal distribution of wealth)
 http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
corporatocracy
 http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy
corporate police state
 http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_police_state

-----------------------------------------------------------


"Plutocracy" Defined
 http://progressiveliving.org/plutocracy_defined.htm

The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

Plutocracy may also have social and cultural aspects. Thus, in Democracy for the Few  http://progressiveliving.org/who_rules_samples.htm political scientist Michael Parenti is led to comment "American capitalism represents more than just an economic system; it is an entire cultural and social order, a plutocracy, a system of rule that is mostly by and for the rich. Most universities and colleges, publishing houses, mass circulation magazines, newspapers, television and radio stations, professional sports teams, foundations, churches, private museums, charity organizations, and hospitals are organized as corporations, ruled by boards of trustees (or directors or regents) composed overwhelmingly of affluent businesspeople. These boards exercise final judgment over all institutional matters."

The question of whether or not the United States could be said to be a plutocracy is discussed at length in Who Rules America  http://progressiveliving.org/who_rules_samples.htm by sociologist G. William Domhoff. There Domhoff remarks: "The idea that a relatively fixed group of privileged people might shape the economy and government for their own benefit goes against the American grain. Nevertheless, this book argues that the owners and top-level managers in large income-producing properties are far and away the dominant power figures in the United States. Their corporations, banks, and agribusinesses come together as a corporate community that dominates the federal government in Washington. Their real estate, construction, and land development companies form growth coalitions that dominate most local governments."

The argument to the effect that the US is a functional plutocracy (that is, that the wealthy exercise a preponderance of American political power) is different from, enormously better documented, and altogether more credible, than claims to the effect that there exists a small circle of conspirators bent on ruling the world, claims for which no credible evidence exists. (Domhoff explicitly disavows the existence of any such conspiracy.)

-----------------------------------------------------------

See the resource on the Bush cabinet, with links that illustrate its plutocratic nature
 http://progressiveliving.org/bush_cabinet.htm
Go to the Essay on Politics
 http://progressiveliving.org/politics_essay.htm
Go to the PL Political Field Guide
 http://progressiveliving.org/politics_frameset.htm
Return to the PL Site Map
 http://progressiveliving.org/site_map_2.htm


Some other enlightening and useful links:

Corporate Capitalist Plutocracy
 http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/plutocracy/RevealingQuotes2.html

The Plutocratic Presidency, 17892002
 http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/plutocracy/PlutocraticPresidency.html

The Corporate Domination of American Culture and Politics
 http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/plutocracy/CorporateDomination.html

Plutocracy.Net
 http://plutocracy.net/
not 'democracy'--PLUTOCRACY
not 'democracy'--PLUTOCRACY

apparently I've turned into a radical 06.Mar.2003 23:57

dd

Sorry about that last post. When I was in high school, I used to laugh about the longhairs who pissed and moaned about El Salvador and East Timor and a bunch of other stuff I didn't know anything about because of my exposure to McNews. At some point I must have turned into one.

The natives in the Willamette Valley had it pretty good. The salmon would sneak up on you and just hop onto your plate screaming "eat me", berries and camas lillies grew wild everywhere. If you wanted some exercise, you could hunt elk. Life is this area might have been difficult, essentially being the "stone age" until a few hundred years ago, but it was a pretty decent version of the stone age.

Today, between the oil running out and climate change, our species is fucked. The snow pack in the Cascades is about half of the average. The snowmelt will not provide enough water to maintain many of the surviving salmon runs. When the oil runs out, not only will you not be able to drive to Natures for your groceries, but the factory farms will not be able to produce the food in the first place and even the local organic farms won't be able to deliver it. Hungry humans will do what they've been trained to do for the last six thusand years and start SLAUGHTERING EACH OTHER for even the smallest amount of food.

I part ways with the primativist view that a small number of humans, the ones left after the massive die off, will be able to self organize in democratic tribes, because too much environmental damage has been done already for hunter-gatherers to survive. The Columbia is radioactive from the waste at Hanford, and the Willamette is a superfund site.

If Jesus Fuckin' Christ ran as a Dem against Bush in the next election...
first, he'd lose because as Raven mentioned the machines are rigged,
and second, he couldn't fix the damage that's already been done,
and third, he wouldn't run as a fuckin' Dem in the first place because they're just as fuckin' crooked as the Republicans.

Democrat = Republican
Pepsi = Coke
McDonald's = Burger King

Where's my goddamn "the end is near" sign? I want to hop on the bus and start creepin' people out.

What Will it Take? 07.Mar.2003 11:33

Jack Straw

What will it take? When will all those morons who still have faith in the Democrats wake up and smell the stench of fascism? Demos and Reps are two wings of the Business Party, which has promoted corporate interests, both here and abroad, for the last century or so. History is chuck full of examples: Wilson's pledge to knock down the walls to US trade, and his fulfillment of it by sending US troops to intervene in one place after another, and the savage repression run by his attorney general Michell Palmer (the Palmer raids; FDR's implemntation of the Council on Foreign Relations program for a reorganized world economy with the US in total charge, and US control of Mideast oil; Truman and the Cold War and domestic witch hunts; JFK and his "Alliance for Progress" in Latin America (ie death squads and military governments) and Vietnam part I; LBJ and Vietnam part II, Dominican Republic, Indonesia coup/massacre, COINTELPRO,...;Carter and the Carter Doctrine justifying US military intervention in the Persian Gulf, the arming of guerrillas which brought the Soviets into Afghanistan, support for Indonesia's repression of East Timor, Central America war (and the guy got a Nobel Peace Prize? CRAP!); Clinton and Kosovo, Iraq (1 million dead thanks to trade sanctions and on-going bombings), Colombia,...
On the other hand,maybe these folks are not morons at all, but agents of deception, working to ensure that whatever opposition arises stays within channels that are safe for the corporate elite.

response to jack 07.Mar.2003 15:01

dd

"On the other hand,maybe these folks are not morons at all, but agents of deception, working to ensure that whatever opposition arises stays within channels that are safe for the corporate elite."

I don't think most Dem voters are either. They're just gullible and scared. Some clown like Clinton comes along with his crocodile tears and says he'll make everything better and a lot of people believe him. The public must wake up to the reality that human culture is in the downward spiral and even the (purely theoretical) most well intentioned heirarchy will be unable to stop it.

Government can pass laws and throw law breakers in prison or kill them but it cannot make people be responsible for one another or their communities. The public must develop a healthy abhorance for politicians, capitalists, cops, and preists. Keep them in their place and reorganize the world without including them.

Otherwise we're fucked.