portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

political theory

The Bush Empire, or the Dean Empire. How to Decide?

I get the feeling that the Dean bloggers are turning their attention to this site in expectation of his arrival. The comments being made in support of Dean are shallow and often flat out untrue. In my opinion, comments on this site have more depth than the foaming-at-the-mouth pro-Dean postings I've seen in the past couple of days. And other postings about Dean in recent weeks haven't gotten nearly as much attention. In the past, James has been the main, if not virtually the only person, defending Dean. Q - Is resistance futile?
The other night I went to a talk by Art and Revolution's David Solnit in Berkeley, where he was giving a slide show of the many many protests he's been a part of throughout his life. While he was showing slides, talking about the current and future state of the US, he mentioned a couple of NYTimes Magazine features he'd seen, the first one being something like 'Empire, Get Used to It,' and the next one being "What Sort of Empire Do We Want?' which asked if we want a rabid right wing empire, or a kinder gentler empire, as we could expect to get under the Democrats. David Solnit, who has worked for the past 20 years organizing in the streets all over the world, spoke about this in dissapointment, the idea that we'll get empire either way, and the idea of examining what the meaning is of a vote in 2004.

Think about it in the context of Dean. The Dean Empire.

Dean wants to commit troops to Iraq for 10 years. Even Bush has never said anything like this. How many hundreds of thousands will be dead by 2013, as we screw a tighter and tighter cap onto dissent in the middle east?

Dean supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Both Dean and Kucinich say they didn't approve of what happened after the invasion, but Dean wants more and more troops in there, too. Dean supporters will argue that Dean has called for multilateral and UN involvement. However, the UN involvement should be around ENDING OCCUPATION, not continuing it in order to build McMiddle East under the guise of the UN. Ending an occupation that occurred only months ago should NOT take 10 years. Simply saying the words 'mulit-lateral' and 'UN' are meaningless when you already have your strategy in place and are simply going to fill in the details with those two groups, as Bush is doing now.

Dean sees the Palestinians as 'terrorists,' not occupied resistors, and so a fundamantal flaw is exposed - Dean seems to have no idea of what happens when a country or a people is occupied and forced to take on the values of another culture. How can we expect to ever wean Israel off of the billions and billions of dollars the US funds them with if the new leader of the US empire sees their neighbors as terrorists? And in fact, Dean has no intention of changing that situation. He won't touch the miiitary budget. As Kucinich has said, how on earth can someone be for peace when they have said they won't touch the military budget, which NEEDS WAR TO EXIST? Why has Dean ALREADY sold out to the biggest and most powerful lobby machine in the US? To win, of course. That will be the Dean blogger's rationalization. And Dean has shown he'll do anything to win. EVEN BUSH did not come out this far rightt in support of AIPAC during his campaign. What can we expect when Dean is clinging so blantantly and biasedly to the most right wing faction of the Middle East situation - BEFORE the elections have even happened???

I really don't even have to compare Dean to Kucinich anymore, but to Bush, as he's getting closer and closer to the right.

August 22, 2003
The Longer We Stay, the Deeper They Will Hate Us
The Darkening Tunnel
By RON JACOBS

"What kind of idiots do they take us for? They lied to get us into their war (and about the consequences) and now they expect us to believe that a few hundred thousand more of our boys and girls in uniform sweating in the desert sun with their fingers on the trigger of their automatic weapons will get the results the Pentagon wants? For those of you who dont know the routine: this is what the Pentagon always says. The war on Vietnam was started with only a few thousand GIs. Then, when the Vietnamese resistance refused to roll over and die--choosing instead to attack US and other foreign troops at will--we were told that more troops were needed to accomplish Washington's goal. Unless that goal was the slaughter and wounding of millions and the destruction of their country (which it may have been), no stated goal was ever accomplished. The war on Korea was started under similar circumstances. It ended with no borders changing and millions of people dead and wounded. Hell, they didn't even sign a peace treaty in that one."
 http://www.counterpunch.com/


Other recent Dean stories from Counterpunch (one of the few left publications with the spine to speak out anymore):

August 12, 2003
Howard Dean's Constitutional Hang-Up
Dean Would Rather Execute an Innocent Man, Than Let a Guilty One Walk Free
By JOSH FRANK

"As Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean openly claimed that the legal system unfairly benefited criminal defendants over prosecutors. He even took measures to cut federal grant money aimed at helping mentally disabled defendants--as well as appointing state judges who were willing to undermine the Bill of Rights. In a 1997 interview with the Vermont News Bureau, Howard Dean admitted his desire to expedite the judicial process by using such justices to "quickly convict guilty criminals." He wanted individuals that would deem "common sense more important than legal technicalities." Constitutional protections (legal technicalities) apparently undermine Dean's yearning for speedy trials."
 http://www.counterpunch.org/frank08122003.html


August 9, 2003
California's Glorious Recall
If Not Camejo, Then Flynt!
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

"But as soon as I said I couldn't see much reason to get excited about Howard Dean as a candidate for the Democratic nomination, and he seemed to me to be a thoroughly conventional right winger, there was an audible ripple of irritation in the crowd. In the course of an angry denunciation of my unsparing comments about Dean a woman said that the left should be rallying not only to the standard of the former governor of Vermont, but of Governor Gray Davis of California, now facing a recall vote in early October.

. . . Shackled to "lesser of two evils" is its dread mate, "compromise". In its funereal syllables is congealed the whole sad history of the US two-party system, from the first compromise in the Constitution allowing the import of slaves till l820, to the Missouri compromise letting that slave state enter the union; to the compromise of l877 which ended reconstruction.

The twentieth century was no better. In the compromises that ensured Republican hegemony there was one moment of hope, sparked by the Great Depression and the vast public zeal to get out of it. Then, after the war, America saw programs for full employment, for complete social security. Education at the University of California cost $50 a quarter. Democratic clubs in California exercised strong populist control over prospective candidates.

In the years that followed the Democrats slowly bargained everything away, in that same spirit of compromise. No one talks about full employment now. Organized labor is belittled. Oldsters see Social Security being eroded. "
 http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn08092003.html


August 9, 2003
Mean, Mean Howard Dean
He's Regressive, Not Progressive
By JOSH FRANK

"Media pundits have been rattling their cages over Howard Dean's so-called progressive agenda, but how wrong they've been. Dean's back seat criticism of the Bush Administration's case for war should enlighten us to the fact that this ex-Vermont Governor's leadership skills are lacking. Prior to the dubious war on Iraq, Dean exclaimed he supported a multi-lateral invasion, but hardly questioned the disinformation spewed from the White House about Iraq's threat to our national security. And to top it off, Dean may well be a Zionist. His unwavering support for the Sharon regime in Israel calls into question his quest for peace in the Middle East. Dean's alignment with the pro-Sharon lobbying firm, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is a stark indicator that this Presidential hopeful's vision for the Arab world is glaringly similar to that of team Bush."
 http://www.counterpunch.org/frank08092003.html


And by the way, I wrote to Ralph Nader asking him why he'd mentioned considering endorsing Howard Dean and he responded with a personal note, explaining that the reporter misquoted him. He did not endorse Dean. He has considered endorsing Kucinich. He has not officially endorsed anyone at this point.

- Fred
Choices 23.Aug.2003 08:49

Mother (Mom)

Vote for Bush - Bush stays 4 more years
Vote for no one - Bush stays 4 more years
Vote for Kucinich* - Bush stays 4 more years
Vote for Dean - maybe rid of Bush
Revolution - not bloody likely - Bush stays 4 more years or longer

* or any other ideal candidate who cannot maintain a front runner position.

Reality check - If you want to get rid of Bush you are going to have to make some concessions.

Mother 23.Aug.2003 09:12

Fred

You're missing the point of the posting. Dean will rule the empire. Dean will not resist empire. In the ways illustrated above (AIPAC, the 10 year occupation), Dean is *worse* than Bush. Who will we vote for in the 'anyone-but-Dean' election after many more thousands have died in Iraq and Afghanstan during his reign? By then it will be Hillary, and we'll be voting for her TO KEEP JEB OUT And the cycle continues. A new NAFTA event will spout under Hillary, third parties will still be nowhere, democracy will be dead, and thousands upon thousands will have died under Dean's occupation of the Middle East. Possibly, people there will get hold of a nuke at come at the US and WWIII will finally start. Situations like the Iraq sanctions would be allowed to continue under Hillary. Corporate funding of the two-party system will soar and the public funding system of elections will collapse. We'll vote to keep Jeb out, terrified, as we are every 4 years, over and over.

And meanwhile, under another Democrat, imagine how bad corporate media will grow to be, and corporate control of your life. The Democrats are beholden to corporations JUST AS MUCH as the Republicans and that cycle will never end until the third parties are a direct threat to the existance of the Republicrats.

A vote for Dean is a vote to keep empire intact.


Blindly running around spouting off 'anyone but Bush' is your choice. But know that you'll be getting something that is only going to continue Bush's strategy and in some ways, worsen it.

We still have OVER ONE YEAR until the election.

Dear Fred 23.Aug.2003 09:39

Mother (Mom)

I don't miss your point. I too think the world situation has become intolerable. We need to set our goals higher than ousting the current regime, but we still do need to oust Bush and by whatever means at our disposal. Progress is going to be incremental. No grassroots revolutionary force can do more than pee in the ocean of the establishment. They have the money and guns to resist any traditional rebellion.

I don't know what or who will save the world. Do you? A new Abbie Hoffman, or M L King Jr, or aliens from space? Maybe the Christians are right and Armegeddon will clean it all up. (Bush thinks he is an important part of that scenario.)

While we are waiting for this Messiah we can only do what we can do. One of the things we can do is vote Bush out. Yes, the next one may be bad, but he/she can hardly be worse.

'Mom'--Thanks, You Repeated What I (We) Already Posted. 23.Aug.2003 10:11

nemesis

"we can only do what we can do . . . Yes, the next one may be bad, but he/she can hardly be worse"

Brilliant, 'Mom'! precisely, exactly as we already discussed in detail  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/08/270574.shtml

To recap:

after all the primaries and pre-nomination falderall has settled,

if Howard Dean is the guy nominated to run against,

i honestly will vote for him just because at that point I have nothing left to lose if Bu$h wins.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TRANSLATION:

*some* (yet to be identified) Democrap will be facing off vs. Bu$h in Nov. 2004,

at which point i will probably--and EXTREMELY reluctantly--vote for that Democrap.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

and isn't that how the entire system is ultimately designed anyway--that in November every four years, we have the choice between the lesser of two 'evils'?

You and your pals 'Jumbo' and 'James' can bust your spleens rationalizing it all you want, as you so eloquently have elsewhere . . . (isn't this enough Howard Dean spew--amid all the Bu$h & Co. spew and popo praise in our beloved Corporate Media--for two days?)
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/08/270433.shtml
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/08/270370.shtml

Attend all the Dean rah-rah rallies you want . . . but since the Corporate Media in all its permutations will be rehashing each and every stump-speech microdetail of pResidential Selection 2004 ad infinitum over the next 14 months (even though I don't own a TV every bar on my neighborhood streets I walk down will be blaring it at top volume out their front door),

we please don't need you and your Democrap buddies shoving it down our throats here in August 2003,

especially on the Portland Independent Media Center newswire.

Got it?

: )

PETITION To Howard Dean 23.Aug.2003 10:34

repost

Petition to Howard Dean expressing serious concerns with his hawkish Mideast stance and relationship to AIPAC

There is a new petition to presidential candidate Howard Dean to request a response to hawkish statements he has made about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and his relationship with AIPAC. The purpose is to get feedback from his campaign to 'set the record straight' and to let him know that he is losing a lot of voters on this issue.

Please go to  http://www.stop-us-military-aid-to-israel.net/deanpetition/ to help us express our concerns to Dean. Be sure to go to your email after you sign and confirm by clicking the link that is sent. This is to add integrity to the petition.

Thank you for your participation!


No on Dean 23.Aug.2003 11:17

...

I will not vote for Dean.

The so called lesser of two evils is not always the right choice in the long wrong. We will be in worse condition if Dean gets elected cause all the people who voted for him will not be strongly opposed to what he does.

I consider it narrow minded to vote for Dean. He is more dangerous than Bush.

Why Dean? 23.Aug.2003 12:02

firetruck

Dean was an MD. He showed the discipline necessary to make it through medical school. That's more discipline than it takes to become an officer in the military {Note that George II couldn't handle being an officer in military lite.)
Dean was, by all accounts, an effective Governor. George was, by all honest accounts, an impotent Governor.
I have to admit I haven't read much about Kuchinich, but he doesn't seem to be as popular as Dean.
We don't need a horse with a handicap. Dean is a racehorse I am willing to bet on.
This is the time for solidarity against evil.

The cream can't rise
when rancid milk is on the top

Dean is a Coward and a Liar 23.Aug.2003 13:13

Quit Your Mumbo-Jumbo-James!!!

I am tired of hearing about Doctor Dean. Kucinich bashers continue to bash him on his PAST pro-life stance. He has explained his change of position on this issue FULLY to my satisfaction, and has the courage to admit his mistake. Meanwhile 'Doctor' Dean not only constantly misrepresents his positions and modifies them based on his perception of public opinion, (war opposition, Social Security) he doesn't even have the wherewithall to admit his mistakes and accept responsibility; sort of like the fuckwit that is currently in control of the Executive office.

Dean's "popularity" comes from being able to fool a fair share of sheeple with his ambiguous and ever changing stances, and from support of the Repugnants, because they think they can beat this watered-down Dubya sympathizer. What kind of "doctor" pubicly supports the most corrupt military killing machine in history and the death penalty? The "doctor" can't even adhere to his own solemn professional oath! What a Hippocratical sack of shit!

Who has never held a national office, Dean or Kucinich?

Who CURRENTLY holds a nationally elected office, was placed in that office largely due to his resistance to corporate control (by citizens in the mid-West, no less), and has used that office to lead the front against the fascist fucks that have taken control of the US?

Can Kucinich win a national office? Obviously he can since he is currently an active and dedicated member of the US Congress. Claiming that Kucinich can't win against a malleable and dishonest sack of shit like Coward Dean, who has NEVER been elected to a national office, is complete nonsense.

The "doctor" is OUT!!!

I Like Your Last Point, firetruck 23.Aug.2003 13:17

No Coward Dean

Skim the rancid liar (Dean) off the top, and make way for something better.

Re: Dean is a coward and a liar 23.Aug.2003 20:02

Miri

Isn't there a difference between being voted into a national office and winning in a national election? Kucinich is in congress...so what? It in no way indicates that he would have the broad appeal needed to win a presidential election.

Re: Kucinich is in congress...so what? 23.Aug.2003 20:52

Quit Your Mumbo-Jumbo-James!!!

It is significant in many respects. Kucinich was elected despite and because he resisted the attempts of the banking and energy industries when they attempted to rip control and ownership of their local utility. He did this even though it cost him personally and professionally. Recognition for his wise and informed resistance is largely what got him elected as a national Representative.

As a national Legislator, he has his National position to introduce legislation that addresses many of the most serious injustices within our county today. In addition, he has taken the Cabal to court in efforts to compel them to adhere to the Constitution. Other than offering waivering lip service, what has Dean done at the national level?

Being a national Representative for Ohio is particularly significant because even though he represents a more enlightened region of his state, Ohio is not exactly leading the social justice movement. This seems to demonstrate the ability of Kucinich to reach accross party lines and pull support from his natural opposition. I predict that the Kucinich campain will pick up noticable speed following the fund raiser concerts of Willie Nelson, Ani De Franco, and Michelle Shocked.

Dean offers continued war and fear, and ongoing support for a country that is using US tax dollars to build a Nazi-inspired prison wall around an entire nation.

what has kucinich done with his national standing? 23.Aug.2003 21:26

polka, kielbasa, bowling

Really, what has he done? Nothing, in my read of his, what is it now, three terms in congress?

He's made a lot of lofty speeches on the floor, he's headed the unknown-until-his-campaign-began "progressive caucus," and he's introduced language on banning chemtrails on a weapons-reduction bill -- something he's since denied.

So what has he done? What are the accomplishments that demonstrate he can be a leader, not just one of 435 politicians sitting on a mostly-safe seat in congress?

polka, kielbasa, bowling 23.Aug.2003 21:42

Fred

This comment really isn't worthy of a response. You can easily take a look for yourself, and all you do is use up people's time here with your ignorance.

To name a single thing, Kucinich started the OFFICE FOR PEACE with Barbara Lee.

Enough said. Do your own research. Have you ever heard of GOOGLE????

Re: What has Kucinich done? 23.Aug.2003 22:14

Quit Your Mumbo-Jumbo-James!!!

Among other things, he has consistently voted his conscience instead of those of his owners. Why? Because has refused to auction off his voice. Integrity is the leadership quality that I most value and that is most lacking in American politics. The deceptive Dr. Death doesn't rate well in this category.

Kucinich is a leader because he has given "lofty speeches on the floor" and taken actions that directly challenge the policies of the Democratic fascist sympathizers and the Republican Uber-Fascists. He has done this despite immense pressure from his colleagues, and has even stood alone in Congress when ALL of the rest conceded to the Corporation.

His experience offers a relatively clear record of his positions and his approach with respect to national issues. All we have from Dean is perpetually morphing lip service.

As you pointed out, Kucinich is 1 of 435 in the House. Even though he doesn't have the support of his Corporate Owned contemporaries, he maintains the courage and tenacity to fight for a chance that the human race can survive the century.

Kucinich advocates for his constituents and for humanity, and rails against the Corporation. Do I really have to explain to you why he has been ignored by the Corporation?

test 24.Aug.2003 05:24

test

test http://dailykos.com/

What a bizarre post... 24.Aug.2003 13:08

cjcurtis cjcurtis@hotmail.com

I don't know where the vitriol for some of these anti-Dean comments is coming from - and this post has certainly misrepresented Dean. If you don't like him, then just get behind someone else, but the man is consistent in opposing the war (but since we're now already there, in saying that we have to stay until they have their own government, and until we help them rebuild their shattered nation). I don't think that's crazy. Now that Bush has gotten us into this mess, we have to stay until it's cleaned up - it's not that Dean wanted to be over there in the first place.

I'm a Portland homeowner, now living in Vermont for law school (and am originally a Vermonter). I know Howard Dean from my work in Vermont politics in the early '90's. He's no empire-builder, he's a real person, and he'd make a good president - certainly head and shoulders above Bush.

Rather than simply attacking him, why don't you take the time to find out more about him? And, not just what you read in the papers or online, but really what he DID as Governor of Vermont... he started in Vermont politics by just trying to get a bike path going from Burlington to Shelburne. Very sinister, eh?

no cut to military spending but... 24.Aug.2003 14:27

pragmatic progressive

from an interesting article from www.alternet.org .
"Dean has told audiences that he would not reduce military spending but rather "redirect" it toward the development and implementation of renewable energy technology (an issue he ties to defense), homeland security measures to fund local first responders, inspect container ships and protect nuclear sites (a move that Alexander Cockburn himself recently called on Bush to make), and the purchase of old nuclear materials in Russia. "

Yeah, so I think too much is being spent on the military, but I'd rather see us trying to prevent nuclear materials reaching potential markets than trying to build Star Wars.

Full article at  http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16592 "The progressive case for Howard Dean"

cjcurtis, there's your problem.... 24.Aug.2003 16:10

epstein's mother....

"I'm a Portland homeowner...."

home ownership is part and parcel of the evil capitalist/imperialist system. you should convert your portland house into cooperative housing for the poor at once!


sincerely,

epstein's mother

Respectfully Disagree 24.Aug.2003 16:28

Duncan

Let me preface this by saying that I opposed GWII, by marching, writing letters talking to people, calling my congressman. I have to say though, that I dont think now that we have completely and utterly fucked up Iraq, that we can simply leave. Thats pretty much what the US and USSR did with Afganistan in the 80's. We fought a proxy war, and the left the country in ruins. That didnt work so well. I am not in favor of a US lead occupation, but I have yet to hear anyone voice another plan that would work either. I think we cant just be against the occupation- now that it happens we have to be for something else.

Duncan 24.Aug.2003 16:59

mom

what we can do is to relinquish control in Iraq to the UN or other countries like France who traditionally had ties to Iraq, then we can get the majority of our troops out of a place where they are unwanted and ill trained to be.
the US military is better at destroying than building.

to 'cjcurtis' 24.Aug.2003 17:55

hourly wage renter

"I'm a Portland homeowner...."

yeah sure it may be 'evil'--

all i know is mr 'cjcurtis' is certainly a classist PONTIFICATING to all us rabble here,

especially since he's not even IN Oregon at the moment (must be nice to have 2 homes, huh?)

god, i wish i'll *ever* have enough cash to even be able to afford a down payment on a piece of land, or a house . . .

Hourly Wage Renter 24.Aug.2003 19:26

Joshua Bixby

You will.

hey, hourly wage renter.... 24.Aug.2003 21:49

epstein's mother

"all i know is mr 'cjcurtis' is certainly a classist PONTIFICATING to all us rabble here,"

i know! the nerve! we rabble NEVER pontificate.... a classist move if i ever saw one.

"especially since he's not even IN Oregon at the moment (must be nice to have 2 homes, huh?)"

well, to be fair, being in vermont doesn't mean he "owns" a home there, but even "owning" one is disgusting.... there is no real "ownership", and until we get past that, we'll be stuck in the same old capitalist patterns.


sincerely,

epstein's mother

'Joshua Bixby', 'epstein's mother'-- 24.Aug.2003 23:11

hourly wage renter

"You will. "

--thanks, Josh for the encouragement. things are pretty dismal in the cash flow situation and outlook.

"there is no real "ownership", and until we get past that, we'll be stuck in the same old capitalist patterns."

--maybe you're right--and i mostly agree with you--but i also don't see it changing any time soon (sure i know about cooperatives and land trusts, but i think you must reluctantly agree) with respect to land property and homes.

and i'd sure be better off owning even a cheap, less-expensive piece of property than:

putting my cash in a pile every month and lighting it on fire =

paying the landlord's mortgage =

paying rent.

dean vs kucinich 25.Aug.2003 03:28

yo fred

what are the differences between dean and kucinich on israel?

oh good 25.Aug.2003 03:38

yo fred

oh good, i had a longer post concerning this the other day that never made it on the board. thought it might of been censored because the moderater objected to my pointing out kucinich's stance on israel. check out the censoring going on with another indie ---> http://asmallvictory.net/archives/004293.html#004293 of course, freerepublic is also very liberal.. with their censorship as well. :-P

CJCurtis 25.Aug.2003 13:51

Fred

"he started in Vermont politics by just trying to get a bike path going from Burlington to Shelburne. Very sinister, eh? "

And somehow he ended up supporting the needs of big business in Vermont! Beautiful! And then was forced to take on gay civli unions because others in the state legislature did a lot of work to generate it and pass it! So sincere! Big business with a sprinkling of left values that he didn't have to lift a finger for!

That's what Amurica's all about, isn't it? Business? And Capital? Isn't it? And Nation Building for 10 years?

I don't think that meeting someone in person should decide how you vote. It's often highly deceptive.

For example, Dean may be a nice guy, sweet, angry, passionate, strong. But Dean's brother was probably CIA and was killed for it.

But then, why was Dean's brother ALSO working in the McGovern campaign?

Which lost.

Some will see that as unimportant. It isn't. Think about the Bush family and it's connection to US intel agencies.

Sinster? Guess we'll find out the hard way, won't we?

Personally, I'll be voting Green.

Sheesh... 25.Aug.2003 15:21

cjcurtis

Sheesh, I just barely moved, you guys... and I saved for years to have a home, and now rent in Vermont (I kept the house in case I move back to Portland later). These dialogues are so (well... uncivil). At any rate, it's not that I "just met" Howard Dean. I worked in Vermont politics for years, and I actually know him reasonably well, and of course followed his political career here. He's certainly not a classic liberal as the press tries to make him out. He's pretty conservative on fiscal issues (a budget balancer), and basically progressive on social issues - although certainly not as progressive as Bernie and the Progressive Coalition here in Burlington. I happen to think that those positions will appeal to many Americans.

Like I said, support who you wish, I just thought I'd add a comment from someone who has lived in both places. Clearly, this is not a thread for Dean supporters, but thought I'd add my comments, too. Some of you have your minds made up - hey, that's what democracy's all about (and yes, now I know that many of you will say that democracy doesn't exist... fair enough in one sense, but it's all we've got).

Anyhow, I was pleased to see that 5,000 turned out in Portland for Dean, and another 15,000 in Seattle. Good luck with your own events and efforts.

soooo 25.Aug.2003 17:36

yo fred

sooo, fred isn't touching the kucinich-israel question...

interesting.

Anger and Fluff 26.Aug.2003 04:30

Bobdoodle

Mr. Dean - noy Governor Dean, as he still tries to call himself - was a textbook player of partisan rhetoric.
He comes out screaming about bush, spends most of his speech talking about how awful he is (did i mention those bush tax cuts for the rich, let me mention that again...)tells us how we deserve better, how great the little white people are doing in his tiny home state , and then finishes on more bush bashing. Not a single word on how he would improve anything. His big soundbites - " A balanced budget and more jobs"- classic democratic mumbo jumbo. Creating jobs by investing in jobs is not a plan.
All FLUFF
NO MEAT
Anyone can Rag on Bush
I give Dean a B for delivery
a d for content
and an F for creativity

.... 26.Aug.2003 07:22

TrollKing

Bobdoodle wrote:

>Creating jobs by investing in jobs is not a plan.

ok then, professor, what *is* a plan?

oh, and.... 26.Aug.2003 07:27

TrollKing

Bobdoodle also wrote:

>Mr. Dean - noy Governor Dean, as he still tries to call himself - was a textbook player of partisan rhetoric.

since you're going to try to pick nits here, i will as well: it's still "governor dean" because one keeps the title even after one leaves office (e.g. president clinton, president reagan, etc.). even if that weren't the case, and one lost the title after leaving office, it would still be dr. dean, not mr. dean.

Dean & CJ Curtis 26.Aug.2003 08:58

Fred

"I worked in Vermont politics for years, and I actually know him reasonably well"

Like I said guys, Dean blogger alert on here, but even worse - Dean politicos on here. Imcs must be moving up in the world that the politicos are feeling they need to smooth out the truths about Dean on here.

"He's certainly not a classic liberal as the press tries to make him out."

Most know that, and it doesn't help win people over that you agree. We're aware of what you're doing.

"and basically progressive on social issues - although certainly not as progressive as Bernie and the Progressive Coalition here in Burlington."

This is classic tactic - agree that you're a also a 'progressive,' then try to sell people on the idea that most Americans don't want the most basic progressive values that in fact, most Americans DO support, like universal health coverage and more funding for schools instead of prisons and military. Dean doesn't take either of these positions and they are BASIC, not radically progressive. Bernie is not radical. You take one or two isssues - gay marriage - and then try to blanket them as radical in the same way the right wing takes one or two issues - gay marriage - and tries to blanket Dean as progressive.

We've got you covered.

"I happen to think that those positions will appeal to many Americans."

Only after the corporate press have shoved in down their throats enough times, and you've tried to repeat it enough times all day long on web sites. Eventually, the sheeple relinquish their vote to whoever's name they see the most.

"Clearly, this is not a thread for Dean supporters, but thought I'd add my comments, too"

It's an open publishing site, post away, even if you *do* support Dean. No one said you couldn't. Especially this gem - "hey, that's what democracy's all about "

Ha ha ha. . .

You mean, like going into Iraq if only we'd had more (planted) wmds evidence, as Dean supports? What sort of democracy is that?

"Anyhow, I was pleased to see that 5,000 . . ."

Why not list some more states and their numbers. Why stop now? Aren't you posting on here to show everyone how POPULAR Dean is? Don't actually talk about the issues, except to try to say that most Amuricans support Dean's positions as a blanket statement.

We got you covered.

Yo Fred 26.Aug.2003 09:02

Fred

I'm not going to repost the tons of info on Kucinich and Israel that I've already posted.

Kucinich, like all dems, has taken money in the past and sold out to some extent to the Israel lobby. But nothing in comparison to Dean.

But in 2003 he's moved away from that by signing onto an agreement with Tikkun which is overtly against AIPAC's positions, along with Barbara Lee.

If you have specific accusations, then take up your own time typing them, because I'm not going to waste mine.

.... 26.Aug.2003 09:59

TrollKing

Fred wrote:

>This is classic tactic - agree that you're a also a 'progressive,' then try to sell people on the idea that most Americans
>don't want the most basic progressive values that in fact, most Americans DO support, like universal health coverage and
>more funding for schools instead of prisons and military. Dean doesn't take either of these positions and they are BASIC, not radically progressive.

what? are you saying that dean does not support universal health care? unless you mean a single-payer system (which is *not* the same thing), you're dead wrong. you're also wrong about funding of schools v. prisons.

>Eventually, the sheeple relinquish their vote to whoever's name they see the most.

a-ha-ha.... oh, that's clever-- "sheeple".... get it? it's like "people" but with "sheep" instead! you know, because the people are sheep-like, and you know so much better about everything than they do, because you're all superior and everything.

fred 26.Aug.2003 17:50

yo fred

in your original post, you were talking up kucinich. now, not only can you not be bothered with defending kucinich but you've thrown him overboard and declared you're voting green. what's going to be your fashion next week?

you just can't wait to give bush another term, can you?

hope you find solace in your smug ideological purity when everybody else has to suffer the consequence of it.

Yo Fred 26.Aug.2003 22:16

Fred

I'll be voting Kucinich in the Dem primary, then Green for the presidential. Some of each.

I'm not talking up Kucinich because I don't need to. His views are posted EVERYWHERE and are easy to find.

On the other hand, the Dean criticisms were quickly buried by the infamous bloggers, or who knows what, early on in Dean's campaign. Once I realized that I had to work so hard to find the ones I'd easily found only weeks earlier, I knew it was important to make sure everyone saw them again, since they wouldn't otherwise.

.... 27.Aug.2003 00:25

TrollKing

fred wrote:

>On the other hand, the Dean criticisms were quickly buried by the infamous bloggers, or who knows what, early on in
>Dean's campaign.

how was this accomplished? how can anything about a minor candidate (which is exactly what dean was until the last few months) be "buried" (unless by "buried" you mean "laid to rest") with the internet at our disposal?

How? 27.Aug.2003 13:34

Fred

Good question. Basically, you flood the internet with Pro-Dean blogs and articles and hit and link them like crazy. On sites like Common Dreams, typing in Howard Dean would turn up nothing but rosy stories, when only a few weeks earlier they were the negative ones.

Now that Dean has surged, the negatives are starting to come out again. People want to know what the real deal is.
Dean on the campaign trail - doctor of death, empire builder, AIPAC sell-out
Dean on the campaign trail - doctor of death, empire builder, AIPAC sell-out

VOTE FOR HOWARD DEAN, THE LESSER EVIL 27.Aug.2003 16:56

Dean for America

All of you people who are trashing Dean don't understand that George W. Bush is the anti-Christ. Hence, we must support Howard Dean (or some other Democratic Party Warmonger no matter what). I know this is true because Terry MacAuliffe, Democrats.com, Buzzflash.com, and Democratic Underground all tell me so.

Just because Howard Dean will implement the SAME BASIC POLICIES AS GEORGE W. BUSH MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. You want to know why? Because Howard Dean will IMPLEMENT BUSH REGIME POLICIES WITH A BILL CLINTON STYLE "I FEEL YOUR PAIN" MASK--SO ALL THE LIBERALS CAN SLEEP WELL AT NIGHT WITH NO GUILTY CONSCIENCE.

Instead of bombing the shit out of Third World Countries on a Unilateral basis like that Evil Warmonger George W. Bush, Howard Dean and the Democrats will bomb the shit out of Third World Countries on a Multilateral basis *with* a United Nations figleaf! See the big difference there, progressives?!

See how much humane and multilateralist and kind Doktor Dean is compared to that Oily George W. Bush (who is the anti-Christ by the way).

Remember we "progressives" must all support Howard Dean or whomever is the Democratic Party nominee. And forget about that Dennis Kucinich. He is too wimpy for the American people to support. The American people will only support a "HE MAN" kind of leader...like the tough talking ex-college wrestler Howard Dean! (In the USA, if you haven't played organized sports at some level, you are not a REAL MAN, and hence cannot be President of our great Empire!)

Also remember, in a real democracy like ours, you only get to choose between the Lesser of Evils. Anything else would be Anarchy. And we wouldn't want those wild Black Bloc Anarchists around would we? They might actually (gulp) burn down a GAP store or something!

yo fred 27.Aug.2003 19:25

yo fred

your--dean would bomb the shit out of third world countries--claim is unsubstantiated and without evidence.

it's not dean who has friends and family ties to the defense industry. poppy bush sits on the board of the carlyle group. junior's policies are making them rich. it's bush cronies who get rich making million dollar missiles. but you are the one who can't wait to get him elected again.

a man who had low regard for muslims or arabs, like you've tried to imply with dean, wouldn't have issued this statement:


>>STATEMENT ON PATRIOT ACT CIVIL RIGHTS ABUSES
Monday July 21, 2003
By: Press Office

(July 21, 2003)

BURLINGTON, VT Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean issued the following statement on the forthcoming Inspector General's report documenting abuse of Arabs and Muslims detained under the Patriot Act:

"For the second time in recent weeks, the Justice Department Inspector General will be reporting serious abuses of the civil rights of Arabs and Muslims in the war on terror. These abuses are wrong and must stop immediately.

"I am appalled by allegations which the Inspector General has deemed credible that Department of Justice employees have, among other things, beaten Muslim and Arab detainees.

"This should not happen in America.

 http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7035

moderator 27.Aug.2003 19:32

yo fred

why does this board keep losing my posts? i didn't say anything about israel this time!

You don't get it 27.Aug.2003 22:57

Dan

Dean can get elected, Kucinich can't. Why? Simple. Americans are too fucking stupid to pay much attention to politics, and what they care about is someone who's charismatic and appears to tell the truth and support them and gets them interested. Period. Kucinich, who is one of my favorite politicians, is a zero on the personality scale. Zero. Would I vote for him if he had a chance? Hell yeah. It's not about his policies, it's about his organization skills, ability to get a significant amount of people fired up, and plain and simple his charisma (or lack thereof). Don't like reality? Fine, vote Kucinich. He is the best candidate. But I'm sick of hearing on this board Dean is as bad as Bush. Nader was wrong when he said Gore was as bad as Bush, as anyone with half a brain should know by now, and anyone that says the same argument about Dean has not been paying attention, or is brainwashed. Period. Dean is a moderate, and will therefore not make most you happy most of the time. Bush is a freaking hard-right conservative aligned with Neo Cons, and will make you happy zero percent of the time. You decide. You only get two choices, no matter how much you type, scream, bitch or moan. I'm choosing the Democratic candidate, 'cause 4 more years of Bush will be worse than anyone the Democrats put forth, with the possible exception of Lieberman (who's really a Republican).

Peace.

No YOU don't get it 28.Aug.2003 01:52

Dean for America

Its damn funny the Democratic Party apologists always coming on Indymedia trying to convince people that they should support the Democrats.

Always it boils down to two basic lame arguments:
1). You have to support the Democrats because they are the lesser evil
2). You have to support the Democrats because There Is No Alternative.

This is bullshit. Its you Democratic Party shills and spindoctors that don't get it. The problem is not with individual leaders (whether Bush or Gore) or individual regimes (whether that be Democrat or Republican), the problem is with the lie called American democracy in general.

This crooked system is rotten to the core. The fact that the last election was stolen should be proof enough of this fact. Yet it still doesn't resonate in the heads of the Democrats, who want to continue acting as if its business as usual. Deep down, the Democrats (like the Republicans) have a vested interest in continuing the lie and the facade that the USA is some kind of democracy when in fact it is not. The Democrats (like the Republicans) benefit from this corrupt political situation and will do everything possible to dissuade and attack any kind of political movement which challenges the legitimacy of their system itself. Always they will use the same tired arguments and condescding logic that There Is No Alternative. This is the same mantra that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan used to justify their Free Market reforms over a generation ago, and now it has been adopted by the Democrats.

The Democrats and the Republicans will have to learn the hard way that there is in fact an alternative. There is an alternative to their politically bankrupt "democracy" and there is an alternative to these two bankrupt political parties themselves. Those who want to maintain the Republi-crat duopoly on power will do everything possible to demoralize any alternative vision or political movement. But they will fail.

Their politics is the politics of defeatism and lowered expectations. For most people, that is no longer enough..

No YOU don't get it :) 28.Aug.2003 10:31

Dan

First off, F.U., I'm NOT a Democratic apologist, so get the F off your high horse and listen.

If you had bothered to read what I posted, you'd realize I'm not happy with the Democratic solution. That doesn't man I'm not a pragmatist when going to the polls. How do you turn this country around - by voting for a candidate that will not win? I didn't say he wouldn't win because a leftist can't win - I said he couldn't win, basically, because Kucinich doesn't want it bad enough. If he did, he'd be working as hard as Dean at mobilizing people to come out and support him. The fact is, he doesn't have the charisma to get elected, and he doesn't have the organizing ability. I personally think a Kucinich could get elected, if he had the chutzpah of Dean.

Second, I don't plan on working for hte Democrats, or particularly supporting them. But I will vote for the most electable alternative to Bush. Why? Because you have three choices: live in dreamland and vote your conscience; start a revolution to destroy the whole corrupt system; or vote for a candidate that is better than Bush and electable. That's it. I'm not planning on starting a revolution today, are you? I suspect not. Those are the choices for 2004. If progressives want to win in 2008, they need to put a candidate with the drive, organizational ability, and charisma of Dean on the ballot. And that's not Kucinich.

Welcome to reality.

By the way, yourwhole post was dedicated to what the solutions, in your mind, aren't. It's easy to armchair criticize, living in your dream world of perfection. Wat are your real solutions to making this country better? The incremental approach isn't your cup of tea. Pray tell, what the F is it?

No, YOU still don't get it. 28.Aug.2003 17:34

Dean for America

"First off, F.U., I'm NOT a Democratic apologist, so get the F off your high horse and listen."

That's exactly what the fuck you are. The more you deny it, the more your so-called arguments and lame political rationalizations prove otherwise.

"If you had bothered to read what I posted, you'd realize I'm not happy with the Democratic solution. That doesn't man I'm not a pragmatist when going to the polls. How do you turn this country around - by voting for a candidate that will not win? I didn't say he wouldn't win because a leftist can't win - I said he couldn't win, basically, because Kucinich doesn't want it bad enough. If he did, he'd be working as hard as Dean at mobilizing people to come out and support him. The fact is, he doesn't have the charisma to get elected, and he doesn't have the organizing ability. I personally think a Kucinich could get elected, if he had the chutzpah of Dean. "

I did read your b.s., and it is the same b.s. that Demo-rats of all kinds spew when they don't have an argument. Always you clowns offer your tired rhetoric about "I'm not happy about the democrats but...we have to be pragmatic and support..." Bullshit. This kind of rhetorical tack fools nobody. Not even yourself--regardless of whether you support Dean OR Kucinich.

"Second, I don't plan on working for hte Democrats, or particularly supporting them. But I will vote for the most electable alternative to Bush. Why? Because you have three choices: live in dreamland and vote your conscience; start a revolution to destroy the whole corrupt system; or vote for a candidate that is better than Bush and electable. That's it. I'm not planning on starting a revolution today, are you? I suspect not. Those are the choices for 2004. If progressives want to win in 2008, they need to put a candidate with the drive, organizational ability, and charisma of Dean on the ballot. And that's not Kucinich."

Its you who live in a dreamland if you believe that your pathetic "choices" are an example of a democracy or that there is any "progressive" candidate to begin. Your logic--such as it is--is the same tired propaganda tripe that the Democrats always spew in order to sucker those to Left of them to support their sorry asses. For all your claims that you don't really support the Democrats, you seem to have a curious idolatry for Dean and his supposed "charisma and drive."

If you don't really support the Democrats and don't plan on working for them, why are you here on this board so insistently attempting to convince people to support Dean? Why the hell do you care so much about whether or not Dean get support to begin with, if you don't really care about the Democrats?

What you people are deathly afraid of is any political movement that seeks to challenge your American system itself--and the phony choices between the Republicrat duopoly on power. A better alternative than the fraudulent version of "democracy" which you stand for is to build a political movement that is focused on supporting policy and issues, rather than any political candidate or political party. Regardless of whomever is in power, if the political movement is there to advocate for whatever issue arises, the political hack in office will be forced to respond. This means raising issues which mainstream clowns like yourself refuse to raise, as it would shatter all your lies and illusions once and for all. These issues include the fraudulent nature of the "War on Terrorism" itself and the curious events surrounding 9.11 and the anthrax attacks which have served as the pretext for this phony war--and which many people believe ultimately suggest the guilt of the American State itself. And it means addressing the issue of the stolen election of 2000 and the complicity of the entire US establishment (including the Democrats) in covering up and tacitly sanctioning this theft.

In the long term, this movement should be focused on addressing and *tearing down* the institutions of oppression which comprise your America itself. This means challeging, confronting, and ultimately bringing to the ground the Republicrat Party as a political force to begin with. Next summer, when the Republicrats hold their conventions in Boston and New York City, there will be an excellent chance to challenge and confront them with street protests that will rip apart any veneer of political legitimacy which the Republicrats cling to. Nothing would be better to have another Chicago 1968 in both Boston and New York City next year.

That of course is what you are afraid. You believe in this system and you shill for it like a two bit whore. You live in your litte comfortable Mainstream dreamworld--smug and sneering of anything which it would upset and disrupt it. You should stay in your Mainstream world. Cling to your delusions that American democracy is not a political fraud of the first order, that the only choice is to play according to the rules of a rigged game in which you have to be "pragmatic" and choice the lesser of evils.

Power is found in the streets--not in any bullshit ballot box, not in any politician, and least of not in any sham American system.

I like Bush over Dean 15.Oct.2003 19:21

kucinich man

I like Bush over Dean because Bush supports 'no child left behind.' parts of it are bad, but I like the national testing and the fact that teachers have to major in their area. The Vermont web site also states that Dean's health care system will bankrupt Vermont.

I would vote for Kucinich since his single-payer proposal is fiscal sound and he has a really good education plan.