portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

government | imperialism & war | media criticism selection 2004

While Dean Conned Anti War Vote Party Bosses Laughed

Now that the Democratic party bosses have effectively driven the anti-war vote into the ground with more than a little help from the corporate media that gave Governor Dean's campaign the red carpet treatment up until mid December while at the same time purposely ignoring Congressman Dennis Kucinich's campaign Governor Dean's campaign now looks more like a very effective con job
While Dean Conned Anti War Vote Party Bosses Laughed

By Lloyd Hart

Now that the Democratic party bosses have effectively driven the anti-war vote into the ground with more than a little help from the corporate media that gave Governor Dean's campaign the red carpet treatment up until mid December while at the same time purposely ignoring Congressman Dennis Kucinich's campaign Governor Dean's campaign now looks more like a very effective con job by an egomaniacal centrist who agrees more with Al From and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) than with the progressive rhetoric Gov. Dean was faking on the campaign trail that always managed to look like DLC policy when Governor Dean finally got specific.

The anti-war vote according to the corporate media talking heads now has to look at the John Edwards and John Kerry. Two men who voted for the war and are now claiming to be jilted lovers saying that they were misled by the Bush regime, a totally disingenuous strategy to deflect the criticism of both their votes. Edwards and Kerry claim they were conned instead of just admitting they were looking at the polling data and hedging their bets in the upcoming presidential primaries. This kind of behavior is exactly why many people are suspect of what lurks in both these men's hearts and in all those that voted for this war in the Democratic Party in Congress.

What will the anti-war vote do now, decide on the lesser of two evils or do something to truly shake-up and disrupt the Democratic Leadership Council's program of ruling over the Democratic Party like George Bush rules over America and Iraq.

I say Vote for Rev. Al Sharpton and Congressman Dennis Kucinich in the remainder of the primary elections and stick it to the remaining con men in the race, Senator John Edwards and Senator John Kerry. What the hell good will it do voting for Edwards and Kerry as a means to get rid of George Bush if the very policies that George Bush put in place don't change. Does anyone truly, honestly believe that either of these men that voted for the War, Homeland Security and the Patriot act will actually role back any of these unconstitutional and criminal policies. And what about the defense budget? Do you actually believe Senator John Kerry and Senator John Edwards will actually attack the defense budget for the criminal act it is. Well I don't not unless they are forced into a corner where they absolutely must do it under the threat of their political careers totally and completely evaporating.

I have made it very clear that if the Democratic Party does not put a not-for-profit single payer universal health care system policy plank in the platform and aggressively campaigned for it I will no longer be associated with the Democratic Party and in fact will go worked for Ralph Nader's independent run for the presidency  http://www.naderexplore04.org/ . This is my way of saying "What's in it for me?" Why should I work for a party that does nothing and in fact worsens the conditions for the poor, working people and the middle-class in America. I grew up poor and have no intention of throwing good money after bad in the fund-raising black hole that the Democratic Party has become. Dean supporters threw $40 million down the tubes while leaving the true reformers, the true anti-war candidates who actually showed up at all the major peace rallies, scrambling for money never being able to truly build an effective organization while the corporate media laughed with glee at its own power.

In 1992 a similar con man named Bill Clinton promised all the same things Senator John Edwards and Senator John Kerry are promising right now but when confronted with the special interests control of the process, instead of fighting the special interests Clinton put his tail between his legs and went looking for an intern to screw.

So speaking from the experience of someone who has been repeatedly screwed by these con men, I say to you vote your conscience, vote your heart. Vote for real change in "policy" and not the nebulous promises of con men who have no intention of delivering. "Anybody But Bush" is not a policy platform that will bring the cynical majorities in America back to the polling booth. In fact it is that very thinking that has got us where we are today.

 http://dadapop.com
I remember things differently 19.Feb.2004 17:35

down the memory hole

Dean was given shit by the corporate media every day. Basically, his initial support was so strong that they had to deal with him. While they could ignore Kucinich, Dean had to be discredited and destroyed. After all, how dare a democratic candidate call the DLC republicans. I mean the DLC has been led by such exemplary liberals like Bill Clinton and Dick Gephardt. How dare a candidate attack those who supported Bush's war in Iraq. How dare a candidate call the leadership of the NRA "nuts". Make no mistake Dean had to be taken out and the incessant daily stories about "How Dean really screwed up this time and should just drop out" and how "unelectable Dean is" are proof enough for me. Thank god the DLC and DNC are going to make sure we don't vote for the "wrong" candidate.

And if you're looking for the DLC progressive saboteur you don't have to look any farther than Wesley Clark.

Though I do admit I lose all my respect for anyone that drops out a race and says they'll support whoever the nominee is. That's why politics makes me sick.

Like I said 19.Feb.2004 18:38

Lloyd Hart dadapop@dadapop.com

I told Dean straight to his face in August at the 40th. aniversary of the march on Washington the second time he turned me down for an interview that would broadcast on Free Speech TV that he was making a mistake because come december the corporate media was going to take him out at the knees and that he would need the alternative media. When he said to me he was sorry he just couldn't do it I new then he was a con job. He was the bait and Kerry was the switch. Wahlah peace movement disarmed.

Look at my dirty picture! 19.Feb.2004 18:45

Stella

Why is this photo accompanying this article? Did Howard Dean blow off the top of that child's head?

As this photo seems to really have nothing to do with the article, I can only assume that the author chose it for shock value....and that negates the entire value of the article.

Portland Indymedia is my home page. Imagine my shock as I opened my web browser, and this photo appeared...while my 2 year-old daughter was seated beside me.

Suppose I had been a junior high school student researching the presidential election...and I encountered this nightmarish photo. I read Portland Indymedia every day. As a result, I am aware that the website frequently contains graphic articles and photos....but I feel that this was over the edge. It served no purpose, with the exception of being shocking. Material like this should be accompanied by a warning.

Stella 19.Feb.2004 19:24

Lloyd Hart dadapop@dadapop.com

This Beautiful child died as a direct result of Senators Kerry's and Edward's vote for the invasion of Iraq. It has everything to do with this article. I understand how you would be hurt by this beautiful child's death. I have raised three children and now have two grand children one a week old and the other 20 months. All my children are the ages of those Americans dying in Iraq. I am in deep emotional pain over this crime against humanity. This Beautiful child got no warning he was going to die.

Great article 19.Feb.2004 19:27

Hi

It echos my sentiments exactly.

[ "Anybody But Bush" is not a policy platform that will bring the cynical majorities in America back to the polling booth. In fact it is that very thinking that has got us where we are today. ]

Right on! I'm so sick of the, "we need to get him out of there", bs. And the way Deans and Kerry practically traded poll numbers after his "screeech" was a joke. And the stupid ego games people play in this country, "I'm voting against this guy", only seem to result is slaughter and death for those around the world.

As for the photo, there was nothing inappropriate about it's being posted. Certainly it was no less appropriate than absolutely anyone in this country who has paid even a dime of tax on anything to support this childs death. The photo has everything to do with the article, because as voters, we chose by proxy to slaughter this child and thousand more like him in just the past year or two. If we keep it up, eventually the tides will turn against us and the slaughtered children will be here as well.
Is it more palatable with the skin removed?
Is it more palatable with the skin removed?

sorry 19.Feb.2004 19:55

really

But that is what the war looks actually looks like, and what an anti-war candidate is supposed to stop, and apparently most of them seem to be forgetting both. It's not so pretty that we can afford anyone in charge who isn't clear about it, including Howard "Wrong to go there, right to be there" Dean, one of the "anti-war" candidates still willing to apparently condone as much as condemn, what you see shown. How much more pertainent can it get?

Besides, it may be only in America we're so sheilded from that reality that it has that power to unduly upset, and that is a side-effect of being sheilded from it. From what I understand, at least, European families have consistenly seen more realistic- and more graphic- reporting. Conveniently excluded from our stateside reality by the same media that conveniently excluded candidates with any substantial, straight-on anti war stance. Upsetting? Yes. It's what all of us should be deeply upset about instead of being able to put up with it because it's so far away and we don't have to look. The Iraqi children standing across the street from that don't get the privelege of having someone not show them that. Don't want to see graphic violence? I hear you. But I want to see even less, the reality that produces the violence that the graphics portray. Some of the droves of people flinging their votes at Kerry must truly need to be reminded what we need to get ourselves out of.

I'm sorry if it upset you and yours, but I'm still glad someone put the picture up. Maybe our kids shouldn't have to see it, but we should see more of what it really looks like. Are we starting to lose the line between gratuitous depictions of violence and the importance of reporting reality? I haven't had the guts to put up any or link to them myself. Not polite or politically correct. Distasteful. Seditious, you know. Unamerican. I don't know why I let myself get told that. I'm glad that someone will still take the reality by the horns, horrible though it is. It's not about "sixteen words" in a Bush speech, and "intelligence failures" and every other distraction that we can type about, it is still about that.

BTW 19.Feb.2004 23:26

Taxes at Work

I believe that picture is of a little girl, not a boy.

Yes 20.Feb.2004 00:06

Bill

Are we starting to lose the line between gratuitous depictions of violence and the importance of reporting reality?

In this case, yes.

the photo is important 20.Feb.2004 01:44

pdx indymedia activist

i totally agree with the person who writes above under the name "really". especially this part: "The Iraqi children standing across the street from that don't get the privelege of having someone not show them that."

we DO need to see this stuff, and it does need to be on the front page of indymedia at times.

in the 3 1/2 years that portland indymedia has been in existence, photos of this nature have been put in the center column no more than 3-4 times (including this instance). that's not gratuitous. especially when you consider that the corporate media NEVER shows this side of u.s. foreign policy.

we need to keep images like this in mind when people complain about anti-war protests blocking traffic, or when democrats talk about "multilateralism". "coalition forces" or "UN-led" efforts kill children just this same way. american consumerism (all the plastics, all the food shipped around the country, all the unecessary driving) are what is responsible for this child's brutal death.

the squeamishness you might feel is your own guilt about your complicity, whether that's your personal habits, or your lack of commitment to fighting corporate power. instead of complaining about the photo, take that disgust and anger about how the child was killed and turn it into action, in whatever form that needs to take for you.

Sad But True 20.Feb.2004 08:19

Cause and Effect

The photo does nothing to prove your point. Had so many people not given their votes to Nader in 2000 the little girl could still be alive. Next time you want to draw people to your article put up a picture of wide open beaver instead.

Blaming Nader 20.Feb.2004 09:27

Lloyd Hart dadapop@dadapop.com

The day after election 2000 I was angry at Nader as well but I quickly snapped out of it. Candi Penn at Hemp Industries Association is my witness to this as I was heading up  http://VoteHemp.org at the time. I spent almost all of 1999 and the Winter of 2000 convincing Al Gore to take a pro medical marijuana stand. I lucked out in New Hampshire by running into Humphry's pollster who proved my point beyond a shadow of doubt that Jesse Ventura won the the governor's office in Minnesota by going pro medical marijuana and pro hemp by causing the largest registration of 18 to 29 year-olds in the history of any election in America.

I spoke directly with Donna Brazil Gore's campaign manager about the issue and she seemed to like a strategy of bringing in 10 to 16 million more voters into the election who would vote for Al Gore just on the single issue of medical marijuana. Within a month and half from my discussions with the Gore campaign in New Hampshire the payoff of months and months of lobbying and thousands of dollars of my own money, Gore went pro medical marijuana on the New England Cable News and little later in the Boston Globe.

This success with the Gore campaign and a successful lobbying effort I lead in Washington on behalf of a David Frankel, Woody Harrelson backed lawsuit against the Clinton administration for confiscation of shipments of Canadian hempseed at the U.S. border by the drug czar General Barry McCaffrey who was appointed by Clinton led to me to approaching the Hemp Industries Association with my proposal to create  http://VoteHemp.org. But then something strange happened while I was on my way to the Santa Cruz Hempfest.

As Al Gore got closer to picking a vice presidential candidate he began to backtrack on his pro medical marijuana stance and then he picked his running mate the arch conservative from the core of the Democratic leadership Council Senator Joe Lieberman. It was clear to me then that a small cabal of conservatives had somehow usurped power in Gore's campaign who were determined consciously or unconsciously to drive Al Gore's campaign into the ground. I did find out later through a source that many members of the Democratic leadership Council threatened Gore's campaign with feigned support. In other words they would not campaign for Al Gore or contribute money and in fact someone else said that the Democratic leadership Council forced Joe Lieberman onto the ticket with Gore.

The fact is Nader brought all lot of people into the election that wouldn't otherwise have participated most of whom switched to an Al Gore vote on election day. It would not have mattered whether Nader was running or not in 2000. The Bush gang along with the ultraconservative Pentagon officer corps stole the election in more than just Florida with false absentee ballots delivered by corrupt ultra-conservative officers in the U.S. military and corrupt election officials in many states. The election was Al Gore's to lose by allowing the election to get too close based on the issues the Gore campaign promoted. People in America go to the polls based on the issues that are important to them not based on the personalities promoting the issues.

My position has always been that if you can get the American voting age public to vote in not just in large majorities but majorities period, the Republicans can not steal the election and if you think that 2000 was the first election the Republicans ever stole then your complete moron. And in fact Dixiecrats in the South stole all kinds of elections along with corrupt election officials in minority neighborhoods all through the Northeast and Midwest.

It's the issues, stupid. Not the personalities. Bill Clinton proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So let's stop blaming Nader and let's start blaming the lack of solid policy campaigning on the part of what is a corrupt Democratic Party. The Republicans might be a unabashedly racist criminal gang but the Democrats have serious issues with elitism and trickle-down politics of their own.

That's right! 20.Feb.2004 11:26

Living in the real world

Feel good about yourself! Feel pure! Point out how (obviously) deficient the democratic party is (and yes, no question there, you're right), and how you're not going to vote for anything short of "pretty good." Go out of your way to vote for Nader. That'll show this country, won't it? We'll get four more years of Bush, and guess how much they can do with their re-election "mandate"? It'll make 2000-2004, the Iraq massacre, our already progressing slide into fascism, look like child's play.

But hey, you'll be satisfied. You did your part to feel good about yourself.

Grow up.

"the real world" 20.Feb.2004 11:32

kill your tv

Yes, you do seem to be living in an mtv television show if you believe that Bush could ever win a fair election. He couldn't do it in 2000 and he can't do it in 2004. Polls have been showing for months that an unnamed democractic candidate would beat Bush in an election. Particularly strong Bush opposition has been coming from the midwest, not exactly a bastion of liberalism or radicalism. Stop believing what the tv is telling you, whoever the democrats nominate will get far more votes in 2004 regardless of whatever discussion happen here. The questions are, how far will the Bush administration go to prevent a fair election, and what are people going to do about it?

TV 20.Feb.2004 11:40

Living in the real world

I don't watch TV. Haven't since I was a teenager, 35 years ago.

So how does voting for Nader keep bush from stealing the election?

Stolen Votes 20.Feb.2004 11:46

Lloyd Hart dadapop@dadapop.com

The more people vote means the more votes Bush has to steal, the greater the public reaction will be. But to get a true majority to go to the polls you must campaign on real solutions to real problems not the fluff Kerry an Edwards are spewing. There is one good sign in these primaries and that is that record numbers of hard-core Democrats are participating in the primaries and caucuses but to get that to transmit into the general population will require real solutions for real problems.

Voting for Nader 20.Feb.2004 12:03

Lloyd Hart dadapop@dadapop.com

Voting for Nader or rather supporting Nader's run for the presidency will force the Democrats to compete in the market of ideas and to face up to the Democratic Party's own internal problems.

Nader to Announce Intentions 20.Feb.2004 12:37

Lloyd Hart

Nader to Announce Intentions


Nader will announce decision to run or not on NBCs' Meet the Press this Sunday


 http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3898804/

Get In Line 20.Feb.2004 14:07

Cause and Effect

Be reasonable - do you want "four more wars" or not. Kerry (or Edwards for that matter) is much preferred to what we have now. Clinton was imperfect but looked like a saint compared to Bush Junior. Perot undercut Bush Senior and Nader undercut Gore. All your weed blah blah is just blowing smoke. I would have preferred Nader, who wouldn't have (besides 95% of the population)? I am sure he brought some voters in, but saying he gave Gore more than he took away is disingenuous. Whoever goes against Bush in 2004 will need their liberal base. If you think "real solutions for real problems" involves spewing medicinal marijuana rhetoric at grandma and grandpa (who vote in much higher numbers than your 18 to 29 demographic) you are gettin' high on your own supply. "It is the issues, stupid" is true as true, but what issues get more play should be determined by well thought out strategy and sadly must focus on the lowest common denominator. I am on your side, Bush has to go, but we need to capture the nascar set and Kucinich isn't going to swing it. The democrats are flawed, granted, but that doesn't make me want to crawl into some hole and not vote. The Revolutionary Communist Party has been saying to boycott the elections for years, and guess who hasn't lost their chains. I don't think the Nader protest vote has proven to have pushed Bush into liberalizing his policies either. You can tattoo that dead girl on your forehead and it won't change anything, or you can get in line and vote for Kerry who at least has a chance at making some slight, incremental, change. I hope you are right about Bush not having a chance in November, but just in case i think it is prudent to stay unified behind a candidate capable of winning some of the people who voted for Bush in 2000. You can vote with your heart, but don't be surprised when you have a whole new set of shocking photos to post two years from now.

I won't be surprised if you won't 20.Feb.2004 14:20

not living in fear

There will be a new set of shocking photographs regardless of which of these corporate jokers is selected. Unlike others I will not ignore or dismiss Clinton's actions of genocide. For all the suffering the Bush has caused Clinton was responsible for far more deaths in his 8 years. Not that I'm anxious to see Bush have a chance to top it but I will not support a candidate who says, "if you liked what you had under Clinton you'll like what you have under me" as Kerry did. I did not like what "I had under Clinton" and I probably won't like what "I'll have" under Kerry and so with some (but not complete) certainty I can say he will not get my vote.

The only thing the democrats win by attacking progressive parties is providing an excuse for their eventual loss. If democrats want to win it's time for them to focus on how to ensure a fair election. If the election is fair, Bush will lose, and the democrat will win. If not, Bush will win. Attacking people that don't agree with you is counter-productive if your stated goal is to remove Bush. I wish you all the best in figuring that out and choosing much more effective tactics than those used in 2000.

learn from Gore's mistakes... 20.Feb.2004 14:23

Gore's Ghost

or be doomed to repeat them.

Four more years or Eight? 21.Feb.2004 00:15

Pete

We do have a choice in November. Four more years or eight... It seems all are in agreement that Kerry will continue with the same agenda. No matter who is elected at this point, it's over for '04. Electing Kerry will only prolong out efforts until 2012 at the earliest. He will be the incumbent in 2008 running against some republican (Geb Bush?)...

We should try to foul their plans by giving control of the Senate back to the Dems, try to equalize the House, and put Bush back in the White House with his hands tied. In 2008 we can then try again, or, we must wait until 2012 for another shot at real change. Any way you slice this we're screwed for at least four years, why give them control for eight?

A protest vote accomplishes nothing. Four more years or eight, you decide which is the lesser of two evils.

pete

Vote Strategically 21.Feb.2004 21:49

anon

His (Bush's) presidency has been so destructive that the premise of your campaign--that the two parties are controlled by the same special interests and are therefore identical--has been proven wrong. If Al Gore were our President, we can be sure that significant disasters would have been avoided, including the tax cuts for the rich, the near destruction of the United Nations, the Iraq War, and more


anon 22.Feb.2004 19:42

Lloyd Hart dadapop@dadapop.com

If Nader had not run in 2000 bushites would have only had to have added 92,000 more votes to their election night theft of the election. You should not be so easily conned.