portland independent media center  
images audio video
promoted newswire article reporting united states

election fraud

It Was And Is the Theft of the Election Stupid.

Could somebody please tell me how this alternate reality appeared totally blotting out the well-documented history of election 2000. The alternate reality I am speaking of is the one that seems to have taken over the minds of the Democratic Party and their party hacks like Paul Bagala a host on CNN's Croosfire who up until Nader announced his candidacy to run for the presidency in 2004 claimed over and over and over again on the air that George Bush and the Republican dominated Supreme Court stole the presidential election in 2000. All across America Democrats screamed about the theft of the election over over and over again.
It Was And Is the Theft of the Election Stupid.

By Lloyd Hart

Could somebody please tell me how this alternate reality appeared totally blotting out the well-documented history of election 2000. The alternate reality I am speaking of is the one that seems to have taken over the minds of the Democratic Party and their party hacks like Paul Bagala a host on CNN's Croosfire who up until Nader announced his candidacy to run for the presidency in 2004 claimed over and over and over again on the air that George Bush and the Republican dominated Supreme Court stole the presidential election in 2000. All across America Democrats screamed about the theft of the election over over and over again.

And now, all across America Democrats are embarrassing themselves and risking their futures by blaming Ralph Nader for Al Gore's loss in the presidential election in 2000. Many elected Democratic Party election officials are actually committing crimes by purposely disqualifying legitimate signatures on ballot petitions submitted by Ralph Nader's campaign in states like Oregon. I suspect that other Democrats are going out and collecting or should I say creating fraudulent signatures that are then submitted to election officials which then become evidence of election fraud a judge in Pennsylvania just recently claimed Ralph Nader was committing. Get Fucking Real Democrats.

The latest in the twisted alternate reality game the Democrats are playing has come from TomPaine.com which claims to be all about common sense right there in their website logo. There is absolutely nothing commonsensical about the article that they sent out in their E-mail dispatch written by David Corn who writes for The Nation magazine a so-called progress left-wing publication.

 http://www.tompaine.com/articles/reproaching_ralph.php

David Corn needs to drop the pretense of the title journalist and in fact he needs to resign from the magazine the Nation and join the rest of the party hacks at the Democratic National Committee who have taken up this alternate reality that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore to lose election 2000. When George Bush was asked about Florida being called for Al Gore on national television on election night in 2000 Dubya responded in a most telling expression "I don't think we're out of the woods yet, in Florida Heh heh heh".

Let's say Ralph had not run in 2000 and just for kicks let's believe momentarily that the 92,000 people in Florida that voted for Ralph actually voted for Al Gore, just for a minute. Does David Corn actually believe that the Republicans would not have stolen the election regardless. If this is the case and I think David Corn and the Democrats that support his position are terribly naive and in fact stupid, ok maybe just desperate.

What part of the Republicans stole the election does David Corn not get? Even this week Paul Krugman editorialized in York Times that the ethnic and political cleansing of the voter list in Florida was not an accident but rather a deliberate act when Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris created the broader criteria by which felons would be removed from the voter rolls that swept the hundred and 140,000 non felons from the voter lists including a sitting black judge.

 http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101604Y.shtml

Hell, Democrats even helped to write HAVA the "Help America Vote Act" which would distribute billions of dollars for the renewal of America's elections systems that George Bush gleefully signed into law and which by the way Republican dominated States and Counties used to purchase electronic touchscreen voting machines that funny enough have no paper trail and no way to verify or recount the results of an election.

What part of the Republican dominated Senate in Florida voting to ban a paper trail on the computerized touchscreen voting machines that will be used in 62% of polling precincts in Florida does David Corn not get. Maybe if David Corn spent some time doing some real journalism he might discover that Jim Crow has joined the electronic age and that the very same stream of thought that created the Jim-Crow laws that prevented blacks from voting in the South, hell the same people is and are behind the new age of "Electronic Jim Crow". Why does David Corn not work on this issue instead of wasting his time and embarrassing the majority of Democrats by beating up one of America's greatest Democrats ever, Ralph Nader. The single greatest reason Democrats held on to the House and Senate all through the '70s and into the 80s was the policy work of Ralph Nader and the many wonderful people Ralph Nader touched through the many groups that came out of his beautiful sphere of influence.

Doesn't David Corn realize the terrible disservice he is doing to the reputation of the Democratic Party? It took 70 years for the Democrats to repair the damage that was caused by the Dixiecrats opposing the abolition of slavery by later turning around and becoming the Party of Civil Rights in the 20th-century. So now David Corn wants Democrats to support limiting democracy again.

David Corn refers to Ralph Nader's run as a tactical error and attempts to paint Ralph Nader as a vengeful jilted lover when fact it is the Democratic Party that David Corn is hurting. It is the Democratic Party that is being painted as the vengeful lover and it is David Corn who has made the tactical error of criticizing Ralph Nader's very brave and tactically brilliant effort to cause civic arousal which by the way is the name of the booklet Ralph Nader has just put out explaining the things that David Corn should be spending more time on instead of focusing on limiting democracy to those David Corn thinks are better suited for the job.

Like David Corn I was touched by Ralph Nader's beautiful mind when I canvassed door to door in Massachusetts for Clean Water Action and when I met Ralph in election 2000 but unlike David Corn I could never view Ralph Nader's run for president and the challenge Ralph is putting up to the draconian candidate ballot access process in America that even Senator John Kerry himself criticized in the last debate, as any thing but the same pioneering spirit that Ralph has always stubbornly used to guide us to the future of a better America. An America where a third-party keeps the other two parties honest on election day.

homepage: homepage: http://dadapop.com


Darth Nader 17.Oct.2004 08:56

Anarchy-nonymous

The election was stolen in 2000 in Florida. However, the best accounts of what happened were that the Bush Family swooped into action only as they saw the numbers in a position where they could steal the election with Operation Florida.

Had Nader not been in the election, then Florida would not have been able to affect the outcome, and the Bush's would not have sprung "Operation Florida."

The real question is whether or not Nader is really the do-gooder he says he is, or if he is in fact an agent provacateur of the Right. There are a lot of well-documented facts to suggest Nader switched over to the Dark Side a long time ago. Read this link with an open mind, Nader-lovers.

 http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

Thanks darth! 17.Oct.2004 09:42

reality check

Remembering the dirty tricks the bush campaign of '92 sprung on perot, it is perfectly consistent with their politics of kakistocreacy for them to use nader as a pawn to maintain the most virulent faction of skull & bones in power.

Put Down The Kool-Aid, Archy... 17.Oct.2004 11:12

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

...then explain again just why it was Nader's fault that hundreds of thousands of registered Democrats voted for Bush instead of Gore. No, really. I want to see your theory about that one. Probably involves mass hypnosis and Elvis coming back from the dead, right ?

The author of the above article is right. Democrats are too stupid to find their own asses with both hands. It's not Nader's job to lend them an extra pair of hands. If they can't run a competent campaign and fight when their backs are to the wall --with all the resources, power, and influence they have at their disposal-- they deserve to go extinct. The Left should really stop wiping the DP's ass, already. It's doing neither them nor us a damn bit of good. Tell me again all about how Dean's and Kucinich's followers won soooo much for the current front-runner's platform, how playing the rules in a rigged game is the right and productive thing to do, how respected and acknowledged and loved Lefty activists are by Terry "We have nothing to do with those anti-war protesters" McAuliffe. Shiiiiiiiiit.

Or maybe the Democrats aren't stupid. Maybe they just don't give a shit. Maybe they're like a boxer who gave up trying to win years ago. He just wants to slog through the fight, give the fans the illusion of a show, and collect his fat purse at the end.

As for your "open mind," puh-lease. There's a difference between having an "open mind" and talking hopelessly out of your ass. If Nader wanted to renounce his "sordid" past and publically become a Rightie in the David Horrowitz mold, I'm thinking that that's what he would've done years ago. The world and FOX would've beaten a path to his door and the zillions of dollars would've poured in. Hacks like Corn and Alterman and their lame-brained wannabees like you would've had an even more perfect villain in him than they do now. I'm afraid when it comes to your theories, Archy, however colorful and imaginative they may be, there's just no "There" there.

P.S., Arch Skywalker... 17.Oct.2004 11:25

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

...that "expose'" of Nader is as old as the hills. Are you going to worry about everyone else --including several Democrats-- "exposed" on that site, or just him ?

How come you're not mad about the hundreds of thousands of votes that those OTHER nasty, wicked 3rd Parties and candidates cruelly wrenched away from the deserving hands of the Democrats ? How come you're not mad at the Democrats for their selling out disenfranchised Black voters ?

[whistles, stares at ceiling]

Face it, if "Darth" didn't exist, you'd have to invent him. Dumbass.

It Will Be Funny When Kerry Loses to the Chimp 17.Oct.2004 12:49

Kush/Berry in 2004!!!

Re: "The real question is whether or not Nader is really the do-gooder he says he is, or if he is in fact an agent provacateur of the Right."

That is only a "real question" for "real dumb motherfuckers" and Democratic party apologists.

The real question is: Why didn't the pro-Fascist wing(s) of the 'Democratic' party simply 'nominate' Lieberman and be done with it? Wouldn't he lick Sharon's ass even better than Berry?

my idea 17.Oct.2004 13:29

about how we should get prepared angel@spiritone.com

Vote. And have a plan. If the election is stolen please consider adopting the
following guidelines:

1. The next day, proceed enmass to a local and obvious meeting point.
(In Portland, that would probably be pioneer square--whatever).

That Saturday, meet on the steps of the County Court House, wherever you are.

The following Saturday meet on the steps of your state capital.

The 1st Saturday in December we will meet on the mall in Washington DC.

"Dean's and Kucinich's followers" 17.Oct.2004 13:34

yeah,

what happened to those gut-spewers?

have you searched the Dean and Kucinich articles on Portland IMC (and elsewhere), up until the time around March 2004 when Kerry sewed it up? a veritable plethora . . .

" . . . the most virulent faction of skull & bones in power."

HUH ? ! ? ?

Skull & Bones IS the, One, Highest Common Denominator IN POWER, no matter who you vote for. the CORPORATIONS follow, and are represented by, Skull & Bones. there is no "most virulent" or "less [HUH?!??] virulent" "faction" of Skull & Bones. that's what's WRONG with the One-Party-Corporate system, especially in pResidential Selections.

seriously, GIVE UP that Kool-Aid, "reality check" . . .

Related IMCpdx link re potential election theft 2004 17.Oct.2004 19:52

code pink & associates

No Stolen Elections! *** JOIN Urgent Response Network ***  http://www.nov3.us/

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/300049.shtml

http://www.nov3.us/

Nader Supporters Are Like Cartman As A Retard On South Park... DUH!!!! 17.Oct.2004 20:46

Anarchy-nonymous

Look, nobody on the left has to agree with me, but apply a little logic here. Maybe Kerry is just a Skull & Bones clone, maybe he's not. A lot of progressives think he is no better than Bush, but many really feel that having an anti-Vietnam War protestor running for President is a good sign, as well as somebody who exposed CIA drug-running. We basically have two choices on Nov. 2... Kerry or Bush. We know what Bush is all about, and the jury is out on Kerry. If we join ranks and vote Kerry, we get Bush out of office. If the problems persist, we join ranks again and fight the Kerry admin... Nothing lost nothing gained...

If Kerry really does have an altruistic heart (remind you, many prominent progressives believe he does), then the progressive democratic movement is advanced that much further on Nov. 2. Voting against Kerry is a lose-lose proposition. Logically, it makes no f*@#ing sense to vote for Nader. What if Nader had negotiated his support for Kerry in favor of a Green party appointee to a high profile cabinet position? Would the Green Party have a stronger hand today than four years ago? Yes, it would.

"Duuuuuhhhhhh!!!!!!!!"

h 17.Oct.2004 21:16

h

That is fine Anarchy-nonymous. Make that point. That is a sensible point, whether I agree with it or not, it is a thoughtful choice that many people are making. I respect the choice.

What needs to go are the constant lies about how Nader cost Gore the election. This is important, not because I am a Nader supporter, but because failure to face the truth usually means one is doomed to repeat it. The Democrats have not yet faced the truth, (are unlikely to do so) and so there is essentially zero chance they can do something better. We will be here in 4 years, trying to get rid of Kerry cause he is worse than Bush. If Bush is re-(s)elected, he will be worse than Bush. The country is headed in a negative direction, so we will be worse off in 4 years than we are now. At some point, everyone will have to throw off the hope that the Democrats are going to make things better. They will not. Obviously it will not happen this time. The farther we go along with the fake two-party system, the harder and messier it will be to do something about it.

on Topic of 'ejecting'/'firing' Bush with a Kerry vote: 17.Oct.2004 22:09

oregon voter

"If we join ranks and vote Kerry, we get Bush out of office."

--that'd be nice, but Bush was NOT voted INTO office, to begin with.

there is less assurance than ever before that a 'fire/eject Bush' [or any other slippery-slope rationalization you choose] 'swing' vote will be counted or even honored. Diebold, ES & S, voter registration trashing, Florida, Colorado  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/300123.shtml etc. - the list goes on and on.

The current White House occupant was NOT elected, but *appointed* there by SCOTUS, unopposed by Democrats even when US Senate-Al Gore was repeatedly implored by Congressional Black Caucus members - see the first 10 minutes of the movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" for details. If BushCo. wants or needs to retain their existing position, they WILL by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

and as regards "joining ranks":

be sure to give thanks and praise to the 8 million Registered Democrats nationwide who voted for [son-of-former-CIA-chief]Bush/Cheney in November 2000. who learns from history and/or their mistakes, again??

p.s. I could be totally wrong, but my gut inkling at this point is that Bush/Cheney will actually lose to Kerry/Edwards in a landslide [barring 'terrorist' attack, martial law, Osama's resurrection, or extreme-rampant vote fraud]. Nationwide voter dissatisfaction and bogus poll numbers point specifically to this. Check out this article:

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/300120.shtml


I don't know, Lloyd 17.Oct.2004 23:49

Dorothy

We have theft.
Then we have both victims, the other candidate and the electorate, acquiescing.

We have theft.
Then we have three of three countervaling branches of government conniving.

We have theft.
Then we have the traditional watch-dogs of truth and justice passing by on the other side.

We have theft.
Then we have the system apparently designed originally to facilitate.

We have theft.
Then we have the thieves proudly bragging.

I think there is amiss something deeper than a simple felony.


Albeit, calling people "stupid" is unlikely to attract anyone to your cause.

Nor is spewing rage here where everybody, including many of the cops and trolls, agrees.

Heal Thyself, Arch-Hole 18.Oct.2004 10:28

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

Maybe you should ask Gore/Kerry/McAuliffe why they didn't offer Nader anything but threats and nastiness. Last time I heard, it takes two sides to have a falling-out.

In any case, the DLC is slime and shouldn't be trusted any further than they can be thrown. Yeah, Kerry's deep down an "altruist" after he helped found that nest of slimy corporate leeches. What-the-fuck-ever.

In Nader's shoes, I wouldn't have believed any offer they brought to the table, in any case.

Stop expecting us to wipe your candidate's ass for him, Archy. It's not our job. If he wanted our votes, he should have offered us something other than fear, war and bullshit. He's already won over 99% of Progressives with that crap, so maybe you should go cower in the corner with them and enjoy your happy solidarity and the reflected glory of Kerry, the "altruist." [snicker] If Kerry failed to convince the remaining 1%, perhaps you should entertain the thought that he, not the 1%, is somehow responsible for this. The powerless in any given equation should never be held more accountable for fuck-ups than the powerful, though I realize that bullying the powerless gives you so much in the way of warm fuzzies that you just can't seem to stop.

Now go stick your head back up Eric Alterman's ass where it belongs. You're annoying as fuck, Archy. You don't respond to anyone's points. You just shout your bullshit louder, hoping that it'll convince the last 1%. But it doesn't. Besides, if we didn't exist, who would you have to feel superior to ? :p

Voting for Nader? 18.Oct.2004 14:24

kzoo

Voting for Nader is, at best, like taking a knife to a gun fight. Maybe he has gone over to the other side maybe not how can we tell when his actions have the same result as if he is intentionally working for Bush.

At this point in time saying Kerry is Bush is only to help Bush. He's not, in so many ways starting before a lot of the posts here were born.

This is real grown up politics not life as a term paper. By now Nader has eliminated so much support who in Congress would work with him? Instead of deliberately undermining the one person who can beat Bush why not, with less than three weeks to go, concentrate on local elections for the Green Party and Independents? Unless the same Kerry attackers are working for Bush wouldn't this be a better use of your time?

Finally all along we have listen to the duck speak of ABB Any Body but Bush, a term right out of the Republican lexicon. It was never anybody it was someone who can win, if you are not in the 'election' to win, if the 'election to you is to say and not have reported the same stuff maybe you should go lie down and not block up the hall ways.

Look At My Name, kzoo 18.Oct.2004 15:22

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

I've lived on this fucking planet for 38.5 years. I haven't written a "term paper" nor set foot in a college class since 1990, as if that should matter.

Fuck. You.

Kerry doesn't need Nader to undermine him. But Nader does make a convenient scapegoat, I suppose.

Thank you for the Kool-Aide, Rev Jim (alsis 38) 18.Oct.2004 18:11

Anarchy-nonymous

Look, if the Bush Family really does control everybody, and Dems and RePubs are no different, then we're all much more fucked than arguing on Indymedia is going to fix. I'm sure we'll have plenty of time to debate the issue in some West Texas gulag...

As for Nader, my big problem is just that anybody would have chosen to make the "Nader statement" against Bush. I'm old enough to have been voting age throughout the Reagan/Bush years. There was no internet then, so one had to really apply themselves to seek the truth, yet I did and I know just how rascist, fascist, and bloodthirsty the Bush-led neocon agenda is. If you really want to make a difference, then elect a Democratic majority so you can advance the cause through the political/legislative process. I have dived into the world of alternative media for 20 years, started as a Republican and came up for air as a Democrat. I'm not some shill... I really care. I want a multi-party system and I want an efficient democracy. I want world peace and it pains me what the US has done in the world.

How could anybody who really knew what Bush was about take that chance in 2000? Why not just vote Hitler or Stalin, because thats what we've got, or at least will have in another four years. There are a lot of brave journalists who are taking a stand right now to report the truth and given another four years, the radical right will make sure they don't have jobs... We need to see this as a series of innings, because what the Right has done to Democracy over the last 25 years has been slow, methodical, and by design. The Left needs to be smart enough to do the same thing.

alsis 38.5 and then some 18.Oct.2004 18:12

kzoo

alsis38

First let me thank you for your responses which I shall review in the order you offered them.

"I've lived on this fucking planet for 38.5 years. I haven't written a "term paper" nor set foot in a college class since 1990, as if that should matter."

I like to think life is for loving and learning which you seem to address here to some degree. Fourteen years is a long time to be removed from the mise-en-cadre of the university experience. In this time no doubt you have noticed 'poly-ticks' can be a bare knuckle sort of a fare. The best person not only doesn't win they can get shot on the way, so we work with what we have at hand and go from there.

"Fuck. You. "

A friendly enough of an offer in a more tactile situation, not really practical here though.

"Kerry doesn't need Nader to undermine him. But Nader does make a convenient scapegoat, I suppose."

No I don't even think of him outside of this site, like apparently most people.
"I'm voting my conscience on November 2; I'm voting for John Kerry," Winona LaDuke, former VP nominee for Independent/Reform presidential nominee Ralph Nader's 1996 and 2000 campaigns, has announced support for Kerry this time around.

It's about democracy stupid 18.Oct.2004 18:47

Lloyd Hart dadapop@dadapop.com

The above article I wrote is not about who you're going to vote for. It's about bringing democracy to fruition by way of criticizing the Democrats for limiting democracy to themselves and of course their Republican foes. I really don't give a rat's ass who anyone votes for. I only care that people participate in the democratic process from within their families to the highest levels where democracy can be practiced.

The fact is 99.9 percent of everything that we do in America is within an economic fascist system that uses American democracy as window dressing as if it were the wizard of Oz. When the means of production, the news media and the very policy we live by are controlled by the top one percent in our civilization America cannot truly call itself a democracy.

The word democracy actually means "power to the people" but because America is really a Commercial enterprise controlled by those who own the most shares there is only power to the powerful.

So this debate is not about voting for John Kerry vs. Ralph Nader vs. George Bush. It's about the system being so broken that the illusion of democracy is no longer visible. Only the wizards who pull the levers in the great lie that was called American democracy are now visible. The truth has finally surfaced and only now is it possible to discuss building a true democracy.

In a world where the very ecological systems that keep us alive are collapsing we will either learn to communicate better, learn to share better, learn to respect all forms of life better or we will learn to kill each other better.

These are our choices. Democracy or a violent chaotic future run by criminal gangs with no respect for life whatsoever.

The system is rigged for those who can win and against those who would win in real free and fair elections.


A Harty good view of it 18.Oct.2004 19:13

kzoo

That's the god dam thing of it, isn't it, you go to all that trouble to tell us just how totally fucked up it is and we respond with our own thoughts and words. How fucking inconsiderate!

First let me thank you for your responses which I shall review in the order you offered them.

"I really don't give a rat's ass who anyone votes for."

I differ with you here my friend I do care what sort of person is being elected, even in this case. By the way 'a rat's ass' other than the rat itself how much weight does that really hold?

"The fact is 99.9 percent of everything that we do in America is within an economic fascist system that uses American democracy as window dressing as if it were the wizard of Oz."

Well. the more the world sees that the tin man is hollow the quicker the world will stand up to us.

"The word democracy actually means "power to the people" but because America is really a Commercial enterprise controlled by those who own the most shares there is only power to the powerful."

Only if the great American people let it, how long do you think the system would last if the profits were gone? Make it cost them something.

"These are our choices. Democracy or a violent chaotic future run by criminal gangs with no respect for life whatsoever."

Not trying for the whole bag here but we have both right now. We can throw the bums out and there will be a violent chaotic future. Interesting times are not the most comfortable.

Of course they intend to steal the 'election' we did not do anything last time, so why not now. As much as you would like to hear of my plans so would the police.

entitlement, slavery, empire 19.Oct.2004 01:23

abolitionist

"how can we tell when his actions have the same result as if he is intentionally working for Bush. "

Simple, listen to what he says. Do you think someone working for Bush would go to the RNC and call for his impeachment? I think someone working for Bush would avoid any discussion of impeaching Bush for his crimes.

"It was never anybody it was someone who can win"

Right, and the person who could win would be someone who has consistently supported Bush for 4 years. What a brilliant strategy; much better than picking someone who has actually opposed Bush's policies. But then it's all about whose votes you want to sway, and whose you feel entitled to.

"started as a Republican and came up for air as a Democrat"

Makes sense as the democrats claim to stand for the same things the republicans did 20 years ago. One day, you'll recognize the same stench of corruption and lies; it's really only a matter of time and experience.

"I want world peace and it pains me what the US has done in the world."

Yet you advocate a candidate that will draw us further into war with all the usual language of empire builders. Of course, Kerry's multilateral war will be much better than Bush's unilateral war and we do have an obligation to help the Iraqi's (who, of course, can't take care of themselves) just as Bush and Kerry say. The same language has been used in every empire dating at least back to the romans (and probably earlier if I bothered to look it up).

"what the Right has done to Democracy over the last 25 years has been slow, methodical, and by design"

Yes, including the design and operation of the DLC. Why beat your opponents when you can just control their party?

"Well. the more the world sees that the tin man is hollow the quicker the world will stand up to us."

Indeed, a great reason to support Bush but one hopes Kerry will be no different. If Kerry can get other countries into the war by enticing prominent corporations and governments, as he promises) the US will become further opposed by the people of the world, though more supported by their governments.

"Of course they intend to steal the 'election' we did not do anything last time, so why not now."

Indeed, they have even more reason now given the assurance that the democrats will attack third parties instead of the republicans. In 2000 they had no such assurance. It's a shame the democrats had to support the HAVA. Given its obvious benefit to the republican party you really have to wonder if the democrats are anything more than republican infiltrators at this point.

Derrick Jensen said recently that a 2 party dictatorship makes a lot more sense than a 1 party dictatorship. So long as you give people the illusion of choice they will continue to be slaves who think they are free. The best kind of slaves are those who think they are free because they never fight for or seek out freedom. Of course, the next best are those who know they are slaves but have been indoctrinated to see freedom as an impossibility.

I'm not gonna waste MY vote on Kerry 19.Oct.2004 02:42

Barf

I'm voting for Bush. I know when he's lying. With Kerry, I usually can't tell if he's lying or not.

And most important: Bush is a "WINNER". I know he knows how to steal an election.

How can you trust Kerry? Kerry's crowd is putting their energy into being "Republican Lite" and thwarting the leftist third parties from getting a foothold. Even trying to win the election is on the fringe of their sights. You really think he's up to stealing the U.S. Presidency?!! Maybe; but don't count on it!

Dem Party Revisionism vs Accepting Responsibility 19.Oct.2004 03:57

me

Giving the Dems the benefit of the doubt, perhaps their alteration of history is based on their "benign" unwillingness to accept their own failures before and after Election Day, 2000, rather than on a calculated plot to undermine Nader and the Green Party. Conveniently, however, it seems to fit well towards fulfilling that end, whether conciously or not.

I've observed that many Democrats - especially the party officials - originally publicly blamed the Republicans for stealing the election in Florida more than they blamed Nader for "spoiling" it for Gore in Florida or elsewhere. But as the years past, they've pushed the spoiler story more and more. They claim Nader cost Gore several states, although New Hampshire is the only one besides Florida that I recall having been identified by name.

Here, I disagree with Lloyd Hart's conclusion that the Democrats stuck with the reality-based version of 2000 "up until Nader announced his candidacy to run for the presidency in 2000". Nader declared around March, 2004, but I saw the revisionism as pretty well complete about 6 months earlier - in Indymedia posts, for example. It just wasn't necessary to press it in the mainstream media until the Nader candidacy became mainstream fodder.

By the time the pre-primary contest was in full swing among the Democratic candidates in the fall of 2003, the original, reality-based story for the "spoiler perspective" of the 2000 election (wherein Jeb Bush and the Supremes were the main perpetrators and Nader was secondarily to blame) had been replaced with the "alternate reality" that Hart speaks of. This current, "established" explanation - now bought and repeated by millions of Democrats - is that Nader cost Gore the presidency, and, secondarily, the Bushies stole it after Nader somehow weakened Gore's situation.

This latest version is explicitly stated, and advocated, in the first comment above (Darth Vader-by Anarchy-nonymous):

"The election was stolen in 2000 in Florida. However, the best accounts of what happened were that the Bush Family swooped into action only as they saw the numbers in a position where they could steal the election with Operation Florida.

"Had Nader not been in the election, then Florida would not have been able to affect the outcome, and the Bush's would not have sprung 'Operation Florida.'"

Interestingly, this comment is the first time I've seen the relationship of the "two causes" of Gore's loss spelled out so succinctly, rather than merely implied. The facts, of course, don't support this version, because several of the numerous ploys to keep Democratic votes (especially African-American ones) out of the ballot box in Florida began many months, if not a year or more, before the election - after it was anticipated that Nader would run in 2000, but before he was officially a candidate, and certainly before polls showed he'd get a sizable vote.

By the way, it's my believe (based as much on intuition as observation, and with no concrete evidence) that the Democrats had been "playing loose" with the ballots in the Democratic strongholds in Florida for years. How else can one explain that the same types of ballots (as opposed to Jeb Bush's 2000 campaign to prevent certain groups of people from even casting ballots) with the same problems had been used in those jurisdictions for years? Being Democratic Party strongholds, the elections must have been controlled by the Democrats. It appears that either they didn't care about the dysfunctional system they were operating, or they'd manipulated it for their own cliques often enough that they'd grown accustomed to it.

This view of the Democrats' control and "complacency" about their Florida ballots is, admittedly, "cynical". However, it provides a simple explanation of their reluctance to pursue challenges to the 2000 procedures and to mounting massive reforms thereafter.

Oh, kzoo, You Brute !! 19.Oct.2004 10:28

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

"...First let me thank you for your responses which I shall review in the order you I like to think life is for loving and learning which you seem to address here to some degree. Fourteen years is a long time to be removed from the mise-en-cadre of the university experience. In this time no doubt you have noticed 'poly-ticks' can be a bare knuckle sort of a fare. The best person not only doesn't win they can get shot on the way, so we work with what we have at hand and go from there..."

Which has fuck-all to do with your little pot-shot about "term papers." The last sentence, perhaps owing to a typo, doesn't even make any sense. Nice back-pedal though. Which PAC do you work for ?

"No I don't even think of him outside of this site, like apparently most people."

You sure make it sound illicit. Perhaps Nader's future political party, if he founds one, should use "On the Dark End of the Street" for its theme. :p

Yet, you and fellow hacks like Archy just can't seem to stop muttering darkly about Nader as hypothetical Republican collaborator. This, despite the fact that I and many others have pointed toward any numbers of instances in which Kerry and the rest of his DLC buddies collaborate on a constant basis with Republicans, at great personal, financial, and political enhancement to themselves. To this, you have no reply and no counterargument. You just continue to scapegoat Nader, as if this were going to change my mind.

"I'm voting my conscience on November 2; I'm voting for John Kerry," Winona LaDuke, former VP nominee for Independent/Reform presidential nominee Ralph Nader's 1996 and 2000 campaigns, has announced support for Kerry this time around."

That's nice. Much as I admire LaDuke, I don't let her decide how I vote.

Democracy Means Collaboration 19.Oct.2004 18:16

Anarchy-nonymous

Alsis, what do you think Democracy and representative government are about? Yes, Democrats collaborate with Republicans. Many times they just get steamrolled by an entire system stacked with Republicans and choose their battles carefully. I even do believe that some Democrats are so only by title, like Joe Lieberman, for example. Everybody has to play the game to some extent to keep their political careers alive. It largely has to do with just how over-powering the Far Right with its unholy alliance of Rupert Murdoch, Lord Black, Pat Robertson and his ecumenial servants, Clear Channel, etc.

I totally agree. I see the corruption and I the system is beginning to fail, but I don't think it's time for the Left to abandon the process and run for the hills. United we stand and fight and try to counter the disinformation waged against Americans, then gradually refortify, open the system up to third parties, reestablish many of the controls on govt that Republicans have removed.

I personally think there is a lot of information out there to question Nader's authenticity; however, let's assume he honestly believes he's doing the best for the Left by waging his campaign. He has to realize he can't win. It's political martyrdom. And if we're all going to retreat from the system, let fascism take over, then what? Revolution? Depression? A prison state? For how long? The French Revolution itself took decades of planning and networking, though the overthrow of the monarchy took place quickly, but then the Terror (as the period is known among the French) lasted for years. It helped lead to the Franco-Prussian War in the late 1800s. It was also recognized as a turning point by Lenin in the establishment of Communism, which led to a brutal dictator named Stalin.

All I'm saying is that this concept of martyring the system and glorified ideas of "revolution" are terribly naive to any true student of history. Furthermore, it is a disgrace to our forefathers who suffered so much to build this nation. Plus these next four years may be difference of whether or not the law of the land and the people can be defended, by getting some less zealous federal judges, throwing out the Neocons, getting a real investigation of 9-11 (what Bush fears most and why they are so desperate).

If you Nader supporters want to be martyrs and have your revolutionary blood-bath, you very well get it in another four years of Bush/Cheney, but don't expect it to be short and placid affair. This history of revolutions is a history of great suffering.

Anarchy-nonymous 19.Oct.2004 18:37

kzoo

Thank you for being so eloquent, I have to practice to say it that well.

Carrot And Stick 19.Oct.2004 19:36

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

"...alsis, what do you think Democracy and representative government are about? Yes, Democrats collaborate with Republicans..."

Fine. So why is this acceptable when Kerry does it to a truly monumental degree, but when Nader takes 4% of his total funding from a handful of Republicans, it's some kind of dark "Empirical" conspiracy.

"...Many times they just get steamrolled by an entire system stacked with Republicans and choose their battles carefully..."

I'm sick of hearing excuses about what victims they are. If they're outgunned, why do they choose the same losing strategies over and over again, making themselves more and more toothless ? Think --to site one example-- of media consolidation ? How many Democrats voted for it to line their own pockets, even though it has proved increasingly toxic to their own supposed political goals over the last three decades or so ? These people have power, they have influence, they have money, and yet they seem to expect a loyalty from me that they seldom, if ever, return. They don't even seem to have the smarts to act in their own long-term interests as a party, much less in mine.

"...I even do believe that some Democrats are so only by title, like Joe Lieberman, for example. Everybody has to play the game to some extent to keep their political careers alive. It largely has to do with just how over-powering the Far Right with its unholy alliance of Rupert Murdoch, Lord Black, Pat Robertson and his ecumenial servants, Clear Channel, etc..."

Again, none of this consolidation could have happened without the eager collaboration of Democrats. I don't see even local Democratic elected officials getting involved in media control issues. Why is that ? I worked a bit on Measure 23 (the Healthcare For All initiative in 2002) and watched it go from 80% in favor to about 20% in favor, thanks to corporate media. The Democratic Party of Oregon officially endorsed the Measure but did not spend one damn dime to take the battle to the airwaves or into the newspapers. Hell, that worthless asskisser Ted "Cold Fish" Kulongoski openly came out against it. So did the head of my own damn Union, another wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party. I'm sick of this shit, Archy. And please don't tell me to go infiltrate the Party and change it from within. If the top is as corrupt as it currently is under McAuliffe, there is no way that rumblings from the bottom will do a thing to affect it. McAuliffe doesn't care if we're pissed. As long as we vote for his side, he won't do a damn thing for us.

Kerry's record has a lot more similarities with Lieberman's than dissimilarities. I've looked. They're both in the fucking DLC, too. :(

"...I totally agree. I see the corruption and I the system is beginning to fail, but I don't think it's time for the Left to abandon the process and run for the hills. United we stand and fight and try to counter the disinformation waged against Americans, then gradually refortify, open the system up to third parties, reestablish many of the controls on govt that Republicans have removed..."

I disagree. I've seen the de-fanging and dispersal of the Rainbow Coalition in my lifetime, and I believe that this is the fate of any grassroots movement from within the DNC. If you don't agree, however, knock yourself out. Get in there and do what you think needs to be done. Work from within if you think you must. But don't call those of us who choose to work from without your enemies, or "retards," or whatever. Both those within and those without can work in tandem, if not as the best of friends, to change the system. Both are necessary. The history of any great social movement --from "radical" Socialism leaving its mark on the New Deal, to the radicalism of Alice Paul and the moderate lobbying of Carrie C. Catt TOGETHER helping get women the vote, and many more-- shows this to be true.

"...I personally think there is a lot of information out there to question Nader's authenticity; however, let's assume he honestly believes he's doing the best for the Left by waging his campaign. He has to realize he can't win. It's political martyrdom..."

I don't know where you get "martyrdom" from. And it doesn't jibe with the view of yourself and others that Nader is only doing what he does to better himself. Which is it ? Either he's a martyr or he's bettering himself. [scratches head] Never mind. We obviously don't agree on the place of grassroots organizing in the history of social change. You win, because I don't feel like repeating myself.

"...All I'm saying is that this concept of martyring the system and glorified ideas of "revolution" are terribly naive to any true student of history. Furthermore, it is a disgrace to our forefathers who suffered so much to build this nation..."

But change has happened in this country at the cost of people's lives, Archy. Surely you are not implying that those who have died --from strikers to civil rights advocates and many more-- died of "naivite'" ? Please. Are the masters who oppressed them for profit and who would not give them crumbs when they themselves had more than they could consume in a lifetime in no way responsible ? Again, I don't agree, and we thus have nothing to do on this topic but go around in circles. Another point for you.

"...Plus these next four years may be difference of whether or not the law of the land and the people can be defended, by getting some less zealous federal judges, throwing out the Neocons, getting a real investigation of 9-11 (what Bush fears most and why they are so desperate)..."

I'm getting deja vu. I've voted in every Presidential election since 1984 and the above is the same old song and dance I've been hearing for years, Archy. Maybe your method could work --this time-- better than it has before. It's not likely, but I suppose it's possible. But by itself, it's not going to lead to any lasting signifigant change. Constantly rewarding Democrats for delivering --at best-- the bare minimum of what their constituents deserve is in my mind a piss-poor way of getting them to do what they should. You want to talk "martyrdom" ? Giving these people my vote so they can smugly shaft me again and again ? That's sounds like martyrdom to me. Unconditional love is not making them change. It's only making them bigger and bigger assholes.

"...If you Nader supporters want to be martyrs and have your revolutionary blood-bath, you very well get it in another four years of Bush/Cheney, but don't expect it to be short and placid affair. This history of revolutions is a history of great suffering.."

I think you should stop confusing me with someone who loves the idea of "blood and suffering." That's not at all what I have been saying. In fact, in some earlier round of this never-ending waltz I expressly explained that I DON'T want to die. To say, "I want to die in a glorious blood-bath," is not the same as saying "I don't think the Democrats have what it takes to save my life. I'm looking elsewhere." If you don't believe me when I say that, I can't help you.

One of the reasons I wanted to work on the ill-fated Measure 23, Archy, is because I have an asymptomatic chronic illness called PKD. I've looked at what Kerry says about healthcare and how many of the enemies of single-payer have lined his pockets and that of his party. As far as I can tell, the difference between his policies and Bush's are the difference between me dying destitute and ill at 60 versus me dying destitute and ill at 50. Furthermore, I've already read of and seen what happens to people with the full-blown illness who are completely at the mercy of our for-profit system. You don't need to mutter darkly about "great suffering," Archy. It's already here, there, and everywhere, even if the corporate media doesn't give a fuck. And the people with the most power to change it do nothing.

They are not in pain so they don't care.

Under the current system, we can't touch them.

They are on both sides of the aisle.

I don't trust them or like them, and I'll be looking elsewhere for help in the future. I'll be doing whatever small thing I can for other people like me, because our interests are inseparable. That's not a will to martyrdom, Archy. It's a fight for one's own life with the belief that changing a failed strategy increases our chances of winning the fight. There's a difference, I think. Even if you don't.

See you on the streets. Or at the symposiums. :p Or both.

Recommended Reading 20.Oct.2004 00:09

Anarchy-nonymous

This is getting old, Alsis. You need to study up on your history. You attack my premises, but avoid the conclusions. The USA was the first nation in history to have a Constitution and Declaration of Independence which stated that "all men are created equal." There was a time in America when corporations had even more control than they do now, when workers were total wage slaves, and when monopoly business practices were the norm. It took time, but our Constitutional framework eventually corrected that. In fact, US history has been one of the advancement of civil liberties under the Constitution. What is very dangerous now is that the Constitutional protections themselves are under attack in a way that has not been the case ever in the history of the US.

...Ah well, I give up. Vote for Nader. Reap what you sow, just don't whine about how a second Bush term isn't your fault if the margin in Oregon is less than 1% and Nader takes 1%. Bush is your President, Alsis, not mine.

history has both answers and questions 20.Oct.2004 01:28

ex-democrat voter

The democrats asking other people not to whine when they themselves have been doing so for 4 years? That's a laugh. How about those 300,000 democrats who voted for Bush in Florida? I guess if that happens again it will be all Nader's fault.

Archy, you've confessed to once being duped by the republicans. In the not to distant future I hope you'll come to realize you've been duped by the democrats. There's no shame in it, we've all voted for democrats and come to regret it later. You will have this same experience.

We're looking forward to 4 years of Kerry's war in Iraq. I'm hoping for the death of the party system as republicans and democrats both split ideologues from partisans. It'll be fun watching the democrats defend our occupation, empire building, and the deaths in Iraq as well as the republicans who will criticize the war effort. I'm looking forward to it.

I disagree that there has ever been a time when US corporations had the power they do today. Corporate personhood is relatively recent and the trade agreements of today far surpass anything in our past. Our constitution was strong, but may not ultimately be strong enough. But then, what has happened to the American spirit. We had a revolution over far less tyranny than we face today. Look at the Tea Act; it's benign by today's standards. Besides, Kerry is not promising to change any of this.

I also disagree that the attacks on our liberties are unprecedented. This is fear-mongering nonsense. The Espionage Act was far worse for our freedoms than anything the Bush administration with the support of the democrats has been able to pass. I suppose we must always forgive a level of hysteria and hyperbole around an election. Thankfully, history will have a far wiser perspective. Besides, Kerry is not promising to change any of this.

The founders of this country would have shed blood rather than participate in such a corrupt system.

I was thinking this morning, for those who consider themselves true students of history, what if, in 1940 Hitler had faced a challenger. This challenger believed that the German Empire was good, but that Hitler had gone about it in the wrong way. Of course, the German people would have an obligation to help "rebuild" Poland and continue to station troops there. Likewise, this challenger would believe that the Aryan race was superior and that it was just to exterminate Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, liberals, communists, etc. Think what would have happened if this challenger had won, and perhaps not been so aggressive in empire building. Would more lives have been lost, or less, or, more accurately, who would have lost more lives and who would have lost less?

Intriguing don't you think? One could easily argue that perhaps Nazi Germany could have been gradually reformed over a long enough time. Or, one could just as easily argue that it was best to force other nations into alliances to fight Nazi Germany. For those who see the parallels to early 1930's Germany in the present day United States, and that is many people, this is something that should be considered. Like Hitler, Bush contains the seed of his own destruction. Perhaps that destruction will take the form of a decisive election, but perhaps it will take another form.

I think the Kerry supporters are just those who haven't been fucked over enough yet by the democrats. Give it time, you'll understand. Alsis is right on; there are those of us fighting to live, in a way unlike the abstract concerns of many in this country. If you've never been poor you'd never know it. I think one thing bears repeating:

They are not in pain so they don't care.

Amen to that. Amen, Amen.

Well, That Was A Half-Hour of My Life I'll Never Get Back 20.Oct.2004 06:44

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

"...Ah well, I give up. Vote for Nader. Reap what you sow, just don't whine about how a second Bush term isn't your fault if the margin in Oregon is less than 1% and Nader takes 1%. Bush is your President, alsis, not mine..."

Ah, well, once a shitty listener, always a shitty listener. I don't know why I bother. Not all of history comes out of a book, Archy. And it's really cute how you pretended to hold out the olive branch there when really all you wanted to do was look down your nose at me because aparently we haven't read the same books. Or haven't drawn the same conclusions from them. Yep, you know it all, Archy. I'm just dying to work to change the system with someone like you. [rolleyes]

Like I said earlier, you'd better hurry off now and go stick your head back up Alterman's ass. He's waiting for you. He can't cover for the Democrats' fuck-ups alone, not without his cheering squad of self-absorbed little shit-heads like you.

Fuck off, Arch-hole.

Thanks, ex-dem.

"if the margin in Oregon is less than 1%" 20.Oct.2004 09:19

it'll be because of

rampant vote fraud, voter registration shredding, poor and non-white voter oppression and intimidation, shaved ballot counts, and Registered Democrats voting for Bush/Cheney.

I should just go to band practice but... 20.Oct.2004 18:10

Anarchy-nonymous

There was a time in US history when workers had no protections, could be forced to endless hours, not receive OT, AND even had to live in corporate housing to keep their jobs, as well as make them shop at corporate run stores. Thus people like Henry Ford could literally extract human captital without paying a dime.

Then there was the Sherman Act and Subsequent Clayton Act, which broke up the Standard Oil monopoly and forced it to become what is known among industry scholars as the "seven sisters" (Shell, BP, etc).

The work of progressives like ourselves, on the grounds of our Constitution, allowed them to gain concessions from the great industrialists. Now, the Boston Tea Party preceded the founding of the US and helped lead to the Revolutionary War. Except then the citizen militia and Minute Men had muskets and cannons to fight... Muskets and cannons. If we were to fight a second Revolutionary War, it would be Winchester 30-30s and Glocks up against tanks and machine guns.

Look, I always have an open mind. If Democrats are joined at the hip with Republicans and equal beneficiaries of what Rumsfield, Ashcroft, Cheney, et al, are doing, then cite a well-documented book by a good investigative journalist or professor. I'll read it. If our entire government is one, united cabal, I want to know about it. Maybe we should all enlist with Al-Queda then.

Problem is, I have read a ton of information from highly credible sources on both sides of the political spectrum that suggest the Bush Family is a family of White Collar Criminals who have been at this since the 1930s. Prescott financed the Nazi's. "Pappy Bush" and "Zapata Oil" was implicated in the murder of JFK. Neil Bush was one of the biggest felons in the S&L scandal. The W Bush Admin is loaded with ex-Nixon boys, and Nixon was the one who rescued GHW Bush from his failed Senate bid, appointed Kissinger, and authorized all number of illegal activities to be carried out without the knowledge of Congress, including the infamous Tiger Force and Watergate. Nixon's former campaign manager is now head of Fox News. The director at Fox who decided to announce the 2000 election in Florida had swung to W just happens to be a cousin of W and Jeb (the Gov. of Florida). Meanwhile, everybody who cooperates in keeping the secrets of the Bush Family, like Oli North, get pardoned and given huge book deals and TV shows as pay-offs. Everybody who might have loose-lips about GHW Bush's role in the JFK murder or W's military record in the Alabama National Guard either commits suicide or dies in a plane crash.

Now the same people keep popping up in history--Rumsfield, Cheney, James Baker, Kissinger, etc. Yet somehow I guess this is all part of the plot against Nader, the people's champion. All the Dems are playing a part in a conspiracy. Bush comes from four generations of wealth and elitism, while Bill Clinton or John Edwards was born dirt poor, but they all have the same intentions to screw YOU. Nobody with money or the where-with-all to move up the ladder in society can possibly care about the poor... If they're a Democrat. Nader, despite his clandestine fortune which he refuses to answer questions about, is impervious to this.

As I appealed in this string of email a long time ago, apply some logic! I don't care if you agree with me, but be frickin' consistent, otherwise you're nothing but the antithesis of wackos like Ashcroft and Rev. Moon or even W himself--only that information that supports your point of view is valid.

Seriously.... Cite your books and references. In the meantime, you can go to www.tarpley.net and read the Unauthorized Biography of George Bush. It's free and well-referenced.

John Kerry's References 20.Oct.2004 18:47

for the record

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/284221.shtml

 http://www.covertactionquarterly.org/kerrys.html

A close examination of Kerry¹s record reveals that he:

- announced that his first campaign promises to cancel weapons systems and reduce defense spending were ill-advised

-voted for the Gramm-Rudman Act of 1985 resulting in dramatic cuts in domestic social programs

- voted against Gulf War I only to soon reverse himself saying he was ill advised

- voted for the 1996 Telecommunications Act facilitating media monopolies

- supported Clinton's welfare reform

- supported Clinton¹s draconian Counter-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a precursor to Bush II's Patriot Act which Kerry also supported

- supported the genocidal sanctions against and continued bombings of Iraq under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II

- voted for the Homeland Security Act

- voted for the No Child Left Behind Act

- questioned the correctness of affirmative action

- boldly declared that 'the cause of Israel is the cause of America'

- supports NAFTA, the WTO, GATT

- continues to support massive increases in defense spending

- supported Bush II's tax cuts for the wealthy.

 http://www.covertactionquarterly.org/kerrys.html

--------

Kerry and Black America: Just Another Stupid White Man

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/283773.shtml

John Kerry says he wants to be America's second "black president," but sadly, his record on issues of racial justice makes him look more yellow than black.

Apparently Kerry saw no irony in giving this [1992] speech on an elite college [Yale] campus before an audience which undoubtedly consisted of rich white kids for the most part. Yale's faculty is 2.8% black and 1.9% Hispanic. Fortunately, it seems Yale has not been corrupted by the wave of "reverse discrimination" that is sweeping the nation. Nor did Kerry seem to recognize any irony in the fact while he lectures poor black people about "self-reliance," Kerry has essentially never had to do anything for himself. Kerry was born into an obscenely rich family that would go on yachting trips with the Kennedys. Since he became a politician his bank accounts have been generously stocked by corporate lobbyists. He has also married some of the richest women in the world, including his current wife, Teresa Heinz. It's hard to imagine how such a person could even have a concept of "self-reliance." John Kerry preaching to poor people about self-reliance seems rather like a blind person trying to teach people about the colors of the rainbow.

--------

John Kerry attacks Chavez

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/283826.shtml

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has attacked Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a dubious democrat hostile to U.S. interests, delivering a slap in the face to the leftist leader who had portrayed Kerry as a potential friend.

--------

Democracy Now! Questions Democrats About Previous Iraq WMD Claims

 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/27/1558247&mode=thread&tid=25
Tuesday, January 27th, 2004

AMY GOODDMAN: Senator Kerry -- quick question. You said that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons when other nations wouldn't try. What intelligence was that based on?
JOHN KERRY: I don't know what report -- I don't know what you are talking about.
AMY GOODDMAN: You said Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons.
JOHN KERRY: When did I say that? I don't recall. I don't know.
AMY GOODDMAN: You said he was developing chemical and biological weapons.
JOHN KERRY: I never said he was developing nuclear. I believe I said --
AMY GOODDMAN: You said, why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons.
JOHN KERRY: Attempting to, because he did. He did attempt to.
AMY GOODDMAN: According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons.
JOHN KERRY: Say it again?
AMY GOODDMAN: You said according to intelligence, Iraq has biological and chemical weapons.
JOHN KERRY: That's what we were told. Right.
AMY GOODDMAN: Is that intelligence wrong? Do you think Bush -- you made a wrong statement, then? Because Kucinich at the time was saying no credible sources were there, but you are saying --
JOHN KERRY: I'm sorry, we're going to have to do --
JEREMY SCAHILL: Amy was then told by Kerry's people to stop asking questions and the press could ask them later. But when she asked if there would be an avail after the event, press lingo for press availability, Kerry's staffers conceded that there would be none. We persisted in our questioning of Kerry on this issue.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Senator Kerry, why did you say that Saddam Hussein had weapons of
mass destruction?
STAFFER: We have to get the Apollo crew in here.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Answer the question, senator Kerry. Why did you accuse Saddam of having weapons of mass destruction?

--------

Kerry and Me

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/282780.shtml

Simply put, Senator Kerry can't have it both ways. He can't, on the one hand, tout his foreign policy expertise, political savvy and experience, and on the other hand be so callow as to claim to have been deceived by the Bush gang into voting for the war. He's either alarmingly, unforgivably naïve after so many years in Washington, or, more likely, he voted for the war in a crass political calculation that it would help him look tough as he prepared his presidential bid. Either answer is extremely troubling for those looking for a savior from Bush's reign of error.

--------

Bu$h Raising Campaign Funds From Kerry's Top Contributors

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/283320.shtml

In all, nine of Kerry's top 20 donors favor Bush with their contributions. Kerry's top contributor, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, has given nearly $106,000 to his campaign. But the nation's largest law firm has contributed an additional $65,000 to the Bush campaign.

--------

Kerry's Foreign Policy Record Suggests Few Differences with Bush

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/282263.shtml

A look at John Kerry's record shows that his overall foreign policy agenda has been a lot closer to the Republicans than to the rank-and-file Democrats he claims to represent.

This is not too surprising, given that his top foreign policy advisors include: Rand Beers, the chief defender of the deadly airborne crop-fumigation program in Colombia who has justified U.S. support for that country's repressive right-wing government by falsely claiming that Al-Qaeda was training Colombian rebels; Richard Morningstar, a supporter of the dictatorial regime in Azerbaijan and a major backer of the controversial Baku-Tbilisi oil pipeline, which placed the profits of Chevron, Halliburton and Unocal above human rights and environmental concerns; and, William Perry, former Secretary of Defense, member of the Carlyle Group, and advocate for major military contractors.

Kerry's October 2002 vote to authorize the U.S. invasion of Iraq was no fluke. His contempt for human rights, international law, arms control, and the United Nations has been rather consistent.

--------

John Kerry's inner Nixon

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/283692.shtml

--------

Kerry's votes.

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/281914.shtml#105539

Bush's tax cuts
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm...
Kerry - Absent

Bush's tax cuts
Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002
 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm...
Kerry - Yea
(This one did extend unemployment and gave tax cuts to businesses, though only temporarily, supposedly)

Patriot Act
 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm...
Kerry - Yea

Homeland Security Act
 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm...
Kerry - Yea

Help America Vote Act
 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm...
Kerry - Yea

Terrorism Risk Protection Act
 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm...
Kerry - Yea

Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq
 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm...
Kerry - Yea

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004
 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z...
Kerry - Yea

Amendment SA 715 - To strike the repeal of the prohibition on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons.
 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm...
Kerry - Absent

So what exactly is this progressive record of Kerry's...

--------

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/284221.shtml#110856

Kerry promises to add 40,000 troops to the Army and to spend more on defense than the Republicans, and more on homeland security.
 link to www.globeandmail.com
[Jeffrey Simpson, "On foreign policy, Kerry is not far from Bush," The Globe and Mail, March 3, 2004]

Yeah, Kerry sure sounds different from Bush, though not in any better way.

Kerry is prepared to use military force unilaterally, ("People will know I'm tough and I'm prepared to do what is necessary to defend the United States of America, and that includes the unilateral deployment of troops if necessary.")
 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/politics/ campaign/07KERR.html
[David E. Sanger and David M. Halbfinger, "Kerry Condemns Bush for Failing to Back Aristide," The New York Times, March 7, 2004]

Kerry is prepared "to target and capture terrorists even before they act" and says he "will not hesitate to order direct military action when needed to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders" -- his own doctrine of preventive war. Plus he says he will spend more on the National Endowment for Democracy, an organization that does openly what the CIA used to do covertly -- meddle in the affairs of countries like Haiti, Venezuela, Serbia and Cuba, that put the interests of the domestic population ahead of those of corporate America and investors who can boast net worths of hundreds of millions of dollars, like, let's see...well, like Kerry.
 http://www.counterpunch.com/blum03022004.html
[Willian Blum, "If Kerry's the answer, what's the question?" March 2, 2004]

My favorite Kerry quote is, "I could never agree with those in the antiwar movement who dismissed our troops [in Vietnam] as war criminals or our country as the villain in the drama."
 http://www.counterpunch.com/hand02182004.html
[Mark Hand, "It's Time to Get Over It: Kerry Tells Anti-War Movement to Move On," February 18, 2004]

As for Iraq, if Kerry has a problem with Bush, it's that he didn't drag France, Germany and Russia into the war, preferring to strike a grabby, it's all mine, pose, rather than the "let's divide up the loot" approach the Democrats favor. Apparently, a gang rape is better than a rape carried out by a lone assailant, which, I gather, would make a gang rapist a rapist-lite, and therefore more worthy of our backing than a rapist who goes it alone.

But, for the record, Washington hasn't gone it alone in Iraq, managing to cobble together a coalition, though one lacking France, Germany and Russia, whose backing, in some perverted twist of reasoning, is supposed to have invested the rape of Iraq with legitimacy. Apparently, if you can lure other renowned rapists into a gang rape, it gives the whole sordid affair moral weight.
 http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/kerry.html
[Stephen Gowans, "Kerry vs. Kerry-lite," March 23, 2004]

--------

Kerry Should Explain War-Making Stand  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/281928.shtml

The subject came up Thursday night, when Kerry debated his Democratic opponents in a debate in Los Angeles. What Kerry had to say was troubling.

After explaining that "no, I do not regret my vote" for the resolution that authorized Bush to use force in Iraq, Kerry said, "Let me make it very clear: We did not give the president any authority that the president of the United States didn't have.

"Did we ratify what he was doing? Yes. But Clinton went to Haiti without the Congress. Clinton went to Kosovo without the Congress. And the fact is, the president was determined to go, evidently. But we changed the dynamics by getting him to agree to go to the United Nations and to make a set of promises to the nation."

Apart from the question of whether Congress actually "changed the dynamics" of Bush's march toward war, Kerry again appeared to embrace the view that presidents can go to war without congressional approval. The comments Thursday night echoed statements Kerry made in a Feb. 15 debate in Milwaukee.

Amazingly, no one - not even Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Dennis Kucinich or the Rev. Al Sharpton, let alone the media questioners - challenged Kerry to explain his views regarding the advice and consent that the Constitution says Congress is required to provide before presidents start wars.

--------

If Kerry's the Answer, What's the Question?  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/281932.shtml

It does not require total cynicism to point out that at most, at best, John Kerry's beef with the Bush administration over foreign policy -- to the extent that he really has any -- is a very minor difference of opinion between technocrats, Kerry offering a few tiny adjustments, a tweaking here or there. Most of his policy suggestions concerned things already being done by the Bush administration.

--------

Wall Street likes Kerry  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/281898.shtml

Over the last fifteen years, Kerry has received more money from lobbyists than any other serving senator. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, during this election cycle, Kerry raked in $531,251 from the health care industry. Kerry was also among the top ten recipients of money from the airline and automotive industries, with donations totaling $87,925. By the way, Kerry is a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which influences laws governing these industries.

--------

Nader threatens corporate rule  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/281916.shtml

Now, the call goes out to silence Nader. He is told to fall in line behind John Kerry, a smart and serious man who nonetheless voted for the Iraq war, the USA Patriot Act, NAFTA, the World Trade Organization and the Bush tax cuts, and against Kyoto (contrast:  http://www.votenader.org).

An Enemy Of The People  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/281838.shtml

Putting up Kerry to replace Bush is like putting up Rutherford B. Hayes to replace Calvin Coolidge.

Kerry is identical to Bush on the Iraq military occupation, Pentagon budget, national health care, NAFTA, WTO, drug war  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/281640.shtml

--------

Kerry's Support for the Invasion of Iraq and the Bush Doctrine Still Unexplained  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/281808.shtml

Back in October 2002, when Senator Kerry voted to grant President Bush a blank check to make war, he tried to scare the American public into thinking that such an invasion was essential to the defense of the United States. Despite a lack of credible evidence, Kerry categorically declared that "Iraq has chemical and biological weapons" and even claimed that most elements of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs were "larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War." Furthermore, Kerry asserted that Iraq was "attempting to develop nuclear weapons," backing up this accusation by claiming that "all U.S. intelligence experts agree" with such an assessment. He also alleged that "Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf."

Every single one of these claims, no less than similar claims by President Bush, was false. Despite this, however, Senator Kerry and his supporters somehow want the American public to trust him enough to elect him as the next president of the United States.

--------

Democratic frontrunner declares he will be stronger "war president" than Bush  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/281799.shtml

In a speech Friday in Los Angeles, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the likely presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, attacked the Bush administration's management of the "war on terror" and declared that he would be a more effective—and more aggressive—"war president."

The bulk of Kerry's criticism of the Bush administration's foreign and military policy was from the right, not the left, a clear indication of the type of campaign the Democratic Party will wage for the November election.

--------

'It's Time to Get Over It'
John Kerry Tells Antiwar Movement to Move On  link to portland.indymedia.org

John Kerry, the frontrunner in the quest for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, has been promoting a foreign policy perspective called "progressive internationalism." It's a concept concocted by establishment Democrats seeking to convince potential backers in the corporate and political world that, if installed in the White House, they would preserve U.S. power and influence around the world, but in a kinder, gentler fashion than the current administration.

In the domestic battle to captain the American empire, the neocons have in their corner the Partnership for a New American Century while the New Democrats have the Progressive Policy Institute. Come November, who will get your vote? Coke or Pepsi?

--------

John Kerry's Multimillionaire Wild Wife  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/279913.shtml

Stormy and eccentric, multi-millionaire Teresa Heinz Kerry is not obvious First Lady material. But with her stepdaughters she is helping her husband scoop the Democratic presidential candidacy.

The supporting role seems slightly strange for her - at least compared to the reputation that has followed her in the US media. She is seen as tempestuous, eccentric, wilful and rich. Much of the evidence for those charges is drawn from a disastrous interview the Kerrys granted to the Washington Post two years ago at home in Washington, DC.

To the reporter's delight, Heinz Kerry had a framed photograph of herself with the late John Heinz in the hall, and did not bother to correct the slip when she referred to him as "my husband". Then she had a blazing row with her living husband Kerry over a Republican from Pennsylvania who insulted the memory of her first spouse.

To Kerry's mortification, she went on to mimic him having a nightmare flashback to his days in Vietnam - beating her head and shouting "down, down, down". She also revealed that he had been in therapy seconds after Kerry tried to deny it.

Since then, Heinz Kerry has enlivened American political debate by revealing that she signed a prenuptial agreement to protect her fortune, threatened to maim her first husband if he was unfaithful, and resorts regularly to Botox.

--------

Disaster of Convenience - John Heinz' Widow Marries John Kerry
 http://www.skolnicksreport.com/ootar26.html

President Ronald Reagan . . . was implicated in the Iran-Contra situation. . . . funds secretly given to the Iranians were skimmed off to finance the counter-revolutionaries in Nicaragua, to evade the Boland Amendment, prohibiting the U.S. from financing the Contras as they were called.

At the time Daddy Bush, as Vice President, denied he knew anything about this. He said he was "out of the loop" and thus not told what was going on. Later facts brought out by the Independent Counsel showed otherwise. In later years, some Congressmen an d other insiders admitted that they thought about impeaching President Reagan but thought it would be a bad thing for the nation. Working on a report on the Iran-Contra mess was a commission headed by Senator John Tower (R. Texas). For short, it was cal led the Tower Commission. In 1991, when he was unfairly defamed in being rejected by the Daddy Bush Administration for Secretary of Defense, Tower began grumbling he was going to bring out some dirty secrets of the elder Bush then President. Convenient ly, Tower perished with his daughter in an apparent sabotaged plane crash in April, 1991. About the same time, Senator John Heinz (R., Penn.), heir to the Heinz Ketchup fortune was himself snuffed out when his airplane was hit fro! m below by a helicopter. Although some believed it was foul play, others contended the helicopter pilot, examining whether the Heinz plane could not lower the landing wheels, slammed into the plane. Others raised the sinister version that the whirlybir d pilot wanted somehow to commit "suicide". Heinz' widow married Senator John Kerry (D., Mass.), long connected to the American CIA. Senator Kerry in investigating the dope traffic through his subcommittee, conveniently covered up the role of the espion age agency money laundry, Bank of Credit and Commerce International, BCCI, that also financed the campaigns of a group of senators including Kerry.

NEW CHIEF OF SECRET POLITICAL POLICE
 http://www.skolnicksreport.com/spoliticalp.html

Please note. Senator Kerry is no sweet angel. He is an expert reputed blackmailer and cover up artist. He is married to the widow of the late U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, John Heinz, heir to the ketchup and canned beans fortune. Heinz died in a sabotaged plane crash in 1991, just as he was planning to expose U.S. government complicity in several domestic and foreign political assassinations.

As to the infamous BCCI, Sen Kerry himself had a conflict of interest in that he headed a group of U.S. Senators who accepted campaign funds from the worldwide spy-money laundry-murder machine BCCI. Kerry's subcommittee refused to delve into the highly pertinent Chicago branch office of BCCI and their Chicago twin, a branch of Italy's largest bank, owned in part by the Vatican, Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro, BNL. [Suppressed BNL records as to the secret private partnership of the Elder Bush and Saddam Hussein were the subject of my exclusive story, in Spotlight, August 19, 1991, referred to earlier.]

--------

John Forbes Kerry:
blood brother of George W. Bush in the occult Skull and Bones secret society

pro-war, pro-nuclear, pro-police state

 http://www.oilempire.us/kerry.html

--------

Skeleton key to the White House
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/281367.shtml

John Kerry and George Bushs junior and senior were members of the secretive Skull and Bones society at Yale university. The final words of the initiation ceremony, according to the intrepid New York Observer journalist Ron Rosenbaum, who has secretly recorded the secret incantations, centre around the command, "Run neophyte!"

Well, in maturity, both men are certainly running, and it's impossible [????] to know how much their membership of the exclusive Skull and Bones Society has helped them reach the positions of eminence they now occupy: President of the United States, and senatorial lead-contender for president.

vote for me
vote for me

You Dig Your Own Argument's Grave, Arch-Hole 20.Oct.2004 21:04

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

No one here, to my knowledge, apart from Right-Wing trolls, argues that Bush is a great guy. Frankly, the more you wallow in stories of his shitass behavior (while being sure to once again patronizingly ASSume that Nader voters just DON'T UNDERSTAAAAAAND how EEEEEEEVILLL he truly, truly is), the more you make the case against voting Kerry. If you know what a shithead Bush is, you can be sure that Kerry knows. Yet he has spent much of his adult life crawling into bed with the very Rogues' gallery that now has you pissing your own band uniform.

"...As I appealed in this string of email a long time ago, apply some logic! I don't care if you agree with me, but be frickin' consistent, otherwise you're nothing but the antithesis of wackos like Ashcroft and Rev. Moon or even W himself--only that information that supports your point of view is valid..."

Oh, Please. You already made up your mind about a million years ago. You talk to us all as if we had just fallen off the turnip truck last week, and you play bait-and-switch games where you rope people into attempting to explain why their own experience --not ONLY what you, The Great Brain-- has read in some damn book, is relevant and "logical" to this discussion... only so you can hurl more insults at them. Fuck, who died and made you Spock, Arch-hole ? Stick to music. If you can play more than two chords on a guitar, you're already a better musician than you are a student of history. For all your talk about "coalition building," you clearly have no talent for it given the tone you take with anyone who isn't interested in your hackneyed and warmed-over fearmongering.

"...Seriously.... Cite your books and references. In the meantime, you can go to www.tarpley.net and read the Unauthorized Biography of George Bush. It's free and well-referenced."

In the meantime, you can pull your thumbs out from up your own ass and go do your own fucking homework for a change. I don't feel like playing whose-historical-dick-is-bigger with you, since I already know that you'd never concede a point to me no matter how many links or quotes I trotted out. Just about anything from sorting socks to snaking out the kitchen drain would be a more fruitful exercise for me than attempting to get through to a self-righteous, arrogant little turd like you, Arch-hole.

Fair Enough 20.Oct.2004 21:27

Anarchy-nonymous

I don't claim Kerry is spotless on his Senate record. However, I don't believe that bunch of links to Indymedia exactly constitutes well referenced journalism. Link to the Washington Post, US Gov (which you did on certain votes), NY Times, etc. None of which are completely unbiased, but they are certainly not Fox News or the Moonie Washington Times. ...And I know about Skull & Bones, but I don't think that spending a year in The Tomb plants some Illuminati tyrant-tumor in the brain either. These guys still have their own interests and ideas and egos.

However, my point is that (and it remains effectively un-disputed) that the kind of shit you can make stick on Kerry is not even in the same league as what the likes of Bush, Kissinger, Cheney, Rumsfield, etc., are widely guilty of. If that post, "for the record", is the most crap you can throw at Kerry, then you're still comparing Rommel with Hitler--one is clearly far more sinister and dangerous to society.

Here's the hand we're dealt. What's the strongest hand to play on Nov 2? By voting Nader or refusing to vote, you basically are folding or making some symbolic gesture by walking away from the game. Yet the game goes on. The time has not yet come to call the fascists on their hand, and that time won't come in the next two weeks. I don't think that indictment against Kerry is anything of the same bloody caliber as what one can level against Bush.

Show me some proof that Democrats and Republicans are part of some lock-step conspiracy for fascism, and I'll vote 3rd party too. If you can't, hopefully you'll start to think logically and vote for Kerry on Nov 2, for the good of the progressive movement and the US Constitution.

the proof has already been presented, it's not being concealed 20.Oct.2004 21:53

abolitionist

You just cannot see it. As has been shown in psych research, people cannot see what challenges their world-view. Or, put more commonly, you can't see what you refuse to see.

It's not that Kerry's record just isn't spotless. It's that he and the democratic politicians have worked in concert with the republicans to pass every piece of Bush's agenda. Are you denying this Archy? Above are the roll calls of every piece of legislation that could be considered fascist. In every case the democrats supported Bush.

I guess it's a waste of time arguing with someone who still treats the corporate media as superior to talking to non-corporate compromised individuals. You should consider why you feel it necessary to appeal to "authority" to support your positions. I completely agree that if you do so, you will find support for Kerry. Authoritarians will support Kerry, and Bush, and the fact that Kerry supports Bush.

It is the same league because we're talking about the same actions. What part of the neocon agenda haven't Kerry and the other democrat politicians supported? About the only thing Kerry has got is his promise to roll back tax-cuts for the excessively rich. And that I can support, but it's 1 drop in the bucket that should be full.

No one is walking away from the game, we're just playing by rules you haven't learned yet. In time I hope you will learn that the democrats are arrogant in their sense of entitlement to people's votes and they regard those individuals with contempt and will not work to help them, and will actively work to hurt the people of this country.

We can have Kerry's fascism or Bush's fascism if you want to play their game. Or instead of playing games we can practice democracy, something most people in this country are getting pretty rusty at. Remember a 2-party dictatorship makes a lot more sense than a 1-party dictatorship; the illusion of freedom is the most effective tool of enslavement.

Want more proof that the democrat leadership is working with the republican leadership, look at ballot access this year. How much time, money, and effort did the democrats strategists spend getting Nader off the ballot? Of course, Nader isn't a threat this year... More democrat doublethink, just like Bush is the greatest evil ever but the democrats who have supported him for 4 years will be our saviors. Anyway, the republicans chose to exploit 9/11 by having their convention in NYC in September. By doing so they forfeited their ballot access in several states only to be helped by the democrats to change the laws allowing Bush to appear on ballots. If I was a democrat, and wanted to win, I would have said that if the republicans wanted to exploit 9/11 they should pay the price and sacrifice their ballot access. Yet the democrats did not do this. Have you figured out why yet?

It's all there in front of you. The first step is going to admit to yourself that you might be wrong. Until then, all of this will continue to seem illogical to you. But I have faith that it will make sense to you someday but why wait when you could understand now. That seems much more logical to me.

"don't believe that bunch of links to Indymedia" 20.Oct.2004 22:37

HEY ANARCHY-ASSWIPE:

EVERY LAST ONE

of the links provided above are just the Portland IMC url address repostings of

EXTERNALLY - REFERENCED

articles.

(that is, in case you'd bothered to actually READ or go to any of them . . . plus there are plenty of external, non-Portland IMC urls emplaced in the above comment thread  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/300096.shtml#147431, sometimes duplicating the Portland IMC posting)

" the most crap you can throw at Kerry" 20.Oct.2004 23:47

for the record

nobody here is even bothering to make some sort of iron-clad case that,

Kerry is somehow "much more evil" than Bush (although our very own beloved GRINGO STARS and a few others are rather insistent upon Kerry's statements of how he will actually commit more troops to Iraq than BushCo., and some other specific issues). To have a leg to stand on for that line of reasoning, you'd need actual evidence from Kerry/Edwards' first year or two in the White House.

we all AGREE that the Bush Administration is blatantly criminal/genocidal, from a fascist lineage, and extremely dangerous to life on Planet Earth. that's not the point, or focus of discussion here.

and we're not - necessarily, at least from my point of view - asking you to "vote 3rd party too." (see explanation below of the light in which to cast your Kerry/Edwards vote, should you so choose.)

all we're asking YOU to do, "Anarchy-nonymous", is to simply acknowledge that NO REAL CASE to 'support' Kerry can be made on any kind of progressive, anti-war, Constitutional, human rights, or anti-corporate basis.

Translation:

if you are a radical leftist/progressive who chooses to vote Kerry/Edwards by Nov. 2nd, don't get into extended circumlocutions of 'politically rationalizing' to yourself how that ticket will be somehow be comparatively 'better' than Bush/Cheney (which is 100% hypothetical right now, even if John-John does 'win' two weeks from today, until we've seen a year or two of that regime).

just acknowledge above-described vote for what it is - an attempt [given the two-party, winner-take-all set up] to 'Eject/Fire Bush', and nothing more.

as far as the "lock-step conspiracy", how many Democrats have opposed / called for repeal of the USA Patriot Act, Homeland Security, or 'war on terror'? BushCo.'s environmental rollbacks? No Child Left Behind? etc. if the Democrats - and their current Presidential ticket - actually "stood for" anything as a party or platform, they've had plenty of banner chances to do so in the past 4 years.

and as the originally posted article by Lloyd Hart alluded to: you also need to acknowledge the inherent corruption of *both* parties in allowing the current White House occupant to be installed by SCOTUS decision Dec. 2000 (see the first 10 minutes of the movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" for details), as well as the current systematic voter intimidation/oppression, pro-corporate 'Democratic' party nationwide effort to remove Nader from ballots, electronic voting machines [HAVA - Help America Vote Act which Kerry approved], shredding of voter registrations by Republicans, striking citizens from voter rolls, etc.

I'm Voting Kerry, too! 21.Oct.2004 22:09

Billy Joe Bob John Paul Thomas

I think you Kerry bashers miss the point Anarchy is trying to make-- That Bush is as bad as they ever have come and if America can, by one vote, go back to where it was four years ago, that would be a big victory! That's why I left the Green Party and I am voting for Kerry.

hey "Billy Joe Bob John Paul Thomas" - 21.Oct.2004 23:23

Quizmaster

if "Bush is as bad as they ever have come",

then why did eight (8) million registered Democrats nationwide (including 230,000 in Florida alone) vote for him in 2000?

Stolen election 23.Oct.2004 10:18

Karlos

Bush's relection is certain. I know, because I was talking to Karl Rove this morning and he told me. Apparently, he has some sort of machine like the one the Wizard used in the Wizard of Oz that can change any vote instantly. He's going to keep it close, because otherwise people might get suspicious but Bush will definitely win, and the state that's going to make the difference isn't Florida or Ohio, but Massachussets. Yeah, Karl has a sense of humor and he's going to be sure Bush wins Massachussets.

At first I was skeptical of what Rove was telling me, I mean, seriously, if the Republicans have this kind of machine, why couldn't the Democrats get one first? Steve Jobs is a Democrat. Bill Gates is a Democrat. I even think Andy Grove is a Democrat, and those two guys from Google, you know they are. Seems to me that if there was such a machine, the Democrats would have it, not the Republicans.

But then I got a call Dick Cheney and he told me that his pals over at Halliburton have been secretly working on this since we invaded Iraq. As a matter of fact, the whole pretext of the Iraq war was to draw attention away from this "way back" machine as Cheney called it.

I know that with the Patriot Act they can trace my IP so I'm writing this from a public library in Strasbourg, in eastern France. Keep up the fight workers!