portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements portland metro

government | political theory

Dean for America

We can't let George W. Bush continue to rack up millions while the American people are left out in the street
Yesterday George Bush took time off from his vacation to go fundraising again, this time in Portland, Oregon. At just one event he brought in $1 million from 500 of his biggest contributors. Outside the fundraiser more than 2,000 Americans gathered to speak out against Bush's failed policies, which have ruined our economy and damaged our standing in the world community. Yet pocketing $1 million dollars was enough for George W. Bush to thank the people of Portland for their "warm welcome."

We can't let George W. Bush continue to rack up millions while the American people are left out in the street. Today, we're bringing out the bat on the Dean for America website—and putting it up against George W. Bush. Our goal is to raise $1 million against George Bush by the end of the Sleepless Summer Tour—midnight this Tuesday, August 26th. Show George Bush that you are taking our country back by making a contribution today:

 http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute

The only way to compete with Bush's ability to raise so much money from so few is if millions of Americans come together and contribute what they can to Howard Dean. When Dick Cheney raised $250,000 last month from 125 people at a fundraiser in South Carolina, you responded—and raised more than $508,000 for Howard Dean. You showed the nation that the grassroots has the power to take on the special interests. But there are still people who doubt the staying power of the grassroots, and whether you really have the power to change politics in this country.

We have 38 days to prove that the grassroots do have that power. Beginning with the Sleepless Summer Tour, the remainder of August and the entire month of September are critical. We have 38 days to prove that the grassroots have the staying power—that we aren't going away. 38 days to return to politics of meaning in America. We have 38 days for all of us to pull together in order to reach our goal of 450,000 supporters for Howard Dean by September 30th. Then, in the final days of September, we will make a final push toward a fundraising goal that rivals what you achieved in June—and we will prove not only that the grassroots have the power to win the Democratic nomination, but that you have the power to defeat George W. Bush and his special interests in the general election.

You can start today by forwarding this email to two friends and asking them to join us:

 http://www.deanforamerica.com/join

Between today and Tuesday, thousands of Americans will be rallying for Howard Dean as part of the Sleepless Summer Tour—and thousands more will be rallying behind Dean to match Bush's million dollars in Portland. The question on everyone's mind is whether the grassroots is strong enough to challenge Bush's special-interest fundraising machine. Today, you can send a powerful message to Bush and those that fund him that you are up to the challenge.

Joe Trippi
Campaign Manager
Dean for America

P.S. Spread the word to your offline friends that now is the time to stand up against Bush and demonstrate the power of the American people. They can contribute by calling 1-866-DEAN-4-USA.

 http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute

 http://www.deanforamerica.com/join

Make them hear us! 22.Aug.2003 12:25

GIRL

I myself have lost a lot of faith in the system as I've gotten older. Especially in the last 2 years as the Bush Regime has done so much evil in this country and the world! Soooooo...I'm sure a lot of people out there are going to hate any candidate that runs saying all politicians are the same...but they ARE NOT! There is a HUGE difference between Howard Dean and George W. So please, go out to Dean's appearance on Sunday and listen to what he has to say. By not listening and/or giving him a chance, you're being just as close minded as the people who call all protesters of Bush unpatriotic anarchists, and don't listen to why we are protesting him and his administration. Also going to his speech doesn't mean you agree with him, but are just hearing what he has to say. Sure maybe he's saying what he thinks will get him elected, but maybe he's being for real and honest with you. Imagine that! DON'T LOSE ALL FAITH! There are some folks out there who really want to change things for the better. Even if Dean won and ONLY got national healthcare passed, that would be worth voting for him right there! More than anything, people need to vote next year. It really is a matter of life and death at this point.

hey, GIRL-- 22.Aug.2003 12:32

boy

Dean favors capital punishment.

Dean will not repeal the USA Patriot Act,

nor will he withdraw US forces from Afghanistan or Iraq.

Dean and the PATRIOT Act 22.Aug.2003 12:38

James

Q: Would you revise or repeal the Patriot Act?

Howard Dean: Too many in my party voted for the Patriot Act. We need more Democrats who are willing to stand against Bush's reckless disregard for our civil liberties. As Americans, we need to stand up and ensure that our laws reflect our values. As President, I will repeal those parts of the Patriot Act that undermine our constitutional rights, and will stand against any further attempts to expand the government's reach at the expense of our civil liberties.

if we insist upon electoral politics 22.Aug.2003 12:42

margaret

if we insist upon electoral politics, then why would you vote to support someone who supports economic globalization, neo-liberalism, free trade?
obviously, there is a difference between bush and dean. bush is a neo-conservative, who seeks to expand the empire through the military. dean is a neo-liberal, who will expand the empire through economic imperialism.
people talk about dean like he's some kind of saint.
if left wing activists spend all their time focusing on Dean, then bush will have been succesful at taking a huge blow at the progress of the movement. the only way Dean looks so good is comparatively, and if people would rather have -anyone- than bush, they will continue this bullshit cycle until infinity.
jesus, if you believe in electoral politics, actually try and effect change through it, prove us anarchists wrong.
under the neo-liberal policies of clinton, the IMF ravaged more countries than bush could dream of with his 400billion dollar army.

so?..... 22.Aug.2003 12:50

TrollKing

boy wrote:

>Dean favors capital punishment.

yeah? so do i.... does that mean my opinions are invalid?

>Dean will not repeal the USA Patriot Act,

well, to be honest, the president doesn't have the power to just repeal whatever law he or she wants to, but he did in fact say he would work to get the unconstitutional parts of it repealed.

>nor will he withdraw US forces from Afghanistan or Iraq.

that would be stupid. now that we're in there, we can't afford to f*ck it up. the reconstruction does need to be internationalized, and that is what he said he would work to do.

Dean in the Lion's den 22.Aug.2003 12:51

maxomai maxomai@acm.org

Howard Dean wrote a scathing condemnation of Bush's economic policies and proposed restoring funding for education, health care, and other social services that Bush cut. His proposal includes getting rid of Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and streamlining the tax code to close a bunch of loopholes.

Pretty typical, right? Well guess what: he wrote it in the Wall Street Fucking Journal

Think about it. Does that sound like the typical politician, telling each constituency exactly what they want to hear?


question ANSWERED. 22.Aug.2003 12:51

THANKS, 'James'!!

". . . I will repeal *****those parts***** of the Patriot Act . . ."

blah,

blah,

BLAH.

Blah! 22.Aug.2003 12:56

maxomai

"As President, I will repeal those parts of the Patriot Act that undermine our constitutional rights, and will stand against any further attempts to expand the government's reach at the expense of our civil liberties."

OK, so can anyone here tell me exactly what parts of PATRIOT, that DON'T violate our Constitutional rights, you disagree with?

I can think of one off the top of my head, but it has to do with the technical problems of setting up the Department of Homeland Security.

I agree Margaret, but... 22.Aug.2003 12:57

Mom

Margaret, I agree with you that we have rock bottom fundamental problems that Dean would not fix.

HOWEVER, working towards a real restoration of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not exclude taking other parallel steps to get rid of Bush by supporting the most likely to beat him candidate.

I am very cynical about politics as usual. I also know that we have to get rid of Bush by whatever means we can and enough support/voting for Dean will get rid of Bush.

Can't denial let me believe? 22.Aug.2003 13:01

James

The idea that the IMF's meddlings somehow equate with, or are worse than military adventurism requires a certain degree of blinded indoctrination.

Countries are free to default on loans. When Argentina defaulted on $130bln in loans, you didn't see the IMF move in with warships and cannons.

In any event, the vast majority of Dean supporters are free traders. The portion of Dean supporters who are against free trade, but support Dean simply as a means of removing Bush is relatively small.

That being said, even if you do oppose many of Dean's positions -- his strange fence-straddling support for the death penalty, free trade, Kyoto, et cetera -- it seems to me that it still makes sense to vote for Dean if he does eventually win the nomination.

Then again, I doubt I'd vote for Kucinich if he won the nomination, so I don't know what I'm talking about.

The Parts of the Patriot Act Dean would keep 22.Aug.2003 13:06

James

...Deal with transfers of funds in "terrorism supporting nations." If you Google it a bit, it's outlined.

I sent an email to Joe Trippi asking for clarification, which I won't repost since I don't have his permission, but his response to me was basically that Dean thinks there are a few redeeming bits in the law (Like the transfers of funds), but that they should all be seperate, distinct laws, not rolled into one, sweeping bil.

Dean would work towards repealing the PATRIOT Act, and would replace certain portions with new laws.

As others have said, that may be difficult to do with a Republican-controlled Congress even if he does win the nomination and general election. But at least he wants to.

Letter to Dean 22.Aug.2003 13:10

Dean voter

I'm voting for Dean because I want to oust the dictator. If we can't do that, we suck. Dean does things like support public education and healthcare, so he is not necessarily advocating neoliberal ideas at least at home. And we (or at least those of us who aren't rich) need those things so urgently that we kind of have to put our ideals aside for a while. In any case for those of you who are rallying around Dean, I advise putting on the pressure to change some of his international policy. Here's a letter I wrote him..

Dear Mr. Dean,

I would like to think that I will be voting for you solely as a leader of the United States, but I understand that the role of president today is much more global than that. Though I agree with you on many issues, I am deeply concerned with your plans for international policy. On your website you state that you would like the United States to recover it's status as a "historic inspiration to those around the world seeking democracy, freedom, and opportunity." I believe this status is in large part a myth, and most of the truth it has died out over fifty years ago. This was before the time of the man you envoke as your role model, Harry Truman.

You seem to use a discourse very similar to that of Truman's. You are interested in the United States being a "moral force in world affairs," and a "guiding light for other nations." But I wonder if you may not be aware of the implications of such statements.

Truman is known to many people as the father of North American development of what was coined at the time as the "third world." This model of development has historically been one focused exclusively on the introduction of modern technologies and capital without any consideration of cultural factors, or how this extreme faith in science as the savior of the world is so connected to our own culture. (And might not necessarily work well in other places).

Actually, this hasn't worked well in other places. Ignoring the different social and cultural factors that exist outside of the United States has created the visible mess that the third world (otherwise known as the world majority) is in at the moment. It has also meant a loss of autonomy for many people, which has inhibited different possible conceptions of development from coming in to play, and in many cases, even being created.

It is true that we have always had the capacity to advance the rest of the world technologically. But we have never respected the greater cultural capacity that the rest of the world has in comparison to us. This is why the World Bank and IMF have created more problems then they pretend to fix, and even why Bush felt like it was his moral obligation to take over Iraq. What scares me is that you seem to be using Bush's same basic discourse, which, since Truman, has always been the discourse used by the United States towards the rest of the world.

If you want the US to be a guiding light to anyone please understand this: Truman's ideals were disastrous. Providing assistance to others is not something that can be undertaken scientifically, and it's not about imposing our culture over theirs.

I am worried that in setting up the United States as a moral force in world affairs, you will use only the United State's conception of morality. I hope this doesn't happen. Perhaps you could even be a force in changing what this morality is- however calling up the ghost of Harry Truman won't do it.

The US has existed only slightly over 200 years, and in this very same land mass there much are older nations, and much older understandings of the world which are still present, albeit marginalized. A lot of the technologies and practices of these nations were sustainable for many more hundreds of years, and a great amount of respect is owed to them by the new leaders of these newer nations, such as yourself, if we are lucky, in a year. Many questions about how to go relating should be forwarded to them. It seems that you are pretty open to questioning, and this is why I support you.

You are running as "Howard Dean for America," and in electing you I hope you will consider that you will not become president of America, but rather only of the United States. These are very different things. I do however, hope that you will do your best to stop the United State's historically proven policy of impoverishing, enslaving, un-democratizing, and de-autonomizing the world's majority, and not pretend that historically we have done otherwise.

huh?.... 22.Aug.2003 13:11

TrollKing

margaret wrote:

>if we insist upon electoral politics

well, yeah, most folks do.... what do you suggest?

>if left wing activists spend all their time focusing on Dean, then bush will have been succesful at taking a huge blow at the progress of the movement.

what progress is that? look around you.... since bush entered office, with a republican legislature to boot, there's been no damn progress. he's already successfully taken a huge blow.

this is the reality of the situation, and no amount of purist ideological masturbation is going to change it.

Dean favors the free trade agreements! 22.Aug.2003 13:11

StevetheGreenanarchist

Howard Dean (Unlike Dennis Kucinich) will not state publicly that he will withdraw the US from our current free trade agreements.
That's because he won't.

Instead he offers the usual politician-like answers that try to speak to the liberals (who he is pretending to be) while at the same time, trying real hard not to alienate the majority of the country whose biggest concerns are their 401k's!

Anybody who thinks Howard Dean is the answer is either not paying attention, or they have a vested interest in pretending to be progressives while maintaining the status quo.

Fuck Howard Dean!

Dean on Free Trade 22.Aug.2003 13:13

maxomai

"Free trade must equal fair trade. We are subsidizing the sometimes awful environmental practices of our trading partners, and we are subsidizing the profits of multinational corporations by not having international labor standards. If free trade allows General Motors to set up a plant in Mexico, free trade should allow the UAW to organize that plant under conditions similar to those in the US. This isn't wage parity; I am asking for shared ground rules." -- Howard Dean, 20 November 2002

Click here to read the original, from the Dean website


It's simple 22.Aug.2003 13:18

Mom

Yes vote for Dean = No vote for Bush

Got it?

NO candidate is perfect 22.Aug.2003 13:22

GIRL

I don't agree with any candidate 100%, but if you're going to wait to support a candidate that only works for your agenda, you're going to have to wait for hell to freeze over. Think about it...being president is about compromise so you can never please everyone all of the time. I'd say the majority of Americans are conservative compared to left wing so there HAS to be a compromise. (I think a lot of that has to do with a lack of education on the actual issues as people just vote based on soundbites...that needs to change). Remember, this is SUPPOSED to be representative government. So if majority is voting on soundbites and going conservative, that's going to be reflected in Washington and all of our so-called representation. What we all need to do is get involved to get the information out there so people are making educated decisions.

By the way, here is a quote from Howard Dean regarding the Iraq war:

"I opposed President Bush's war in Iraq from the beginning. While Saddam Hussein's regime was clearly evil and needed to be disarmed, it did not present an immediate threat to U.S. security that would justify going to war, particularly going to war alone. From the beginning, I felt that winning the war would not be the hard part winning the peace would be. This administration failed to plan for the postwar period as it did for the battle, and today we are paying the price."

I completely opposed the war in Iraq, but we can't pull out of Iraq now because we really do need to help them rebuild their country after destroying it. That is our obligation after screwing it up. I think we should pull all military out, get rid of Halliburton contracts, and let locals reconstruct the country to provide jobs and income to their economy as Bush and Cheney are taking all of their oil for their own gain.

to 'TrollKing'-- 22.Aug.2003 13:26

: P

">Dean favors capital punishment. yeah? so do i.... does that mean my opinions are invalid?"

No,

it just means that you and Howard Dean are IDENTICAL to George W. Bu$h,

America's Biggest Serial Killer... 155 Homicides !

more than any other elected official in recorded American history !

p.s. "TrollKing"--save your 'vote' for Bu$h.

THESE Opinions 'count' more than TrollKing's
THESE Opinions 'count' more than TrollKing's

some of you seem to be forgetting something 22.Aug.2003 13:26

politicians lie

Dean supporters are all taking Dean at his word. Who would any of you name as an honest politician? Who would you say was the last honest president we had in this country? It seems to me that lying is a prerequisite for being elected president. Dean says some nice things; so did Bush; so did Clinton. The point is they never *did* any of the nice things they said they would. I'm not saying people shouldn't do what they think is right, I just want to point out that it seems like people have a lot of blind faith. Or does someone have a reason why they thing Dean would actually do the things he's promising?

this is all a JOKE. 22.Aug.2003 13:40

:()

Howard Dean doesn't have a chance at getting nominated--

it'll probably be Lieberman [more pro-Zionist] or Kerry [Skull & Bones].

The Vermont Record 22.Aug.2003 13:46

matt K

We don't have to have blind faith in Dean when we can look at his record in Vermont. 400,000 acres of forest and farmlands preserved. Extended health insurance to 90% of adults and virtually all of the children in Vermont. 11 years of balanced budgets and improved education.

The bottom line is if you live in Portland go see him speak at PSU on Sunday.

Nomination Chances 22.Aug.2003 13:47

James

If anyone doesn't have a chance at the nomination, it's Lieberman. He's dead in the water. He can't raise money, he gets little press compared to Dean (He only gets press when he attacks Dean), and he'll be lucky if he can get 10% of the activists who actually vote in primaries to make their mark next to his name.

Lieberman never stood a chance. The media mystifyingly placed him as a front-runner candidate early, as he had name recognition from Gore-Lieberman 2000, but once people figured out Lieberman was a deep-cover Republican, they fled.

His poll numbers in N.H. are now hovering around 4-6%. In Iowa they're only slightly better. Nationally he's hemorrhaging too.

Kerry too. Kerry is losing all of his support to Dean. Kerry can't pick up any labor endorsements (which are all being picked-off by Gephardt), and Dean is stealing his base.

Dean keeps going up, and up, and up in the polls, and everyone else is either stagnating or dropping.

Dean is beating them all in fundraising. He's got much of the mainstream press behind his campaign now.

It's still a race between Kerry, Gephardt and Dean. But I don't see the scenario where Kerry or Gephardt can come out on-top nationally. (When Dean is leading in NH and Iowa, respective strongholds of Kerry and Gephardt, the stars seem to be aligning for Dean).

But I've been wrong before.

i'm identical to bush.... 22.Aug.2003 13:57

TrollKing

oh, excuse me, "Bu$h"?

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

*wipes tear from corner of eye*

oh, that's rich.....

good luck with "changing the world" there, sport.


TK

message 22.Aug.2003 14:02

wake up

all the pro-Dean commenters on this article thread are LIVING IN A DREAMWORLD

.

.... 22.Aug.2003 14:03

TrollKing

StevetheGreenanarchist wrote:

>Instead.... trying real hard not to alienate the majority of the country whose biggest concerns are their 401k's!

and who exactly do you think the voters are, anyway?

>Fuck Howard Dean!

now there's a bold statement.

.... 22.Aug.2003 14:08

TrollKing

wake up wrote:

>all the pro-Dean commenters on this article thread are LIVING IN A DREAMWORLD

pot, i'd like you to meet kettle.... kettle, this is pot.

Please pinch me 22.Aug.2003 14:09

James

"all the pro-Dean commenters on this article thread are LIVING IN A DREAMWORLD"

Care to elaborate why? There are no ivory towers here, and I hardly have Dean on a pedestal. I just agree with most of what he has to say.

Identical?? 22.Aug.2003 14:12

BB

First of all, "Identical" means the same in every way, not sort of agreeing on one topic.
Let's boil this argument down to what we're really talking about:
Option A) Whine and moan that the best democratic candidate to come along in decades has a few opinions we disagree with. If he wins the nomination, either stay home on election day or vote for a candidate that can't POSSIBLY oust Bush--that will show how "radical" and "principled" we are, and then we get to live with another four years of Bush and his cronies trashing the bill of rights, the environment, and the economy.
Option B) Stop being such anarchist poseurs and vote for a democratic candidate that has MOST of the qualities we like and ACTUALLY HAS A CHANCE TO BEAT THE IDIOT.
If you'd like to hear Dean (and Kucinich) in their own words, check out this animation:  http://www.ericblumrich.com/dlc.html

Re: James 22.Aug.2003 14:12

Puzzled

James:

Previously you seemed to state that you would not support Kucinich because you felt that ti was unlikely that he could win the nomination. Your support for Dean seemed to be based on your belief that he could win the nomination, and that anyone would be better than Bush. Now you say "Then again, I doubt I'd vote for Kucinich if he won the nomination...". Can you explain why you would not vote for him if he were to win the nomination? What policies of Dean's do you prefer over the Kucinich platform?

'James'--Care to elaborate why? 22.Aug.2003 14:40

wake up

James,

because you've made your DREAMWORLD fantasyland perfectly clear and obvious with

EVERY

SINGLE

ONE

OF

YOUR

COMMENTS

above, and new statements you continue to utter on the topic of Howard Dean.

Dean will never win the election (and perhaps not even the Democrap nomination),

nor would any of his pie-in-the-sky promises ever come to pass.

the fucking country has been HIJACKED by a neoconservative cabal who were INSTALLED into the White House by a U.S. Supreme Court APPOINTMENT.

electoral politics are just window dressing--*especially* at the level of pResidential races.

 http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

 http://libertyandjusticeforall.ws/VoteFraud.htm

Aviel Rubin called allegations by Bev Harris that the Diebold software may have been *designed* to facilitate fraud "ludicrous"--because his team NEVER EVEN EXAMINED the Diebold software in question. Incredibly, this software keeps not one, but two Microsoft Access data tables of voting results--like a business keeping two sets of account books. The two tables are notionally identical copies of the votes collated from all polling stations. The first table is for on-demand reports which might uncover alteration of the data--such as spot checks of results from individual polling stations. The second table is used to determine the election result--but it can be hacked and altered to produce fake election totals without affecting spot check reports derived from the first table.
 http://www.gulufuture.com/diebold_scoop.htm

For the straight dope on Diebold, go to the people who got the scoop!
 http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00198.htm

Over 50 Links to Electronic Voting Machine Fraud & Rigged Vote-Counting
 http://www.linkcrusader.com/vote_machines.htm

The Stealing of America
 http://www.votescam.com/

Voting In The New World Order
 http://www.govsux.com/voting.htm

good luck getting him 'elected'--most mainstream Americans are going to be brainwashed to 'vote' for Bu$h anyway despite yours and the Democraps efforts.

p.s.--'TrollKing'

how are you "changing the world"?--  http://www.ccadp.org/serialpresident.htm

(hint: by being a DISINFORMATIONALIST COINTELPROTroll and licking your Millionaire Masters' boots)


yes, yes, that's it.... 22.Aug.2003 14:53

TrollKing

wake up wrote:

>how are you "changing the world"?
>(hint: by being a DISINFORMATIONALIST COINTELPROTroll and licking your Millionaire Masters' boots)

yes, you've got it.... i must be a spy for capitalist pigs who rule the world. there's no other rational explanation, is there?

i mean, no reasonable person could *possibly* disagree with you on this issue, could they? no, no... we must all think like you.

question for dean supporters 22.Aug.2003 15:00

mom - not "Mom"

any vote against bush is a vote against bush --- but what are we voting for?.
my question for dean wupporters is, have you read about kucinich? what about him do you object to?
i hear people say "he can't win" I ask" why not?" obviously if people don't vote for him, if they decide at this point in the debate that he can't win, then he can't/ but he is so good on so many issues i want to know why so many of the young adult/progressive/lefties are supporting Dean--
I seem to remember dean's campaign began with something like " i am only the only alternative candidate who can beat bush"--- so everyone believes a campaign slogan?
Has someone done a direct Kucinich-Dean comparison? it would provide good information.
i was a tentative Dean supporter until I read about Kucinich from the posts on this site...PS sorry about the author/name confusion but I have been posting as mom for a while... and I did not write the Mom comments above...

YEAH 22.Aug.2003 15:08

?

what's wrong with Dennis Kucinich?

even if neither of them can win,

he KICKS HOWARD DEAN'S ASS.


'TrollKing'--"we must all think like you" 22.Aug.2003 15:17

wake up

NO,

i don't give a fuck how you think, because by supporting capital punishment YOU think like your HERO AND MASS MURDERER G.W. BU$H--

The Texecutioner!

America's Biggest Serial Killer... 155 Homicides !

Texecution: (noun) 1.) An execution in the State of Texas;
2.) An execution with little or no hope of reprieve.
[ See also: Texecuted (verb) and Texecutioner (noun) ]

http://www.ccadp.org/serialpresident.htm
'TrollKing'--THINK EXACTLY HOW YOU WANT . . . THEN SEE WHERE IT GETS YOU.
George W. Bu$h, The Texecutioner
George W. Bu$h, The Texecutioner

there you go again.... 22.Aug.2003 15:47

TrollKing

wake up wrote:

>i don't give a fuck how you think, because by supporting capital punishment YOU think like your HERO AND MASS MURDERER G.W. BU$H--

keep 'em coming there, sport. you're doing a bang-up job of coming off as the zealot you are.

We've got decades ahead of us to get it right, I swear 22.Aug.2003 15:53

James

I've enumerated my complaints about Kucinich many times. Some of them you'll certainly diagree with, some of them I think you'll agree with me about.

Kucinich is anti-choice. He claims not to be now, but he's kidding you. In the 105th and 106th congressional sessions, he scored a 90% and 95% from the National Right to Life Council. Do you really -- really -- think Kucinich had some awakening on this issue at the very moment he decided to run for President? Talk about digging your head into the sand -- Kucinich has never supported choice in his life. He's a devout Catholic. At the core of his religion is the idea that life begins at conception, that a soul comes down from that place of "soul-light magic" into the new child, breathing life into it. He is anti-choice. Think about this double standard for a bit: We have Fred here at PDXIMC (and Kucinich on his website) criticizing Dean for once saying in 1995 that we should raise the retirement age to 70 -- and then later changing his mind. Yet Kucinich has always, in nearly every last possible instance, voted against choice. But now the activists here just blindly accept that he's pro-choice.

Kucinich is not pro-peace. He's just kowtowing. He voted for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which was the exact same thing as the 2002 Use of Force authorization, just a different name. The only reason he's so vocally anti-war now is because he hates Bush -- it has nothing to do with any moral conviction. If it did, he wouldn't have voted to bomb innocent Iraqis in 1998 to "free" them.

That's fine. I'm glad he opposed the war in 2002. I just wish the activists here would take a look at his record and realize he's not the "peace" candidate they think he is. Dean at least lets his opinion be known: He supported Afghanistan, but not Iraq.

Kucinich voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. Think about that. It's nuts. The leader of the Progressive Caucus voted to ban flag burning -- an important method/symbol of political dissent. This was not some off-the-wall comment he made in 1982. It was a recent vote in the U.S. Congress.

He's "tough on crime". He voted for terrible, increased sentencing statutes while in Congress -- which would allow courts to put thirteen year olds in adult prisons for the remainder of their natural lives. Dean is every bit as "tough on crime" as Kucinich is, and it's one of the things I dislike about him. I realize that -- it weighs on my decision for both of them.

Kucinich is wishy-washy. Look at his voting record: He's constantly flip-flopping. I want a determined leader in the White House, someone who can make up their mind. I don't want a zigzagging domestic and foreign policy.

Kucinich voted to militarize the U.S. border in 2000. He wanted to put U.S. marines on the border with Mexico -- what, so they can shoot immigrants as they try and cross into our country?

I strongly support free trade. I know most here don't. But I do. I don't want a protectionist U.S. economic policy. (Talk about nationalism -- protectionism is the natural economic manifestation of nationalism, and I seriously doubt many here would identify themselves as nationalists).

I don't support Kyoto. Even if global warming exists as a human caused condition, of which I'm not convinced, Kytoto will hardly make a dent in carbon emissions. All it will do is move dirty industry to the Third World.

I think Kucinich's single-payer universal health care would be God-awful. The quality of care will inevitably stink, just as it does in Canada, Britain, France and everywhere else with single-payer.

Kucinich wants to lower the retirement age to 65. He's obviously never done the math. Were he to accomplish such a thing, in 15-20 years time we'd have two options: huge increases in taxes, or end social security. Because the money won't be there. But what does Kucinich care, he'll be gone.

That's just some of it, about what I have time for right now. But trust me, the list goes on and on.

'James'-- 22.Aug.2003 16:33

i don't care, but you obviously do

neither of them will win.

but it's interesting that you and other "liberals" [whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean] keep busting blood vessels and getting your microscopic PC research down over the supposed 'importance' of electoral politics,

and the minute "differences" and allegiance to campaign claims which'll never be realized anyway by various candidates within the exact same One-Corporation-Under-God party.

p.s. who cares what Bu$h says--

anyone seen any Iraqi WMDs lately?
anyone seen any Iraqi WMDs lately?

'TrollKing' = zealot 22.Aug.2003 16:38

wake up

"coming off as the zealot you are."

--you're the one who favors capital punishment.

I am solely and simply pointing out the fact that

YOU,

'TrollKing'

ARE

IN

*****FAVOR*****

OF

THE

DEATH

PENALTY.

have I made myself perfectly clear, Sport?

Vote your conscience 22.Aug.2003 16:43

Portland Ponderer

Ok, here is something it seems most of you are forgetting: WE DO NOT ELECT THE PRESIDENT ANYWAY!!!

Sure, typically the electoral college goes along with whomever gets the most popular vote in the state, but I don't think they have to. It is much easier to do that than explain why you went against the public will, but not required to the best of my knowledge.

Ok, so what IS my point?

Instead of squabbling over who is better and who is most likely to oust Bush, remember this - he stole the last election through the Electoral College and some hanging chads.

Your vote for every office BUT president counts, so make all of those votes count.

For President? I propose voting for a Democrat or Republican only if you think they walk on water. otherwise, I advocate voting for the third party that mostlikely can take power from the "big two" parties or whomever you truly would want as president.

What wouldt he media say if during an election, a third party or write in candidate got more popular vote than the president? Think about how strongly that the message would resonate - "We do not like the choices offered us, politicians - you must do better."

The differences are only minute... 22.Aug.2003 16:50

James

...If you're a radical. These are the issues I care about, and Dean happens to share most of my views. (Of course, Dean still supports the continued prosecution of the "Drug War", the ending of which is the single most important issue to me. But I'll compromise on that for now).

Say what you will, but I don't believe I've been brainwashed, nor do I believe the corporations are controlling my life. I don't believe capitalism is wrong, and I don't think we need a Department of Peace.

You seem pretty disillusioned. That's unfortunate, but your dismissals won't sway me. I'll vote for who I think is the best candidate, all things considered. Bush-lite has a nice ring to it, but just repeating it like a mantra doesn't make it true.

Noam Chomsky's not running this year 22.Aug.2003 17:19

Jumbo

I don't get these pseudo-radicals who think they're above electoral politics. Sure Dean's in favor of the death penalty (but he recognizes the flaws in the system and would work to fix them) sure he's pro-Israel and anti-legailization (but he's for converting from a law enforcement to a public health perspective on the drug war). But do you people not understand how FUCKING IMPORTANT it is that George W. Bush not be re-elected. Do you think that convincing Trader Joes to stop selling genetically modified foods or yelling "fuck the corporate media" every time a KATU camera comes around is doing ANYTHING? AT ALL?? Name one anarchist victory over the great imperialist capitalist satan? Huh? Whatcha got? Is Mumia freed yet? Has the WTO started setting up organic food co-ops? Where's your fucking results? I'm sick of it. I'm playing to win this time and I'm playing to get rid of the evil, murderous liar who is occupying the White House. I don't think Howard Dean's a saint but when you give me "lefter-than thou" preachy nonsense, I start thinking maybe you think YOU'RE a saint. I'm sorry. It just really irks me when I hear self-righteous ideologues denouncing a half-way decent guy who actually has a chance to do something really good, i.e. beating George W. Bush in 2004. If you don't like the guy, don't vote for him. If you can come up with a vaguely logical explanation as to why supporting him is a terrible thing to do, let's hear it. Until then, just shut up and keep working on that whole revolution thing. I hear it's really coming along these days.

Vote Green in 04 22.Aug.2003 17:20

Green

The only way things will change is if we stop playing this Hitler-Mussolini game and start something new.

Yes, things will be bad, maybe horrifically bad - are they 'good' now? One liar after another? And now we don't even know if our vote even goes to the right person? We call this a democracy when you can't even get in sight of the president's car as he's wisked in to vaccuum up the rich people's money?

Notice the Democrats aren't making any big stink about the voting machine scandal. Gee, wonder why. Guess they wouldn't want to get on Diebold's bad side.

The democrats will be forever under the yoke of the same corporate interests as the republicans.

The Greens, the anarchists, the socialists, the peace and freedoms. When was the last time a newspaper covered any candidate from any of the other parties? Why do you allow these games to be played over and over?

We voted to keep Reagan out and lost, and thousands of central americans died.
We voted to keep Bush I out and got NAFTA, the FTAA, continued Iraq sanctions, more in prison than ever in history, etc.
We vote to keep Bush II out and get 10 years of occupation of Iraq with Howard Dean, the continued occupation of Palestine by Israel, and not a penny removed out of the military budget.

How many will die in Iraq over 10 years of occupation?

James is doing his best to take down Kucinich - the leader of progressive caucus in congress - and Kucinich has his faults. I may not vote for him. But if I were to vote for ANY democrat, it would be him. Why? Because he isn't lying like an SOB already, before the job has even started. And in fact, he's working to expose Dean's lies. Would he beat Bush?

Only corporate media decides that, because you're the one playing their game - Dean suckers!

Kucinich's exposing of Dean's lies 22.Aug.2003 17:39

James

Wait -- Kucinich is exposing Dean lies? Please point me towards it. I remember something about Kucinich repeating something brought up by Tim Russert -- An out of context quote from 1995, in which Dean mentions it might be necessary to raise the retirement age to 70 if we passed a balanced budget constitutional amendment. But that's all I'm aware of.

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/08/269427.shtml

Is that what you were talking about? Not much of an exposition. Sounds like grasping at straws to me.

no actually..... 22.Aug.2003 17:46

TrollKing

wake up wrote:

>I am solely and simply pointing out the fact that YOU, 'TrollKing' ARE IN *****FAVOR***** OF THE DEATH PENALTY. have I made myself perfectly clear, Sport?

not unless your whole point rests on my death penalty stance (which you are not quite right about anyway, since you make it sound like it's something i spend my time promoting).


oh wait.... that IS what your whole argument rests on.

well *that's* weak.

'how FUCKING IMPORTANT it is that George W. Bush not be re-elected' 22.Aug.2003 17:47

'Jumbo'--WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

he

*****WASN'T*****

elected!!!!!!!!!!!!!


REPEAT AFTER ME:

GEORGE

W.

BU$H

WAS

**********NOT**********

'ELECTED'.

the fucking country has been HIJACKED by a neoconservative cabal who were INSTALLED into the White House by a U.S. Supreme Court APPOINTMENT.

electoral politics are just window dressing--*especially* at the level of pResidential races.

DO

*****ANY*****

OF

YOU

realize the significance of this?!??!?!?!??????

the U.S. HAS *****BECOME***** one of the "banana republics" it has for so long supported--

with assistance from the pResident's own brother in Florida, and their Cabal's many other ties in the political, business, and organized crime networks.

2002 was a complete JOKE--MUCH WORSE than 2000--concerning overall turnout, measured and tallied results from individual races, and media coverage.

you think its going to get *better*?????????????

 http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

 http://libertyandjusticeforall.ws/VoteFraud.htm

Aviel Rubin called allegations by Bev Harris that the Diebold software may have been *designed* to facilitate fraud "ludicrous"--because his team NEVER EVEN EXAMINED the Diebold software in question. Incredibly, this software keeps not one, but two Microsoft Access data tables of voting results--like a business keeping two sets of account books. The two tables are notionally identical copies of the votes collated from all polling stations. The first table is for on-demand reports which might uncover alteration of the data--such as spot checks of results from individual polling stations. The second table is used to determine the election result--but it can be hacked and altered to produce fake election totals without affecting spot check reports derived from the first table.
 http://www.gulufuture.com/diebold_scoop.htm

For the straight dope on Diebold, go to the people who got the scoop!
 http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00198.htm

Over 50 Links to Electronic Voting Machine Fraud & Rigged Vote-Counting
 http://www.linkcrusader.com/vote_machines.htm

The Stealing of America
 http://www.votescam.com/

Voting In The New World Order
 http://www.govsux.com/voting.htm

. . . Bu$h not be PRE-Selected
. . . Bu$h not be PRE-Selected

JUMBO IS RIGHT ON! 22.Aug.2003 17:49

GIRL

Jumbo, you know what's up. Maybe you should start organizing some Rallys to get Bush out in 2004.

Thanks!

..... 22.Aug.2003 17:50

TrollKing

Portland Ponderer wrote:

>What wouldt he media say if during an election, a third party or write in candidate got more popular vote than the president?

well, they'd probably say "and hell reached 20 degrees below zero today... a new record!"

>Think about how strongly that the message would resonate - "We do not like the choices offered us, politicians - you must do better."

yes, that would indeed be a great message. hell, i'll go one further and say it *is* a great message. but it's still damn unlikely.

'TrollKing' 22.Aug.2003 17:53

wake up

"what your whole argument rests on"

I *****DON'T HAVE***** an argument.

I am solely and simply pointing out the fact that

YOU,

'TrollKing'

ARE

IN

*****FAVOR*****

OF

THE

DEATH

PENALTY.

have I--AGAIN--made myself perfectly clear, Sport?

Okay, I think we get it, 'wake-up' 22.Aug.2003 18:00

James

'Wake-up' -- If you don't have an argument, then why exactly is it that you're spamming this thread with superfluous nonsense? TrollKing already pointed out himself that he supports the death penalty. I won't speak for others, but I think I caught his drift without the help of your line-dropping emphatic ramblings. You needn't point out what others have already made perfectly clear. Lest this become a very large thread.

tell me something 22.Aug.2003 18:02

questioning accomplishments

What has voting for democrats accomplished? The deaths of 1.5 million Iraqis? The bombing of multiple countries? Allowing corporate globalization to hurt workers domestically and abroad? To support the continuing lack of health care, education, and social services in this country? Welfare reform?

What are the great accomplishments of the democrats to convince anyone it's worth taking the time to vote for them?

As much as I don't want to listen to the democrats blaming everyone and everything but the real reasons for their loss or the republicans smug self-righteousness I think it may be time to organize people to vote for Bush. Because with 4 more years of Bush, this country will be ready for a revolution, and maybe people will be less fearful of that prospect when that time comes.

It's time to wake up and realize that what hasn't worked in the past is not likely to work in the future. Howard Dean is not the Messiah, he's just another politician who will say whatever it takes to get elected. Vote for him if you want; try to win, if that's what's important to you. I think there are a lot of things more important than "winning" and I know many people who feel the same way.

Young radical's temper tantrums 22.Aug.2003 18:02

Mom (that is what my kids call me)

Young radicals, God bless you, but you really are not going to make one iota of difference with your pathetic little temper tantrums in the street. We had radicals in the 60's that put you to shame. We had the civil rights, anti-Vietnam war, environment, women's, peace & love movements all going on at the same time. We had leaders who were articulate and could really lead. We had marches of 100's of thousands. We rioted. We were not afraid of a few riot cops with tear gas and MACE (much worse than pepper spray). You know what came of all that? You still go to jail for smoking a joint and the establishment is more rooted in than ever.

What to do? Keep up the good fight, but you are going to have to get a whole lot smarter and effective than you have been so far.

What else? We are still stuck in the "system" where votes usually do count. Talk to your friends and get them to vote. A big enough majority cannot be thwarted by the Supreme Court. Figure out which vote is going to get Bush OUT of office and go for it.

oh brother.... 22.Aug.2003 18:03

TrollKing

wake up wrote:

>I *****DON'T HAVE***** an argument. I am solely and simply pointing out the fact that YOU, 'TrollKing' ARE
>IN *****FAVOR***** OF THE DEATH PENALTY.

so what? shit or get off the pot.

Exclamation points aren't helping anything 22.Aug.2003 18:07

Jumbo

I'm awake, I'm awake! I get it. I read Greg Palast too, jerk-off. What do you want me to do about it? Buy me an AK-47 and I'll go assasinate Antonin Scalia if you want me to. (Just kidding Mr. Ashcroft.) Okay, so let's say we go wake up everybody else. What's that going to do? Until further notice there is still an election scheduled for 2004 which a Democrat could still win. All your asterixes and exclamation points don't impress me. I say voting still matters, you say it doesn't. Fine. But I'll totally support your People's Liberation Army if you're planning on doing something besides whining about 3-year old stale crimes. Set up a website and as soon as your guerrilla army liberates a single town, I'll send you a donation. Why can't you support me in my delusional quest to get Howard Dean elected president? How are our goals incompatible?

The latest on Dean, from Vermonter Scott Huminski 22.Aug.2003 18:12

Fred

IS HOWARD DEAN A CRIMINAL TOO?
by SCOTT HUMINSKI Friday August 22, 2003 at 04:06 AM
 s_huminski@hotmail.com

Dean's appointment of Vermont Attorney General Sorrell and Sorrell's criminal violation of civil rights law and bribery cover-up.

Dean is quite impressed with Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell. He appointed him Attorney General in the late 1990's to fill a vacancy and then Sorrell was his # 1 choice for CHIEF JUSTICE of the Vermont Supreme Court. Sorrell was removed from consideration because he had no judicial experience. Good try Dean. A google search on "Howard Dean William Sorrell" speaks volumes. A vote for Dean is a vote to appoint William Sorrell to a very high federal position as Dean will take this unusually close associate with him. US Attorney General maybe?

 http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean0702/freyneint.html
 http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/68525.html
 http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/66910.html
 http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102%257E8860%257E1089066,00.html
 http://www.state.vt.us/atg/vtag.htm


After Dean's judges had been enjoined for 2 years from interfering in my access to Vermont Courthouses, Sorrell engineered a plan to re-banish me. The banishment lasted one month before the federal court woke up and re-placed an injunction on Dean's judicial appointees once again. Google search on "Scott Huminski First Amendment". The story is all there from the Associated Press, the Freedom Forum, First Amendment Cyber Tribune and many others.

 http://www.benningtonbanner.com/Stories/0,1413,104~8678~831060,00.html

Courthouse access is a first amendment right according to US Supreme Court Precedent. See Press-Enterprise cases. Sorrell's conduct last year constitutes criminal violation of federal civil rights law. See federal law below. They say birds of a feather flock together. Is Dean a criminal too, or just a very poor judge of character. Either way there should be concern.

By the way, Sorrell is currently busy covering-up the acceptance of a bribes by two Vermont Prosecutors, William Wright and John Lavoie. This fact stands undisputed before the United State Second Circuit Court of Appeals in NYC, # 03-7036. Unfortunately it's not online, but, I will email court pleadings to any interested parties.

Another Dean item... .
 http://www.counterpunch.org/frank08122003.html


Scott Huminski

UNITED STATES CODE Title 18

Sec. 241. - Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death

Sec. 242. - Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death

thank you, 'questioning accomplishments'-- 22.Aug.2003 18:18

wake up

FINALLY someone on this comment thread reveals common sense.

Jumbo 22.Aug.2003 18:20

mom

Why not Kucinich: Kucinich can't appeal to enough voters to win in 2004. Howard's chances are better. That's really the bottom line. I like Dennis, but he's the Gary Bauer of the Democratic party, a true-believer who'll never make it in the mainstream. If you ignore his politics for a second, take a look at his (admittedly shallow but REAL) negatives:

-Short, impish and weak looking

-Hard to pronounce, spell, and remember name

-I believe he's living with his girlfriend and has a child out of wedlock

-His highest elected office was US representative.

-He can't fundraise like the big boys.

Convincing America to vote for Dennis Kucinich is about as tough as convincing Indymedia people that abortion is immoral and Jesus Christ is their personal lord and savior. Some would say it's a fight worth fighting, I think it's futile and a waste of time and energy.

My question for Kucinich supporters has always been, if Kucinich, why not Al Sharpton? He's got just as much labor/ anti-war street cred and he has a much larger potential base.

Questioning your sanity... 22.Aug.2003 18:31

Jumbo

Wow. Four more years of Bush and then the revolution comes? Great. So that means more brown people in foreign countries get to die just so you'll get a chance to die when Bush crushes your little rebellion. Thanks, dude, but I don't have a death wish and I'd appreciate it if you kept your sociopathic strategy to yourself. Have you ever read a history book? Was there a sucessful revolt against Stalin? Hitler? Milosevic? In the 60's did the SDS ever occupy Congress? Did the Black Panthers ever get any power to give to the people? You are delusional and I hope your revolutionary activities stay confined to bonghits and internet message boards.

Question for all Dean Dreamers 22.Aug.2003 18:40

wake up

why do you guys even CARE about Dean at this time?

if the issue is beating Bu$h through 'voting' in Selection November 2004 (which i personally don't have any logical problem with--it's just that circumstantial events and results of the last two "elections" don't bode well at all for Bu$h's loss, no matter how excited you get about a particular Democrap),

why doesn't everyone just WAIT UNTIL THE DEMOCRAPS HAVE MADE THEIR NOMINATION,

(which they *will* end up doing no matter how much hullaballoo about primaries and rooting for "front-runners"--by that time it's a DONE-2 candidate-deal)

and then get behind whoever that is?

all this fuss @ August 2003 makes no sense whatsoever.

p.s. the Democraps and Republicons are two heads of the same beast.
 http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/plutocracy/MarketElections.html


Does it stand undisputed? 22.Aug.2003 18:43

James

"By the way, Sorrell is currently busy covering-up the acceptance of a bribes by two Vermont Prosecutors, William Wright and John Lavoie. This fact stands undisputed before the United State Second Circuit Court of Appeals in NYC, # 03-7036. Unfortunately it's not online, but, I will email court pleadings to any interested parties."

There is only one case cited in Lexis Nexis which matches that Docket Number, and I will reproduce it in full below. Please show me, Fred, where it says anything remotely similar to what you claim it does. This seems like more FUD, to me.

"2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 13749, *

Kenneth Webster, Appellant v. National American Indian Housing Council, Appellee

No. 03-7036

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 13749


July 3, 2003, Filed

NOTICE: [*1] RULES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.

PRIOR HISTORY: 00cv03034.

COUNSEL: KENNETH WEBSTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Manchester, NH.

For NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL, Defendant - Appellee: Joseph V. Kaplan, Passman & Kaplan, Washington, DC.

OPINION: ORDER

By order filed May 21, 2003, appellant was directed to file certain submissions by June 20, 2003. Appellant received and signed for the order on June 3, 2003. To date, the court is not in receipt of any submissions from appellant. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that this case be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See D.C. Cir. Rule 38.

The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate herein 30 days from the date of this order."

Answer for Wake-up 22.Aug.2003 18:59

jumbo

If left to their own devices the Dems would nominate a pro-Iraq, pro-tax cut, anti-health care candidate like Joe Lieberman. By getting support behind Dean (or Kucinich, good luck guys) early on we improve his chances of being the nominee. A lot of people pick thier candidates based on buzz and fundraising ability. If we hadn't been supporting Dean so much and so sucessfully, John Kerry or Joe Lieberman would currently be the front-runner and defacto nominee. Dean's using this national grass roots support to effect the early primaries in Iowa and NH by having supporters from across the country write hand written letters to NH and Iowa primary voters. That's why. You see, we're actively working and doing things now to get Bush defeated in '04. These things have produced real, tangible results in the polls and Dean's fundraising numbers. These things will actually help produce the majority required to remove Bush from office here on planet earth. And I love hearing an anarchist (or whatever you are) denouncing Dean supporters for "dreaming".

'jumbo', or 'Jumbo'????---RE: Dems Own Devices, Lieberman 22.Aug.2003 19:11

but 'James' said:

"If anyone doesn't have a chance at the nomination, it's Lieberman. He's dead in the water. He can't raise money, he gets little press compared to Dean (He only gets press when he attacks Dean), and he'll be lucky if he can get 10% of the activists who actually vote in primaries to make their mark next to his name.

Lieberman never stood a chance. The media mystifyingly placed him as a front-runner candidate early, as he had name recognition from Gore-Lieberman 2000, but once people figured out Lieberman was a deep-cover Republican, they fled.

His poll numbers in N.H. are now hovering around 4-6%. In Iowa they're only slightly better. Nationally he's hemorrhaging too."

Hey Mom, this mom (lower case) supports Kucinich 22.Aug.2003 19:57

mom - the Kucinicn supporter

Since we are both on as mom (Mom) I' don't use capitals --- you did until your last post--
I asked a question/ got some response, then you came on as mom instead of Mom.
some folks know me. thanks for being consistent .
or do folks ususally take each other's tags on this site?
I'll change if I have to ---

Read 22.Aug.2003 20:06

Fred

"Unfortunately it's not online, but, I will email court pleadings to any interested parties."

You'll have to email Scott for that, James. And since you're foaming at the mouth in the hopes of a Dean nomination, I'm sure it's not bother for you to email Scott and get the story straight.

He recently contributed research to a story on Counterpunch on Dean. You might look there some time and see who you're really supporting.

Young radical's temper tantrums 22.Aug.2003 20:14

Mother (Mom)

God I hate it when you type out a long well written message and this thing drops it on the floor!

What I wanted to say was you you young "radicals" have not a clue how ineffectual you are. I lived thru a much more powerful "revolution" in the 60's where we really fought for our convictions. We had HUGE marches of 100's of thousands. We took tear gas and MACE (much worse than pepper spray)and kept on going. We had articulate and intellegent leaders. We rioted and burned. We were shot at and killed by government troups.

You know what? We did not hardly get a damned thing done. You still cannot so much as smoke a joint without going to jail.

The MAN is so much stronger today.

So, keep up the good fight. I support you. The world needs people of heart and conscionce.

AND if enough of us vote we can kick Bush out of office. There is presently nothing more important than that. Dean is realistically the only one with a prayer.

Oh, I guess it did get published... 22.Aug.2003 20:39

Mom (that is what my kids call me)

I see my thoughts were recorded before. Oops. I made a mistake. It is Friday night and you know what us old hippies like to do besides provoke you young wannabes. :-)~

Jumbo 22.Aug.2003 20:45

And your point is?

That's right. Lieberman's not going to win because Howard Dean will. Lieberman's still polling high nationally (though dropping like a rock), Kerry still has more money, and Gephardt is leading in some Iowa polls and gaining union support. John Edwards still has lots of money and is positioning himself as the up and coming moderate. All of these men are DLC candidates who voted for the Iraq resolution. None of them will win the nomination thanks to the efforts of Dean supporters.

Lexis Nexis != Online 22.Aug.2003 20:50

James

...Well, it does, but in the traditionally understood sense. It has every court case and record filed within the past couple of weeks, going back to the 1700's. While it is also available online, it's a subscription service (or pay by document), used by lawyers and journalists (and anyone else interested) for research.

Rest assured -- I emailed Scott. If I hear back, I'll certainly post any supporting documents sent to me. But I wonder why it is Mr. Huminski didn't send supporting documents along to Counterpunch.org, or some similar organization, when he initally wrote those comments?

"Political" focus is misguided--how 'bout a Paradigm Shift? 22.Aug.2003 20:58

wake up

one other hot tip for all you Democraps--

and even for Mother (Mom) and other veteran radicals who may be a separate group--

is:

QUIT

FOCUSING

ON

THE

(especially American 'two-party' electoral style, which is an illusion anyway)

"POLITICS".

it's wiser to FOLLOW THE MONEY,

meaning:

find out who the CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS are behind a particular (not necessarily political candidate, but any type) campaign or agenda.

not to endorse Ralph Nader directly (I personally have specific problems with him and many of his offshoot organizations), but . . . one of his primary strategies from the beginning has been to focus on CORPORATE POWER and its influence on capitalism, consumer society, politics and officeholders in *every* country, mass media, etc. BTW which Democrap did Nader endorse this time after bowing out . . .?

even something as diffuse and shadowy as the "neocon political think tank" Project for a New American Century  http://www.newamericancentury.org has corporate oil strategies (which include domination of crude oil *currency trading markets* along with the oil reserve resources themselves) behind its stated goals--and of course, representative CEOs in its own membership. they started out in the early 1990s writing letters to Clinton about taking out Saddam--lo and behold, looky where they are today . . .

as long as you play the electoral two-party politics game the way *they* want you to,

continuing to only endorse, organise and vote for the "electable", "appealing", "winnable" candidates,

we're doomed.


blah blab blah zounding off 22.Aug.2003 21:32

fotzepolitic

way to go portland on giving bushknacker the finger

anyone else think counterpunch is like an anarchist tabloid with slightly higher standards than the usual tabloids? just asking.

*I've enumerated my complaints about Kucinich many times. Some of them you'll certainly disagree with, some of them I think you'll agree with me about.

Kucinich is anti-choice. He claims not to be now, but he's kidding you. In the 105th and 106th congressional sessions, he scored a 90% and 95% from the National Right to Life Council. Do you really -- really -- think Kucinich had some awakening on this issue at the very moment he decided to run for President? Talk about digging your head into the sand -- Kucinich has never supported choice in his life. He's a devout Catholic. At the core of his religion is the idea that life begins at conception, that a soul comes down from that place of "soul-light magic" into the new child, breathing life into it. He is anti-choice. Think about this double standard for a bit: We have Fred here at PDXIMC (and Kucinich on his website) criticizing Dean for once saying in 1995 that we should raise the retirement age to 70 -- and then later changing his mind. Yet Kucinich has always, in nearly every last possible instance, voted against choice. But now the activists here just blindly accept that he's pro-choice.

Kucinich is not pro-peace. He's just kowtowing. He voted for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which was the exact same thing as the 2002 Use of Force authorization, just a different name. The only reason he's so vocally anti-war now is because he hates Bush -- it has nothing to do with any moral conviction. If it did, he wouldn't have voted to bomb innocent Iraqis in 1998 to "free" them.

That's fine. I'm glad he opposed the war in 2002. I just wish the activists here would take a look at his record and realize he's not the "peace" candidate they think he is. Dean at least lets his opinion be known: He supported Afghanistan, but not Iraq.

Kucinich voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. Think about that. It's nuts. The leader of the Progressive Caucus voted to ban flag burning -- an important method/symbol of political dissent. This was not some off-the-wall comment he made in 1982. It was a recent vote in the U.S. Congress.

He's "tough on crime". He voted for terrible, increased sentencing statutes while in Congress -- which would allow courts to put thirteen year olds in adult prisons for the remainder of their natural lives. Dean is every bit as "tough on crime" as Kucinich is, and it's one of the things I dislike about him. I realize that -- it weighs on my decision for both of them.

Kucinich is wishy-washy. Look at his voting record: He's constantly flip-flopping. I want a determined leader in the White House, someone who can make up their mind. I don't want a zigzagging domestic and foreign policy.

Kucinich voted to militarize the U.S. border in 2000. He wanted to put U.S. marines on the border with Mexico -- what, so they can shoot immigrants as they try and cross into our country?

I strongly support free trade. I know most here don't. But I do. I don't want a protectionist U.S. economic policy. (Talk about nationalism -- protectionism is the natural economic manifestation of nationalism, and I seriously doubt many here would identify themselves as nationalists).

I don't support Kyoto. Even if global warming exists as a human caused condition, of which I'm not convinced, Kytoto will hardly make a dent in carbon emissions. All it will do is move dirty industry to the Third World.

I think Kucinich's single-payer universal health care would be God-awful. The quality of care will inevitably stink, just as it does in Canada, Britain, France and everywhere else with single-payer.

Kucinich wants to lower the retirement age to 65. He's obviously never done the math. Were he to accomplish such a thing, in 15-20 years time we'd have two options: huge increases in taxes, or end social security. Because the money won't be there. But what does Kucinich care, he'll be gone.

That's just some of it, about what I have time for right now. But trust me, the list goes on and on. *

James LOVE IT LOVE IT LOVE IT!!! YOU ROCK!

i bow to your greatness in explaining why dennyboy is NOT THE MAN TO WASTE VOTES ON and why most folks in this country won't be wasting their vote on him.

now, i have a question for you all smart politician junkies. i heard a rumor that there's a shitload of redistricting going on ( aside from the fiasco in Texas ) all across this country. any credence to the rumor? and does this mean the repubs are trying to hijack the electoral system or am i understanding redistricting incorrectly? i thought districts were supposed to be equal amounts of people? and aren't there laws against gerrymandering? if i'm not wrong, why the fuck aren't we all questioning this shit as well? how come we are sitting on this forum instead of writing our wobbleycrats in office? just asking.

Forget Polls. Remember volunteer numbers 22.Aug.2003 22:24

Realpolitiker

Amid the sound, the fury, the polls, and the speculations above, what really counts is volunteers/supporters of the various candidates of all parties. That involves the numbers not of who SAYS s/he is going to vote for this or that candidate (or tapping a computer key for MoveOn), but how many get in the car, go to a meetup for 3 hours. That involves effort, time. And they usually then talk up the candidate to family, friends, coworkers. Check the Meetup numbers of each candidate, beginning now. Here are the numbers for last Sunday:

Candidate Meetup Members
Sunday, August 17, 2003, 9 p.m. (EST)

8/17Meetup 8/12Meetup
Candidate Membership Membership Gain

Dean 86,696 82,610 4,086


Kerry 8,809 8,562 247


Kucinich 8,329 7,675 654


Clark 8,156 7,189 967


Edwards 1,201 1,187 14


Graham 481 426 55


Gephardt 427 420 7


Lieberman 252 232 20


Sharpton 82 81 1


Moseley-Braun Still No Meetups 29 0


Total Against Bush 113,362 108,382 6,080
____________________________

Bush 972 930 42


Nader 131 122 9

________

to 'Realpolitiker'-- 22.Aug.2003 22:32

blah

"what really counts is volunteers/supporters of the various candidates of all parties"

yep,

that sure "counted" in 2000,

and in 2002,

didn't it?

exactly the response I was expecting 22.Aug.2003 22:34

questioning accomplishments

>> Have you ever read a history book?
Many in fact.

>> Was there a sucessful revolt against Stalin? Hitler? Milosevic?
No, but neither were any of these men voted out of office, were they?

>> Did the Black Panthers ever get any power to give to the people?
Yes, through their various community activities and programs they did give power the people.

>> So that means more brown people in foreign countries
Newsflash, many more "brown people" died as a result of US policy under Clinton than under our last 3 republican presidents, perhaps combined, depending on what you consider the direct result of US policy. And Dean has not said he would end the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, or the war on drugs. What are people going to magically not be killed by US soldiers because Dean is president?

But Jumbo, don't think that I don't support you in your efforts, but I don't support you telling people to shut up who don't agree with you. I thought you might want to know why people will not be choosing to vote for Dean. If you're so keen on getting Dean elected, maybe you should talk to his campaign about issues that people are raising.

As to mom, I can't quite follow your contradictory statements. You say that marching in the sixties had no effect but you think that voting for Dean will? Let me ask you what effect voting had on furthering the civil rights movement or on ending the Vietnam war? The track record of democratic presidents for the past 4 decades is not particular remarkable in any sense. So now everything is magically going to be better because Bush is out of office? I admit, Bush is a symbol, and his defeat may lead to some good as people with progressive ideas realize once again that they are in the majority. But I can't help but look at Clinton's legacy and wonder how a centrist democrat is going to do anything but cause a lot of people to become pacified and defend the lies and murders of *their* president the way Bush supporters do today, and Clinton supporters did before that.

As for the establishment being stronger, don't you think that the democrats have had as much role in that as the republicans? There have been almost as many years under republican presidents and democrat presidents since 1960 so don't you think the democrats have as much responsibility for where things are today? Do you think that democrats have shown any indication that they have any desire to do anything but increase the power of the establishment? They certainly haven't done anything to prevent people from going to jail for smoking a joint.

These are important things to be thinking about. If we have another 4 or 8 years like Clinton will you continue to say it's ok because at least we got rid of Bush? Or should you consider another rationale, that it's easier to work for further progress if the push towards fascism is at least slowed. That would be my argument for Dean, especially if I was trying to convince non-democrats and disillusioned democrats.

James, you're wrong on Kucinich 22.Aug.2003 22:46

Fred

"why dennyboy is NOT THE MAN TO WASTE VOTES ON"

I'm sorry, but this person is either under 12, or a right-winger.

Kucinich did not vote to authorize the BOMBING of Iraq. He was at the forefront of criticism against the bombing. Dean supported military action in Afghanistan.

"-the Ohioan thundered, "We did not authorize an eye for an eye. Nor did we ask that the blood of innocent people, who perished on September 11, be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan. We did not authorize the Administration to wage war anytime, anywhere, anyhow it pleases. We did not authorize war without end. We did not authorize a permanent war economy. Yet we are upon the threshold of a permanent war economy.
. . . For Kucinich, a former Cleveland mayor who led Democratic opposition to the US bombing of Yugoslavia and proposed establishing a Cabinet-level Department of Peace, speaking out against military adventuring is not new.
. . . "For most people, Kucinich's speech represents the clearest Congressional criticism they have heard about the conduct of the war, and of the Administration's plans to expand it. That's enormously significant," said Midge Miller, who helped launch Senator Eugene McCarthy's antiwar challenge to President Lyndon Johnson in 1967."
 http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0308-01.htm

April 25, 2002
On Stopping Open-ended, Permanent War on Terrorism
By Rep Dennis Kucinich
On Saturday, thousands of American citizens gathered in Washington, DC to challenge the open-ended war the United States is now waging. They are right to do so, and the broader American public would do well to listen
 http://www.counterpunch.org/kucinich0425.html


But here's Dean's opinion in the Russert Interview:

"MR. RUSSERT: Let's talk about the military budget. How many men and women would you have on active duty?

DR. DEAN: . . . I supported the president's invasion of Afghanistan for the obvious reasons, what had gone on and the murder of people. But I do not support what the president's doing there now."
 http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~gabriel/dean2004blog/Dean_MTP_June_22_2003.htm

DEAN EXPLICITLY SAYS HE SUPPORTED THE INVASION. It doesn't get any more clear than that.

Kucinich states:   "We did not authorize the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan."

"Our Congress gave the President the ability to respond to the tragedy of September 11. We licensed a response to those who helped bring the terror of September 11. But we the people and our elected representatives must reserve the right to measure the response, to proportion the response, to challenge the response, and to correct the response.

Because we we did not authorize the invasion of Iraq
   We did not authorize the invasion of Iran.
We did not authorize the invasion of North Korea.
   We did not authorize the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan.
We did not authorize permanent detainees in Guantanamo Bay.
   We did not authorize the withdrawal from the Geneva Convention.
We did not authorize military tribunals suspending due process and habeas corpus.
   We did not authorize assassination squads.
We did not authorize the resurrection of COINTELPRO.
   We did not authorize the repeal of the Bill of Rights.
We did not authorize the revocation of the Constitution.
   We did not authorize national identity cards.
We did not authorize the eye of Big Brother to peer from cameras throughout our cities.
   We did not authorize an eye for an eye.
Nor did we ask that the blood of innocent people, who perished on September 11, be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan.
   We did not authorize the administration to wage war anytime, anywhere, anyhow it pleases.
We did not authorize war without end.
   We did not authorize a permanent war economy."
 http://www.afsc.org/central/ia/ju0201.htm

Kucinich also filed a lawsuit against Bush over the withdrawal from the ABM treaty. Has Dean done anything REMOTELY like this?

Didn't think so. So stop trying to claim that the Head of the Progressive Caucus in Congress is not for peace - you're flat out wrong.

RE: wake up and "Paradigm Shift" posting 22.Aug.2003 23:39

Portland Ponderer

Thank you and Mom (at least that's what my kids call me) for posting thoughtful, insightful and planned responses on here. I agree wholeheartedly that while rabble rousing is all well and good, real change must come from other routes. Personally, from what I have seen so far and know so far (this is open to change if someone impresses me more, or disappoints me) I am leaning toward my first ever presidential vote going to a major party candidate. This is not because I anm going for a "lesser of evils" or rabid desire to see Bush crying in his beer (he REALLY should start drinking again, I would laugh my ass off to see a piccy of that!)

Think
Deliberate
Plan
Act with your heart and mind as guide!

Okay, it was a strawman to begin with (mea culpa) 22.Aug.2003 23:58

James

...Because Kucinich is the most peaceful of the candidates. I didn't mean to say Dean was more the pacifist. Clearly he's not. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.

But more importantly, the Liberation Act is not the "exact same thing" as the use of force authorization, as I said earlier. I didn't do the source research, that snippet I actually gleaned from the RNC of all organizations a couple weeks ago when I re-examined Kucinich. Their material was very misleading, which I now see reading the actual text of the Liberation Act. The source probably should have tipped my hat, but it didn't. The Liberation Act, which Kucinich voted for, actually provides the authority for the U.S. president to arm groups within Iraq, but explicitly precludes the direct use of the U.S. military.

So as you said, I'm flat out wrong. I guess there's not any other way to put it. I'm not sure how much it changes my opinion of Kucinich. I'll probably have to think about it for a few days.

The main theme of my arguments against Kucinich is one of indecision. That's based on many issues, but my misconception of the Liberation Act certainly weighed heavy. It's hard to re-evaluate something once you've come to a decision though, so I'll have to sleep on it.

But to the best of my knowledge, the rest of what I said is accurate.

As for the ABM Treaty -- It was a bad treaty to begin with. Missile defense is a fantastic goal. I'm not sure Hit-to-Kill is going to work, but it's worth a shot. If we can get a working system -- whatever it turns out to be -- missile *defense* is clearly a better solution that *mututally assured destruction*. The argument against withdrawing from the ABM Treaty is that it'd create a new arms race, to defeat any usefulness provided by the ABM system. That hasn't happened, and I don't see it happening. China was already stepping-up ballistic missile production. North Korea was already working on new designs. The Russians don't have the money to do it, and they don't have the political need.

The ABM Treaty 23.Aug.2003 08:39

Fred

"The argument against withdrawing from the ABM Treaty is that it'd create a new arms race, to defeat any usefulness provided by the ABM system. That hasn't happened, and I don't see it happening."

Well, I guess you might know and understand the situation better than fifty-one American Nobel Laureates in the sciences, but then again, what if you're wrong?

From a purely diplomatic point of view, the argument is this: "we are taking an action almost universally opposed by our allies."

Just like Iraq, eh? And now the UN HR head has had to pay with his life and we all have a huge mess on our hands. Do we know more than ALL of our allies? Is our technology that far superior to everyone else on the planet?

But from a purely scientific point of view, the argument is this: "The inherent advantages of the offense exceed the advantages of superior American technology."

And like the acne-faced teenage hackers have shown us this week, the best US technology can be undermined in a heartbeat. Did you know that the multibillion $US Navy Intranet had to be taken offline because of the latest worms? Picture the worms starting up just as we're about to use our so-called 'missle defense' system . . .

And just an aside, my aunt took an interest in this issue and kept on track of the man at MIT who was willing to speak out against the accuracy of the testing, since he was involved in it. She sent me a few hand-clipped newspaper articles showing how he was really harrassed by US intelligence. I'm not sure if he even still has his job. They really did a number on him just for speaking out. This is very hardcore stuff.


Thursday, December 13, 2001
ABM Treaty Withdrawal an Attack on American Security
Statement by the Federation of American Scientists
For more information, contact Michael Levi at 202-454-4684 or  mlevi@fas.org.

The Bush Administration's decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty is both unnecessary and unwise. It is ironic that as we rediscover the need for international cooperation, we are taking an action almost universally opposed by our allies. And our allies are not the only ones who support the ABM treaty: Scientists are nearly unanimous in calling national missile defense unworkable. It is distressing that President Bush has chosen to listen to the demagoguery of missile-defense enthusiasts instead of to the wisdom of America's brightest scientists.

In a letter to Congress sent a month ago, fifty-one American Nobel Laureates in the sciences, addressing the technical feasibility of NMD, wrote: "While 'hitting a bullet with a bullet' under laboratory conditions is feasible, it is far more difficult to design a system that can survive and provide effective protection against a surprise attack that employs varying countermeasures, some of which may surprise the defense. The inherent advantages of the offense exceed the advantages of superior American technology."

President Bush has lost focus on where his priorities should be. The President must invest at least as much energy into securing loose nuclear materials as he has into pushing missile defense. If not, at the end of this road we will find terrorists with nuclear weapons.

We must remember, however, that the declaration is merely one of intent - America has not yet actually withdrawn from the ABM treaty. The next six months will be crucial in determining America's future security. FAS urges Congress to act vigorously against ABM treaty withdrawal. FAS also calls on Russia, China, and other states to renew their commitments to multilateral arms control and nonproliferation.

America has always sought to lead the world by example. Yet if other countries were to follow the example we have just set, the framework of international law would disintegrate.

President Bush has just released NMD's first shot, and it has landed squarely in the heart of American security.

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

Scientists who built the first atomic bomb founded the Federation of American Scientists in 1945. More than half of the current American Nobel Laureates today serve on the FAS Board of Sponsors. FAS conducts research, analysis, and advocacy on public policy issues created by advances in science and technology (see www.fas.org).

wow. you 60's hippies really *do* know it all. 23.Aug.2003 10:30

--

I wonder how you got such a nasty reputation?

wow. you 60's hippies really *do* know it all. 23.Aug.2003 18:44

Love beads and bald

Real hippies kick wannabe hippies ass.

Anytime, mofo.

(ha ha, just kidding. where's my bong?)