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

corporate dominance | election fraud | imperialism & war a13 bush/kerry visits

pResidential Visits, and Kerry Sympathizers vs. Reality

I was able to attend the gatherings outside of both the Kerry campaign stop on the Waterfront, and the Bush visit to the Beaverton high school location. My main focus was gathering signatures to place Nader on the November ballot. Here are a few of my impressions and observations, as well as a look at some of the claims that the Democrats are making about the Nader campaign.
Just Say No To Skull and Bones
Just Say No To Skull and Bones
After a short pedal down to the Portland Waterfront, I arrived at the Salmon Street Fountain shortly after 10 AM. Crowds of people were streaming everywhere, and I proceeded to solicit signatures for a petition to place Ralph Nader on the Oregon ballot. I had some success with the people that were gathered in that area, but found myself mostly in conversations with people rather than collecting signatures. One of the longest interactions was with a Socialist Party booster who refused to sign my petition, and claimed that Nader had abandoned social issues. I pointed out prominent planks in the Nader platform that dealt with Universal Heath Care and labor rights, but she seemed unaware that he was promoting these issues.

Shortly after this, I spotted Spark and Deva in the area. I gave Spark a brief on-camera interview, offered them my Kerry event 'invitation', then headed for the MAX out to Beaverton.

Upon exiting the MAX, I hopped on my bike and pumped a few miles over to the Bush gathering at Southridge High School. When I arrived, I noticed that the police officers, mostly clad in full riot gear, lacked name tags. I approached one of them and asked why they were not wearing nametags. He did not respond, but one of his fellow officers approached and seemed to be in a poor mood. He would not answer my question but did provide me with a name of the officer in charge.

I began to work the crowd with my Nader petition. One side of the street appeared to be concentrated with Bush detractors, while the other side appeared stacked with supporters. There was a great deal of fear (of Bush) expressed by the detractors, and I found myself subjected to numerous claims that I was a Republican operative. Others wanted to know who was paying me, who I planned to vote for, and what I liked about the Nader platform. I responded that I was an independent volunteer planning to vote for Nader because he was the only candidate that represented my views, and I listed a few of them.

I completed my pass through the crowds on both sides of the streets. I received about the same number of signatures on both sides of the street, for a total of around 25. Just around the time I was finishing up, the Bush motorcade began to roll out. I positioned myself on the Bush supporter side, crouching in front of the crowd, and offered an enthusiastic single fingered salute to each of the limos as they exited, passing within 15 feet in front of me.

Now to address some of the empty claims constantly repeated by Democratic sympathizers. Nader did not cost Gore the election in 2000. That claim has been repeatedly discredited and is astoundingly ignorant at this point. Gore won the election despite 8 million Democrats casting their votes for Bush, ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040524-121024-1968r), yet conceded the 'victory' to Bush. The Bush crew engaged in blatant voter fraud activities and the Democrats failed disgracefully to challenge them.

For a brief explanation of the fraud, see  http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

For the extended version, have a look at  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5278.htm

The Nader campaign does not intentionally recruit help from the Republican Party, and has publicly denounced both Republican and Democratic meddling in his campaign. One of the most aggressive Democratic apologists suggested that most of the Nader campaign contribution comes from Republican groups who do not support Nader. When I pressed him for a source for his claims, he volunteered the  http://www.opensecrets.org/ website. I did not find anything there that supported his claims. In fact, what I found was evidence suggesting that Bush and Kerry are both very deep in the pockets of large corporations, and many of these corporations, including some particularly heinous ones, were giving massive support to both Bush and Kerry. Here are a few examples of their (common) top contributors:

Goldman Sachs- Bush: $352,875 Kerry: $209,750

Morgan Stanley- Bush: $559,425 Kerry: $124,279

UBS Americas- Bush: $433,350 Kerry: $172,800

Citigroup- Bush: $273,650 Kerry: $186,606

Bank of America- Bush: $191,250 Kerry: $121,802

Microsoft- Bush: $184,740 Kerry: $133,543

The Kerry campaign also received well over $100,000 from JP Morgan Chase & Co., IBM Corporation, and Viacom Inc., and more than $200,000 from Time Warner.

Time Warner was the only overlapping top contributor to the Nader campaign, offering his campaign $3,200. There were ZERO shared top campaign contributors between the Bush and Nader campaigns.

To the issue of Nader taking more votes away from the Kerry campaign than the Bush campaign, while I couldn't personally care less if this was true, I have yet to see a single poll that supports this claim in numbers that are outside of the stated margin of error for the poll, and most polls that I have seen show this to be only marginally true.

As for me, I am working to get Nader on the ballot because he deserves the support and is the only candidate who both represents my views and is qualified for the job. I don't doubt that a few Republicans are petitioning or contributing with ill intentions against Kerry, but I do not control the behavior of others, and there is nothing illegal about this anyway. I do know for a fact that the Democrats have engaged in many unethical and sometimes borderline illegal efforts with respect to their ongoing sabotage of the Nader campaign. Most Kerry backers appear to be supporting him only because they have ill intensions towards Bush.

Kerry and the Democrats reek with the stench of failure. The illegal Iraq invasion is poised to be the greatest military defeat in US history. Kerry offers no credible alternative to our present policy in Iraq, in Israel, in Venezuela, and elsewhere. The US economy is well on its way towards a massive meltdown, largely as a result of US military adventures, and both Skull and Bones candidates are offering to continue policies that will complete our economic collapse.

Kerry is a proven enemy of liberty, with his backing of the PATRIOT Act and proposals for 'neighborhood terror watch' groups. He is an established enemy of the environment, of labor, and of human rights with his support of NAFTA and the anti-human Chapter 11 provision contained within it. Kerry has admitted publicly to have participated in war atrocities in Vietnam- a conflict which nobody should confuse as being righteous, or an effort to defend the US in any legitimate way. Vietnam is one of the biggest disgraces in our nation's history, and the only American 'heroes' in that war were those that worked to undermine it.

On a positive note, the Nader campaign is reporting that: "... Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader today applauded a federal court decision that found the FEC acted contrary to the Federal Elections Act by ignoring evidence that the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is a partisan political organization.

""This decision is the first step toward getting real presidential debates this Fall. A federal court, looking at all the evidence, found that the FEC has been ignoring evidence that the Commission on Presidential Debates is a partisan organization," said Nader."

Details at  http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=152

For Nader on the issues, see  http://www.votenader.org/issues/index_home.php

One More 15.Aug.2004 13:09

Smelling Salt

Compounding the myth that Nader 'cost' Gore the election in Florida, Kerry apologists claim that they felt betrayed by Nader because, they say, that Nader had promised a less vigorous campaign in closely contested states.

I followed the Nader campaign fairly closely in the last general sElection, and I don't remember Nader saying anything close to that. In fact, if he had, it would have somewhat weakened my support of his campaign.

If anyone has any support for this claim, I would be interested to see it.

Deliberately stealing votes from Kerry 15.Aug.2004 20:04

Fiercely Independent

I saw at least two people at Southridge soliciting signatures for Nader's campaign. One of them approached me and asked, "Would you like to help get Ralph Nader on the ballot in Oregon to steal votes from John Kerry?" Perhaps the individual who approached me was not the author of this article. Regardless of his actual affiliation, the Nader signature collector I met was effectively working for the Bush campaign. You, sir, are shameful. Leveraging Nader to aid Bush is pathetic and pitiful.

shameful is... 15.Aug.2004 20:11


What is shameful is the democrats supporting Bush and his policies using Kerry as their proxy. If you like the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and NAFTA vote for Kerry, or Bush, it's your choice.

I hope it matters 15.Aug.2004 21:41


But I'm not convinced it does--

Shameful is.. 15.Aug.2004 21:42


Kerry and Bush are one in the same vote UNLESS you a republican trying to keep Bush in office.

Re: tom 15.Aug.2004 21:51

Smelling Salt

That would make a nice feature pic. Thanks.

it could be... 15.Aug.2004 22:18


But I'm pointing out is that if you like Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, the war on terrorism, the war on Iraq, the war on Afghanistan, NAFTA, GATT, FTAA, welfare reform, and much more you can vote for either Bush or Kerry. That doesn't make them the same; it just means that they support most of the same policies (oh, and there aren't any republicans who want to point that out; they're already losing too many republicans to Kerry as it is; hell, even the Reagans are backing Kerry).

But perhaps you would prefer a catholic president to a protestant one, or vice-versa.

Republicans LOVE Kerry 16.Aug.2004 02:32


"I'm calling everyone I know and telling them that they have to give. Every day, moderate Republicans call me and say, 'I want to get on board.'"
-- Stephen Robert of Robert Capital Management Group, Inc., a self-identified moderate Republican who was one of about twenty potential fundraisers at a private dinner with Kerry in New York in February (Ianthe Jeanne Dugan and Jeanne Cummings, "Kerry Gets a Lifeline from Wall Street," Wall Street Journal, February 17, 2004)

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States [Bush] the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John Forbes Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002, being a warmongering lil bitch

"The President laid out a strong, comprehensive, and compelling argument why Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are a threat to the United States and the international community."
-- Sen. John Forbes Kerry, lil bitch

"As a veteran of both the Vietnam War and the Vietnam protest movement, I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's time to get over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example, of the U.S. military engagements of the twentieth century. If those of us who carried the physical and emotional burdens of that conflict can regain perspective and move on, so can those whose involvement was vicarious or who knew nothing of the war other than ideology and legend"
-- John Kerry, telling the anti-war movement to "get over it" and "move on", in his 2003 book, A Call to Service: My Vision for a Better America (Viking), pg. 43

Under Clinton, abortion access declined steadily. It's likely that Kerry will stand by while this happens as well. He opposes abortion personally, but defends it on the basis that it is the law. Recent comments from Kerry put into question whether he is really all that dedicated to preserving abortion as the law of the land. Kerry, a devout Catholic who says he once considered becoming a priest, said in May that he might even appoint an anti-abortion Supreme Court justice if it provided necessary "balance" to the Court.
Bragging that he voted to confirm Antonin Scalia in 1986, Kerry told reporters that he has voted in favor of "any number of judges who are pro-life or pro-something else that I may not agree with," some of whom were nominated by Republican presidents. Asked about future Court picks if he's offered the chance, Kerry said, "Do they have to agree with me on everything? No... that doesn't mean that if that's not the balance of the court I wouldn't be prepared ultimately to appoint somebody to some court who has a different point of view. I've already voted for people like that. I voted for Judge Scalia."

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry declared that, if he were elected, US troops would remain in Iraq throughout his first term in office—to the end of 2008. The Democratic candidate also suggested that the Bush administration was more likely to withdraw troops quickly than a Kerry administration.
Both the content of the interview and the choice of publication, the Journal, has been the most vehement media advocate of the war in Iraq and is one of the chief editorial voices of the extreme right within the American political establishment—are politically calculated to send a message. Kerry is reassuring the US ruling elite, including the far-right elements who now back Bush, that he can be trusted to carry forward the US conquest and occupation of Iraq.

On the signature hunt 16.Aug.2004 05:18

Jeanette Doney

for Nader-Camejo ballot access petition, fear and loathing dominates the democrats who apprently have abandoned their party platform of to, "Beat Bush". "Anybody but Bush", proved to mean, "Any Democrat but Bush" (the right wing, America First party's motto this year is, "Republicans deliver what democrats promise". "Beating Bush", has come to mean, Beating Bush at his own game, which means, being worse than Bush.

Worse than Bush 16.Aug.2004 05:34

Yeah right


You can't while still telling the truth.

"top contributors" 16.Aug.2004 09:30

realist reader

The statement about "top contributors" and being "in the pockets of large corporations" is WRONG. Read the disclosures on opensecrets.com. The companies listed are the employers of the donors, NOT the donors themselves. The author is either naive or intentionally misleading readers.

yes, WORSE than Bush 16.Aug.2004 09:41


Bush wants 20,000 additional troops overseas.
Kerry wants 40,000 additional troops overseas.
WORSE than Bush.

Bush has made no concrete promises to keep troops in Iraq.
Kerry has vowed to keep troops in Iraq until AT LEAST 2008.
WORSE than Bush.

Bush's cowboy style of violent imperialism has mobilized millions of progressive activists into action independant of the corrupt, entrenched political system.
Kerry's cooperative style of violent imperialism will put middle-class activists to sleepy inaction, like all Democrat presidents have before him.
WORSE than Bush.

Some believe that having a Democrat in office will mean that at least there is someone who will to listen to our side. So far, Kerry has proven the opposite-the Left's support can be taken for granted. Ultimately, this means that our side ends up weaker, not stronger. In the run-up to elections, activists are always asked to fold up shop in order to not embarrass the Democrat. Once in office, activism again must be put on the backburner to "give the Democrat time." In the run-up to the April "March for Women's Lives" protest in Washington, D.C., liberal women's groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) bragged that they had not organized a national protest in twelve years. During that time-under Democrat Clinton-abortion rights were chipped away, restriction by restriction and state by state, and no liberal women's organization called a protest.

Re: realist reader 16.Aug.2004 10:31

Smelling Salt

You are correct in pointing out that the top contributors listed did not simply write big checks to these respective campaigns. Anyone familiar with campaign finance rules is aware of this, but I can understand why you might find this to be misleading. However, it is fairly well established that many leaders of large corporations strongly "encourage" these types of political donations from their subordinates, as well as family members.

If you doubt that these companies expect some return on the investment of their "employees", and if you think it is just a coincidence that these top contributors are from the banking, finance, and high-tech industries, then perhaps I am not the naive one here.

Here are a few examples of donations by sector:


Bush $4,073,735 Kerry $439,075 Nader $5,700


Bush $4,523,901 Kerry $5,766,459 Nader $45,760

Energy/Natural Resources

Bush $4,006,303 Kerry $417,842 Nader$2,000


Bush $8,823,694 Kerry $4,127,221 Nader $16,228

Lawyers and Lobbyists-

Bush $10,789,391 Kerry $13,982,938 Nader $53,620


Bush $4,095,284 Kerry $433,589 Nader $750

Misc. Businesses-

Bush $17,293,985 Kerry $7,335,587 Nader $45,950


Is there a pattern developing here?

Something to consider 16.Aug.2004 11:14


It appears that, at a minimum, the next president will appoint four of the nine members of the Supreme Court. Even assuming there's no practical difference in the foreign policies of Bush and Kerry -- something I'd dispute in a moment -- it is quite clear that they will appoint individuals of wholly different philosophies to the Supreme Court. Do you care about the right to choose, affirmative action, whether basic regulatory laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Environmental Protection Act will remain enforceable? Such a list could go on and on.

I do care about such things, and as such, though my general politics are more aligned with Nader than Kerry, will ardently support Kerry.

Why the Republicans 16.Aug.2004 11:24

want you

to not vote for Kerry. So Bush will win. Don't bother with the Anyone but Bush jingle that's over the "choice" is do you want Bush in? If not, Kerry will get enough votes to win ,if they count them this time.

If you can all promise us the revolution will be in place by November then it won't matter. But the thing is the 'lower'40% of the masses are't exactly revolting. Why is that?

Re: Evita 16.Aug.2004 11:35

Smelling Salt

"Scalia was approved by the Senate in a vote of 98-0"


Kerry was one of those Senators. Noone has provided any evidence that Kerry would select better SCOTUS "Justices".

"...Kerry proudly points to his vote in favor of Justice Scalia's appointment to the bench as proof that he will be willing to appoint judges who are opposed to abortion rights. Further, Kerry stated that he would have voted in favor of the bill restricting late-term abortions if it had contained an exception for the health of the woman."


Also Evita 16.Aug.2004 11:42

Smelling Salt

The Fair Labor Standards Act and the Environmental Protection Act are currently not enforcable due to the Chapter 11 provision of NAFTA, of which Kerry also voted in favor of, and continues to support.

Gringo 16.Aug.2004 13:50

yeah right

My doubts about the "worse than Bush" idea was in reaction to the comment below:

"Beating Bush", has come to mean, Beating Bush at his own game, which means, being worse than Bush.

I believe the indication here is that he would be a worse president, his policies would be worse, etc. That's my interpretation. But there can be many other interpretations.

Your comments don't really address my intepretation.

*Bush wants 20,000 additional troops overseas.
Kerry wants 40,000 additional troops overseas.
WORSE than Bush.

It's a given that with either we are going to have troops in Iraq, but who can say what those two simple sentences you wrote indicate in reality? Will either of them make those troop increases? Make more or less? Who knows? If they do what does it mean? Could more troops mean they will handle the situation better, therefore get out faster? Maybe? Remember with either we will have troops in Iraq, so they're even on that point. We can't even discuss not having troops there. Your two sentences don't prove whether or not Kerry or Bush would be worse. They are just numbers. And they're not even real.

*Bush has made no concrete promises to keep troops in Iraq.
Kerry has vowed to keep troops in Iraq until AT LEAST 2008.
WORSE than Bush.

Gringo! You can do better than that one. It's pretty pathetic you have to admit. Bush has made no concrete promises to keep troops in Iraq? Has he made any promises to take the troops out? Come on. This is his project, he is commited to being there. Maybe he hasn't said how long troops will be there because it is indefinite. How would the voters take that? The two sentences prove nothing except that Kerry is claiming to have some sort of plan, while Bush won't even do that.

*Bush's cowboy style of violent imperialism has mobilized millions of progressive activists into action independant of the corrupt, entrenched political system.
Kerry's cooperative style of violent imperialism will put middle-class activists to sleepy inaction, like all Democrat presidents have before him.
WORSE than Bush.

Well yes, Gringo this means Kerry as Pres. will be worse for you than Bush as Pres. It doesn't mean he will be a worse president however. So we're talking about different things here.

Your last paragraph is of course a legitimate observation. Some people understand that you have to go deep into misery before there will be a big and sudden change. Some people are willing to withstand that misery and impose it upon others, some are not.

chew on this 16.Aug.2004 14:48


if one more asshole democrat tells me i have no choice but to vote for kerry, when all i want to do is vote for ralph nader, i am going to vote for george bush.

You're missing the point, "yeah right" 16.Aug.2004 15:42


All Kerry has to do in order to win is to come out against the war. And that will truly clinch it. He would then win.

BUT... he is FOR the war. He wants to show the ruling elite that he can out-Bush Bush. Because that is what the ruling class wants, and they are who decides who is appointed as president.

Kerry has gone out of his way to prove that he will wage MORE war, plunder MORE money from workers, let MORE industries be deregulated. Do you think he will soemhow NOT do the things he says he will, when he is president? After all, the first term is mere campaigning for the second term.

Don't worry: your precious Kerry will win. And you will see him ruthlessly do all that Bush and Clinton did before him. And you might (I don't know because I don't know you personally) cling to the desperate and mindless hope that somehow Kerry will be better than Bush, or that Kerry will appoint a non-fascist Supreme Court (he won't). Kerry will fail you. Miserably. Your excuses for Kerry's promises are somewhat pathetic ("They are just numbers. And they're not even real.")

Just remember this when it finally happens: I TOLD YOU SO.

Gore was right 16.Aug.2004 16:37


Nader in his state of total dillusion is attempting to waste years of PIRG volunteers time by negating their acheivments. He is now the proud recipient of Republican dollars, phone banking and advertising. Al Gore was correct, there really is no difference between Bush and Nader.

of course 16.Aug.2004 16:58


Kerry receives 10 to 100 times as much funding from republicans as Nader. But for some reason that doesn't seem to bother the hypocritical anti-democracy corporate fascist democrats. I guess if Kerry is good enough for the Reagan family he's good enough for them. I have to hand it to the DLC, their plan to turn the democratic party into the republican party has been quite a success.

most americans are for the war 16.Aug.2004 18:49


The sad reality is that most americans are for the war. we live in a little bubble out here in Cascadia. If a national candidate wants to be elected they must speak to the majority of the electorate. Kucinich was against the war vocally. He didn't win even one state --- not even Oregon, not even Multnomah or Lane Counties.
There is much work to do to bring about a revolution in the thinking of the ordinary americans who make up most of the voting public. Many of the peole I know who are anti war are not even registered to vote. Local action and organizing is a full time job -- if not in what we say, at least in how we live our lives.
In reality, the best we can do for national elections is to force the candidates to move to the left a bit at a time. When the economy gets stable most voters go to sleep regardless of who is in office and if there is a good show on TV they go to sleep even in hard times. If the economy collapses, the alternative community should be in place to lead --- if they can ever come together.
the facts can be hard to deal with.

WRONG - most americans are NOT for the war 16.Aug.2004 20:09


40% of Americans polled think that the Iraq war will reduce the threat of terrorism. 48% of Americans polled think that th eIraq war will raise the threat of terrorism.


maybe 16.Aug.2004 22:13


Gringo, i would like to believe you are right, but 48% is less than half of americans, and certainly the voting public does not reflect an anti war sentiment. Too many americans don't realize that a strong defense, aka, strong military, is not a way to get out of the war business, it only increases it.
People say "i don't like war" and then they say but particularly they mean they don't want war here at home. War "over there somewhere" is okay if it prevents war here. War is war.

as much fun as the freerepublic.com 16.Aug.2004 23:28

wimpy bsaa50@hotmail.com

Man oh man. This is so much fun to read. I was led here trying to find out the laws relating to those dangerous scooter like things and got to read a nice rant about my Vespa from somebody who can't tell the difference between a Vespa and a schucks special that shouldn't be on the street, and now I get to read all the nice silly Kerry is just like Bush. Hmm, I think I heard all this crap in 2000 with Gore. Kerry is not Bush, Nader is not perfect. Vote for him if you want, heck vote for bush like that poster a little earlier said he'd do. You do have a right to vote for whatever candidate you want, but to spew out stuff about Kerry is so very silly. Hmmm, if Gore were in office like he should be, do you goofballs honestly think any of the crap of the last few years would have happened, because, after all, he's just like Bush. War aside, Bush has been gutting environmental laws, worker protection laws, superfund sites go untouched, etc. Really, Gore would have done the same, and Kerry will to? Yeah, right. Vote however you want, but if you tell me how bad my candidate is(proudly Kerry), well, actually I'll just think you are a sillier version of the person I thought was silly in 2000.

Have a nice day. Relax, Nader won't win, let us who realize our candidate might be the ones who are stressed.


Nader vrs God Cop / Bad Cop 17.Aug.2004 00:46


Bush / Kerry is equivalent to the ol' Good Cop / Bad Cop. Both of the sides are the "same coin". The progressive Left has abandoned the Dream. They have given in to the Good/Bad mentality ruse, and have forsaken the quest for what is right. It is the voice of dissent and distaste; it is the cry for Democracy & PEACE, and an end to Corporate welfare that you will have forsaken. As you lay aside your civil liberties and join rank with the Monster, remember where and why you sold your souls. Ralph is more determined than ever to face this good/bad duality and the support you choose is your vote and lets hope you know why you are voting for all that you don't support or believe in; NAFATA;CAFTA;PATRIOT-ACT,DRUG-WAR;IRAQ-WAR,CORPORATE-WELFARE,ENVIROMENTAL,HELTH-CARE,FAIR-LABOR,MILITARY-SPENDING. In tense times we need to stay united for all our causes and don't take up a partnership with the Monster

Gringo is right, just posted the wrong poll 17.Aug.2004 11:36


u.s. did right thing taking action against iraq?

yes: 45%
no: 51%

how are things going for u.s. in iraq?

well: 43%
badly: 56%

has war in iraq been worth the costs?

yes: 34%
no: 62%

no one is saying Kerry is "bad" 17.Aug.2004 11:45


Bad is a subjective term. I'm just pointing out the objective realities of Kerry's position. Does that make him "bad". Well, if you support the war in Iraq than Kerry's position makes him a "good" candidate since he is in agreement with you. Is this really so hard for Kerry supporters to understand? Certainly none of them are going to contradict the claims that Kerry receives millions of dollars of campaign funding from republicans and has voted almost entirely in favor of Bush's policies, and the republican policies under Clinton (anti-terrorism act, welfare reform, NAFTA). He's a weak supporter of civil liberties at best and wants to continue this nation's wars and efforts toward corporate globalization. Now that public opinion on the war has shifted, Gringo is absolutely correct, an anti-war platform would lead to a landslide victory. But a pro-war platform is what the DLC and the rest of the democratic party leadership wants. The democrats have become Reagan's republican party of the 80's, as was the plan of the DLC since 1984. So they have the support of the Reagan's and many republicans and conservatives. And, to be fair, it's not a bad strategy; Kerry will get a lot of votes from republicans who are sick of Bush. It's just that an anti-war candidate would enjoy a far greater margin of victory.

PRO WAR = SICK VOTERS = MURDER 17.Aug.2004 13:07

MIKE TABOR callingzebra3@hotmail.com

pro war ??????? is everybody out of their f*ing minds

dead bodies all over - children 1/2 blown up - impearlism - more dead soliders - more dead civilians - kill - kill - kill - shoot them in the head - bigger bombs - kill everybody - mutalate entire cities - hide the body bags

pro war ????

all "pro war" imbilcils should put their familys up to fight first, then use up the rest of us to kill off what is left of "civilization". let the pro war voters be first to come home dead in a body-bag, hidden from the daily news ...burried & forgotten.

pro war ...how fricken retarded...... how "insane"

kerry = pro war
bush = pro war

for gods sake get rid of these creeps pro war voters are murderers!!!!!!

***************dont vote for murderers****************
. .

americans are not anti war 17.Aug.2004 17:31


It is wonderful to see the polls turning against this particular war, but really doesn't it just mean that americans are against war if they think the US is loosing? The vast majority of voters were in favor of going to war and stayed in favor as long as it "looked good" for the US. As it takes longer and more die, more and more americans are turning against the war. That's good -- but their slow learning curve comes with a high human cost. Clearly the lives of the Afghanis and Iraqis mean little to the average american, let alone the environmental disaster for years to come.
I look for the day when we start out against war, perhaps then we can begin to forge lasting peace.

vast majority could care less 18.Aug.2004 11:58

Mike Tabor callingzebra3@hotmail.com

Slow learning curve ?
Heck we already learned this from Viet Nam
hmmmm must have forgot already ?
Maybe it's a cycle

Break the cycle Vote for Peace
Vote Nader & make your point

Or start the cycle "again"
and vote to kill
By voting kERRY or bUSH