portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article united states

actions & protests | alternative media | government | political theory | technology

Defeating Bush in 2004

Wherever you are on the political spectrum, if you've stumbled on to this site you're probably not a Bush fan. Anarchist, socialist, communist, feminist, environmentalist, whateverist, we can all agree that this guy has got to go in 2004. To make that a reality we need to start strategizing on how best to ensure that the world won't suffer under 4 more years of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Ashcroft and the rest of them.
So we have a common enemy. His crimes are speak for themselves. Liberals, leftists, and radicals can all agree on this one point. What can we do best to defeat him? Where should we focus our energies? How can we avoid self-defeating activity? These are important questions that we should start discussing. It would awesome if somehow we were able to use the IMCs and the internet to organize a viable political FORCE that had to be reckoned with because of our ability to affect ELECTIONS. Right now we CAN be written off as a focus group because we have had that much impact on real politics. This is not to get into an either/or debate over voting and activism. If your going to argue that voting only encourgages them or any other pseudo-revolutionary slogan, thanks. I get it. I'm ignoring you. Now let's examine our options for getting rid of Bush.

Number 1: Impeach him.
three words: not gonna happen. I'm rooting for you but I just don't see it coming to gether.

Number 2: Electing a Democrat
this is the only real simple solution to getting the Bushes outta washington. To do so we must form a concensus as early as possible as to who we're going to support in the primaries and then if he or she doesn't win we need to suck it up and support whoever does win. And really really honestly support them. We can criticize and denounce them all we want AFTER they've slayed the Bushbeast. Me, I think Howard Dean's got what it takes to win mainstream America and I think we should start mobilizing for him so we don't have to vote for Joe Lieberman. I respect the Kucinch/Sharpton/Braun-ists but I think we need to stick to realistic strategy (something that doesn't always come naturally to the people here at IMC). Dean looks like he could win Iowa and New Hampshire and it'd be great if we could help build momentum around him.

Number 3: Violent revolution where we overthrow the government and setup a proletarian utopia.

If all else fails...

Let me know your thoughts on how we can best use this site and the peace/anti-globo movements and focus them on getting rid of Bush in 2004.
Well... 08.May.2003 21:25

Dark Woodsman

"Wherever you are on the political spectrum, if you've stumbled on to this site you're probably not a Bush fan."

You are correct. In my opinion he isn't far enough to the right. He should have declared martial law after 9/11 and rounded up all subversives and taken them to the NWO relocation camps...

Well... 08.May.2003 21:40

someone

I can certainly appreciate your honesty Woodsman; I only wish all fascists were as forthcoming as you are. I'm a little surprised as I thought your views were more libertarian in nature, but I guess that just shows how little you can really know some one in this kind of environment.

jumbo: did'nt you hear you catch more flies with honey. People's tactics are often realistic, to them. Personally, Dean has an environmental record that only a republican could be proud of. He isn't so great in his stance on the wars either. I won't say I won't consider voting for him, but he has a long way to go to convince me. Personally, I'd rather throw my weight behind a democrat whose ideologies I can respect. I would ask you, why are they not realistic candidates? My thought is only because the DNC would never support them, but the DNC is unlikely to support to Dean either. The DNC would rather have a corporate candidate who will lose than a progressive candidate who will win. The democrats have too much too lose by any substantive reform that they will simply not let that happen. Clinton promised some progressive ideas, and look what happened. He was just as corrupt as Bush is, only their donors, handlers, and backers are somewhat different. Is Dean any different? I don't know but what I've seen of him I haven't liked. I'm content to let the strategy evolve for each individual and not cram a strategy down their throats. And, I will not ask anyone to compromise their ideals. If someone does not feel comfortable voting for the lesser of two evils than they simply shouldn't do it. And if that means all the horrible things we can predict will happen if Bush stays in power come to pass I'd still feel better about that than forcing people into an alternative. But, I am most happy and supportive of people raising these issues and throwing their energy into the strategies they believe in. Good work, keep it up.

I doubt that you "get it" 08.May.2003 22:21

akjerfb

<snip>
This is not to get into an either/or debate over voting and activism. If your going to argue that voting only encourgages them or any other pseudo-revolutionary slogan, thanks. I get it. I'm ignoring you.
<snip>

I used to think this was "revolutionary" claptrap too, but have now lost all confidence in politics, sure there are ballot measures I'll cast a ballot for, but all politicians share far more similarities than differences. I agree that Bush is just about the scariest person I've known in my lifetime, but there is no one capable of unseating him who I'd vote for.

You forgot Option 4, which is to do whatever community organizing you are capable of, attempting to mitigate the damage Bush (not to mention most other politicians) has done. If enough people took their own communities seriously, and put in the time necessary to maintain and nurture them, Bush wouldn't be an issue. This is really the only hope humanity has, no politician will save you.

Bu$h was *NOT* elected 08.May.2003 22:58

--

he was *appointed* pResident . . .

One thing 08.May.2003 23:23

heimdallr

Maybe before we get worked up over "getting Bush out of office" we should figure out what would and would not constitute a preferable alternative. If there's anyone with more credentials as a bona fide fascist than Bush and his friends, for example, it's Joe Lieberman (immediately after 9/11 he co-chaired an organization that set up a hotline so college students could report their professors for making unpatriotic comments, not to mention his long-running affiliation with various religious-right/fundamentalist groups). In fact a Lieberman administration is likely to be more repressive domestically and at least as aggressive internationally, and will evoke less skepticism from the demographic that is currently opposed to Bush's policies because of his party affiliation but would likely not object to the same policies under a Democratic administration (i.e. the people who railed against NAFTA when Bush, Sr. proposed it but suddenly thought it was a great idea when Clinton brought it back). Personally, I'd vote for Bush just to keep Lieberman out of office, so let's get nice and crystal clear about what exactly it is that we hope to gain from "getting Bush out of the White House" before we all pile onto the Democratic bandwagon.

Wolf in sheeps clothing 09.May.2003 02:12

Jello Biafra

Democrats are on the inside what republicans are on the outside.

random morning responses 09.May.2003 08:34

anti-Bush

Whatever your left-side persuasion, the progressive/anarchist movement should be able to unite around the goal of getting Bush out. The criminal regime must go, somehow, and soon.

*

It makes more nefarious sense to a potential dictator to control the electoral mechanism rather than face the possibility of losing and having to cancel the election. Activists could usefully put energy into getting involved in electoral oversight.

*

Electronic, computerized voting systems are far, far easier to corrupt than paper ballots. The florida ballots remain, preserved, in archives down there, and could be examined again. A computer program can do whatever the programmer wants, and there is no easy way to check. The only way to test a computerized voting system is to examine the actual program, the code, line by line and if statement by if statement.

*

more eligible voters DON'T vote than do vote. That is the strongest sign that American democracy is jaded, maybe down for the count. But it also points toward the best strategy for alternative parties. Focusing on bringing in new voters can avoid divisiveness on the left. These new voters could be the largest single bloc in the next election, if radicals could get them registered and energized.

*

Local elections matter. Getting smart, strong, progressive local leaders into positions in city, county, and state elections is realistic and valuable. Local leaders can make a real difference in things like police policy, building and land codes, camping laws. And if anything disrupts the federal system, say, a freak tornado during the next state of the union speech, local progressives could take a really useful role in regional issues. Seccessionists should remember the role of local governmental groups in initiating the American revolution. Or check out Mao's use of local political structures. Consider yourself a radical? Why not run for a local power company board of directors, a county board of commissioners, or mayor of a small town?

*

For once, can we stopping fighting those who are closest to our own views, and focus on our mutual enemy? Once Bush is gone, we can go back to in-fighting.

How about 'turning around' the whole thing? 09.May.2003 09:30

George Lee

I think that the Democrats and Republicans are like two trains headed for a cliff. The Republicans (and Bush) are going towards the cliff at 100 miles per hour. The Democrats (depending on the candidate) are going at 50 to 90 miles per hour. Me -- I want to turn the damn train around, AWAY from the cliff!
So how do I spend my activist time (and money)? 95 to 99% on turning around the train, and maybe 1 to 5% on the Democrats, depending on the candidate. (In other words, I'll probably give Kucinich and Dean a little bit of money right now, but NO time. Later on, if either of them really looks like they could win the nomination, probably a little more money, and maybe a few hours of time. And if either of them actually does win the nomination, then probably a bit more money, and maybe 5 or 8 hours of time. But everything else (over 95 percent of my time and money) for the next year and a half to alternative politics and direct action!)...
So who else wants to help turn the train around, and give the Democrats no more than 5% of your efforts?!!

five percent would be the max for me 09.May.2003 11:00

--

fuck the democrats.

Vote for Bush 2004 10.May.2003 02:44

oldblueeyes

I'm young, poor, and haven't been to church in a long time. Bush want's to cut 750 billion or so in taxes. Smaller ( ie less money) government seems like a good idea to me right now. So unless someone can convince me otherwise I plan to vote for Bush.

well oldblueeyes 10.May.2003 12:33

someone

If you want to be even poorer go ahead and vote for bush, because, if you're poor now you aren't going to see a cent of that tax cut. And for your information, Bush is championing the largest increase in government size in the history of this country. He's just also slashing taxes so that people can't afford it. But hey, it might be fun to live through a depression, what do you think?

realism is not the enemy-- Bush is 21.Jan.2004 09:28

someone

People can criticize Dean and any other Democrat they want-- none of them are perfect... they are politicians, for God's sake. But supporting the candidate with the best chance of winning would mean that Bush would no longer be President. That need to be the ultimate focus: Bush can o longer be President.

I don't think anyone would argue that ANY of the nominees would be better than Bush, even if it's arguable among them who is the best. So please, let's come together, fight the real cause of the problem, be realistic and put a better person than Bush in office-- Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Lieberman.... I can't imagine anyone more arrogant, manipulative, entitled, uninformed, homophobic, elitist, warmongering or partisan in office. Once we get him out, then we can work on doing even better next time.

To try to fight within our neighborhoods, grass roots, etc. while ignoring the national scope of opportunity in the upcoming election is just not smart. It's like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic-- get off the boat first! Then worry about the details.