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

corporate dominance | economic justice | government selection 2004

The difference between Kerry and Bush

Bush TALKS about being a "uniter," but it is obvious that Bush -- and the entire neo-con version of the Republican Party -- are dividers. In his approach to Nader, and in his selection of Edwards, Kerry doesn't just talk the talk, he shows us by his actions that he is a uniter. The reality is that BUSH IS A DIVIDER -- KERRY IS THE UNITER.

The Edwards and Kucinich campaigns, going back to Iowa, were able to work together -- for the reason that Edwards made a major part of his campaign about criticism of corporate economic/political influence and about criticism of so-called "free trade" as it exists. I think that Kucinich's influence can be seen in the selection of John Edwards for Vice President. Edwards approaches these subjects differently than does Kucinich -- who avoids nuances by saying the U.S. should scrap NAFTA and GATT (WTO) and start over from scratch. Still, it is clear that Kerry's selection of Edwards is a move away from the Clinton endorsement of so-called "free trade" at any cost and under any circumstances.


Kerry went out of his way to have a conversation with Nader, after which he (Kerry) announced increasing the minimum wage as a part of his platform. This is building unity in the best sense, I think, and notable because it cannot be said that Kerry objected to Nader claiming some of the credit for Kerry's move on minimum wage. Bush TALKS about being a "uniter," but I think it is obvious that Bush -- and the entire neo-con version of the Republican Party -- are dividers. In his approach to Nader, and in his selection of Edwards, Kerry doesn't just talk the talk, he shows us by his actions that he is a uniter.

Bush is a jackass 22.Jul.2004 13:51

go fuck yourself

Kerry is his enabler.

TO "go fuck yourself" 22.Jul.2004 13:58

politics as impossible

TO "go fuck yourself" -- I see that you talk your talk. And I don't doubt that you also walk that particular thing that you like so much, probably on a regular basis.

kerry is a divider too 22.Jul.2004 15:04


Kerry is a divider as well.Divide the weapons up among 40,000 more troops for the gulf region.

The difference between Berry and Kush 23.Jul.2004 03:32

Dance dancing@theedgeoftheknown.com

I agree Kerry has seemed more conciliatory towards Nader (while letting Terry McAuliffe and others do the dirty work).

Then I heard Kerry say - and saw it come from his own lips - during an interview a few days ago: "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."

Either he can't read, can't count, can't think logically, knows the election is rigged, or is just a liar hoping to sway some frightened voters away from helping to create an alternative.

I don't think McAuliffe cares as much about defeating Bush as he does defeating Nader. Apparently Kerry has the same priorities. Although I voted for Nader/LaDuke in 1996 and 2000, I haven't been planning to vote for Nader this year. But it's as hard for me to vote for the Kerry-McAuliffe program as it would be to vote for someone like Bush who is more concerned with exploiting terrorists and terrorism than he is concerned about not fostering more.


They could replace it with statements about what they're going to do to adopt Proportional Representation and implement Instant Runoff Voting. I realize they'd be lying and would drop it the second the polls close on Election Day, but, meanwhile, they'd be getting the word out a bit about those options. They already passed on the chance to do anything meaningful on election reform - other than supporting the GOP's deform by requiring electronic, non-verifiable balloting. (Although they could still pass the measures currently in Congress requiring paper trails IN THIS YEAR'S ELECTION.)

I think that's how I'll decide my vote. If enough Democrats make enough noise about (and preferably in favor of) IRV and Proportional Representation, I'll vote for Kerry and some other Democrats. Otherwise, I'll take them at their word about Nader votes going to Bush.

TO: votenader'04 23.Jul.2004 12:21

politics as impossible

FACTS, please.

Yes, Kerry is himself divided in his approach to Iraq. Just as he was divided when he objected to the singling out of Lt. Calley (courtmartialed for My Lai) and even stated that the whole thing in Nam was war crimes -- and, yet, at the same time he was committed and active in the anti-war movement. So, in 2004, Kerry started out with a statement that he wanted to increase the size of the standing army by something like a division --- but that was never in order to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. (The Democratic Party Platform explicitly calls for a REDUCTION in number of U.S. troops in Iraq.) Kerry's reason for calling for an increase in the standing army has been (since '03) that reservists stationed in Iraq should be assured that once rotated out, they will not have to return for a second tour of duty to Iraq.

My main comment would be that the average American is as divided about Iraq -- out of a concern for the security of those soldiers that are stationed on the streets there -- as is Kerry. Nader has no magic wand whereby to wish all U.S. troops out of Iraq. Nader's published plan is much more nuanced than most Nader supporters even realize -- with their tendency toward simplistic thinking.

TO "Dance" 23.Jul.2004 12:56

politics as impossible

"Dance" presents a carefully considered comment. But, some corrections are necessary. Terry McAuliffe is the Clintons' man, not Kerry's. Amazing though it may seem, the presidential candidate does not run the Democratic Party, nor does the Democratic Party run the candidate. Also, Kerry hasn't "seemed conciliatory" toward Nader at all -- he just met with him and found some common ground about minimum wage policy. (Remember Ralph's old organization, "Common Ground," wasn't it called?)

Now, yes, Kerry has said that "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." That isn't exactly something that Kerry thought up for a campaign slogan. It is reality. In battleground states, because of the winner-take-all system that is incorporated into our electoral law, it is just a fact that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." Florida in 2000 was a practical example of that. (Yes, there were other factors at work, the Supreme Court and so forth, but if Ralph had listened to the call from organized labor to point Florida voters toward Gore, the election almost certainly would have been a Gore victory; and, let's not argue would that have been good or bad or indifferent, let's just cut the crap and admit that it is just a widely-accepted reality that a vote for Nader can be a vote for Bush -- even Nader has acknowledged it's reality in battleground states.)

About creating an alternative, neither Kerry nor any other Democrat, has denied that Nader presents an alternative -- but the question is whether that alternative is real or illusory. (And, as it is with illusions, self-defeating.)

And, Dance, do you REALLY believe that Kerry's priorities place defeating Nader above defeating Bush ? ? I mean, what world do you live in? Similarly, for your so-called "Kerry-McAuliffe program" -- I think you have been listening to too much Rush Limppaw or other right-wing talk.

As for whether I ("politics as impossible") can do something about statements that YOU don't like by "DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES AND LEADERS, THEIR CELEBRITY CHEERLEADERS, AND COMMITTED DEMOCRATIC ACTIVISTS AND VOTERS" -- the answer is, No, I can't do that. God couldn't do that, I suspect.

As for your idea that we don't have IRV because of the Democratic Party, it's like your statement that the Democrats "could still pass the measures currently in Congress requiring paper trails IN THIS YEAR'S ELECTION." Nice idea, but you seem to forget (or maybe you don't know) that the entire Congress -- House and Senate -- are solidly in Republican hands as we have our little debate here. Are you even aware that under the new rules put into effect in 2003 by the Republicans in the House that it is no longer even possible for a Democrat in the House to introduce any legislation on the floor of the House? The Republicans route everything into Republican controlled committees, where it is lost. So, I am sorry, but the facts are otherwise: the Democrats have no means whereby to enact the measures currently in Congress, although the Republicans do -- but you aren't interested in beating up on Republicans for some reason.

As for "enough" Democrats (enough to meet your standard) making more noise between now and election day about IRV, that won't happen, of course. But the reality is that with a Kerry administration and a Democratic Congress, IRV stands a chance -- with another Bush administration and another Republican Congress, the Republican Party will have no reason whatsoever to want to change its domination of the duopoly at all or in any of its details.

bush and kerry 23.Sep.2004 12:24

anit- government

uh! what r we talking ahout again