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

human & civil rights | political theory

nader = bush: part 1

logic of empire
Peace is Possible
Peace is Possible
Suppose bush and kerry are different. That is Kerry wants to maintain US empire and Bush will end up destroying it. Not too far from the turth. Perhaps not but that is what I am hoping. I got no hope with Bush. He has bathed for four years in a sea of untruth and american blood. You Know that.

Now math time. A vote for anyone else but Kerry is a vote for Bush. Any word else is rhetoric to make you hard or tinggle. That's the presidential reality.

Calm down...

Now its going to take more than voting to get us out of the shit and blood storm we are in. The presidential race is a facet You can't vote more oil in existence, only its fair distribution. You can't vote for alternative energy system you got to figure out how to acuire one. You can't vote corruption away you got to name it and face it. You can't vote for justice you got to pay for it. Voting and talking about these issues is not doing something about these issues in itself.

Our behaviour. Now you need to consider it carefully. We don't need more violence. Focus
on the your life. What change is needed to live without the federal reserve note? Try to group up and coop. The city, county, state may resist these changes, for it often violates its code. Evolving the code to adapt, to new circumstances will based on our changes. Thats the consideration. That is the path to freedom. You can see there is going to be some resistance from a large parasitic class.

Suggestions are welcome
for "dudester" 22.Oct.2004 17:14


is a vote for Kerry automatically and with certainty, a vote against Bush?

[n.b. what's happening in Florida  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/300561.shtml - Ohio  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/300564.shtml right now]

was Bush *voted* into the White House?

if so, who permitted it?

yep that's the logic of empire all right 22.Oct.2004 17:19


nonsensical and incoherent.

Now let's go kill, I mean liberate, some Iraqis.

nader != bush 22.Oct.2004 17:48

Vystrix Nexoth

a vote for Nader (or anyone but Kerry/Bush) is HALF a vote for Bush (a vote from Kerry, but no corresponding vote *to* Bush)... and even then, only if you would in fact vote for Kerry if Nader (or Cobb or Badnarik or whichever 3rd party candidate you support).

however, a vote for Bush is a fully-ordained, card-carrying, full-fledged, no-holds-barred, anything-goes vote for Bush. tell that to the 11% of self-identified democrats nationwide who voted for Bush in 2000 (compared to the 2.73% of *all* voters who voted Nader (and don't forget that not all Nader supporters would necessarily have voted for Gore if Nader wasn't running... some would have not voted at all, and some would even have voted for Bush!)).

and also, Badnarik this year will draw some votes from Bush too, so for a republican, a vote for Badnarik is a vote for Kerry, ya?

the way I see it, Nader/Cobb/Badnarik are not drawing votes from Kerry, or spoiling it for Kerry. quite the contrary: Kerry is spoiling it for Nader, Cobb, and Badnarik!

endless anti-democratic rhetoric 22.Oct.2004 18:01


A vote for a candidate is a vote for a candidate. Is that too hard to understand? You can't take votes *from* someone because no one owns a person's vote but that person.

I could be considered a progressive and I'm voting for Badnarik, does that mean Kerry lost my vote because I'm a progressive or Bush lost my vote because I'm voting libertarian (or perhaps Nader or Cobb for whom I also considered voting). The answer is neither or none of thee above. It's my vote to use as I choose. No one is entitled to my vote. No one owns my vote but me. My vote is a vote for the candidate of my choosing and nothing else.

If you really wanted to about candidates "losing" votes and spoilers than what seems obvious is that all candidates other than the one I select has lost my vote. Therefore my vote for Badnarik is a lost vote for Bush, as well as Kerry, and Cobb, Nader, and Peroutka. A vote for Nader, likewise, is a lost vote for Bush, Kerry, and the rest.

Many people are attracted to third parties for a variety of reasons and it's absolutely worthless to try and make generalizations about their motives. But what disgusts me the most is the sheer anti-democratic sentiment that is so prevalent in this country. I think we may need another revolution to rekindle our appreciation for the principles of democracy that have been trampled on by the corporate parties and their minions.

bush, kerry... 22.Oct.2004 18:04

nader girl

...its all the same old story. let this shit go and don't worry about those of us who are using our brain instead of reacting out of fear.

nice 22.Oct.2004 18:14


right on independent. thank you.

analysis 22.Oct.2004 19:48


To all voters: How are you planning to regain control? Break free? To all voters: How are you planning to regain control? Break free? To all voters: How are you planning to regain control? Break free?

Anyone But Bush mp3:


07-23-04 On tonight's show Tracey James talks about the drowning of Liberal and Reformist politics. The "Anyone But Bush Crowd" has chosen to view Nader and third party politicians as Monkeywrenches. How is choice managed? Is Kerry a real option? Is Nader a real option? How about Libertarian? In a system of corporate controlled politicians who whore themselves out to the highest bidder, can one guy in a suit and tie make a bit of difference?

residential Contenders mp3

Gerald starts off with "Makin it Plain News" then Slave Revolt blasts its way into "Beyond the Shadow" and "Here We Go Again, the Lesser of Two Evils." The idea of voting our way out of a controlled system is futile. The elites own the politicians. The elites own the media. The elites want to enslave us. Break free.


(slow down load tonight, so stopped the down load)

Democratic Spoilers.... 22.Oct.2004 19:53

Scotty B.

The entire argument you have to vote against what you hate rather than FOR the candidate that you want is completely ridiculous. The 'two-party' mentality is what's caused this country to have such a horrible political history - it's impossible for progressive change to occur when the Left is so concerned about the actions of Bush that they don't even think about the major flaws in Kerry and how he's almost just as bad. America is the only country in the WORLD with a two-party system - all the other countries ethier have one party that controls everything or a multi-party democracy. In America, we have two parties that agree with each other on everything, and thus our country is just as much of a dictatorship as countries like Singapore.

A vote for Kerry is a WASTED vote. Progressive change isn't going to occur within the Democratic Party - EVER, and we aren't going to have a democracy in this country until we adopt another voting system. As far as I'm concerned, John Kerry, a corporatist/militarist, is spoiling the election for David Cobb, Ralph Nader, and other progressive candidates.

War is Peace 22.Oct.2004 21:06

Wild Green

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery

you can't always get what you want 22.Oct.2004 21:11

life is a choice between lesser of evils

Do the math not the rhetoric...what to do after the election.

Kerry=Bush 22.Oct.2004 21:33


I think liberal Democrats should join the Republican party and change it from the ground up.
Bush is Hitler!
Bush is Hitler!

Ziggy's On To Something 22.Oct.2004 23:21

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

<i>I think liberal Democrats should join the Republican party and change it from the ground up.</i>

I'm sure the Republicans For Choice[tm], all fifty or sixty of them, would appreciate the company. ;)

Kerry owns your vote 22.Oct.2004 23:39

seriously, folks

Kerry already owns your vote if you are a progressive. Therefore, if you vote for Nader, you are stealing from Kerry! You're a thief!
Ugh, how many times have we had this argument? You own your vote, and a vote for Nader is a vote for Nader, plain and simple. Nader didn't lose the election for Gore, Gore lost the election for Gore, and Kerry may or may not do the same. Kerry boosters, please let the rest of us exercise our voting in peace.

Kerry in the same bath as Bush 23.Oct.2004 01:29


Kerry's been bathing in the same bloodbath as Bush this whole time, haven't you noticed? He's been bathing in it even longer -- what was Plan Colombia? What was Kosovo and Serbia?

Of course a lot more than voting has to be done. But that doesn't make it reasonable to vote for one of the puppet candidates of the very system of aristocratic corporate imperialist fascism we are working against. What is so hard to understand about voting consistently with one's life direction? Don't vote that way until a majority of other people do it first? Are you going to be the 51-millionth to set up a food co-op, the 51-millionth to set up a time bank? Oh, those things aren't winner-take-all? You mean the current system of agriculture and food distribution and marketing is not a rigged winner-take-all game like the electoral system? The monetary system is not a rigged winner-take-all game like the electoral system? If anything, those systems are way more rigged than the electoral system. If you lived like you voted, you'd be a Bush Democrat Yuppie middle manager, because you'd be afraid of letting Wal-Mart win by not shopping at Target, letting Monsanto win by not buying from Archer Daniels Midland, of letting Citi-Bank win by not buying everything on a Chase Manhattan credit card.

rage against the machine 23.Oct.2004 03:08

Vystrix Nexoth

independent: I totally agree. it's only a vote "from" Kerry in the sense of potential, i.e. what *could* have been a vote for Kerry instead was served as a vote for Nader or Cobb or Badnarik.

and, yeah... to anyone who plans to vote Kerry: think outside the box. from the point of view of inside the box, there's a very clear and distinct difference between the two parties and Kerry is a better guy, and all this, and all that. but you get so caught up on how this or that is important INSIDE the box that you fail to see what's OUTSIDE the box and how absurd it all looks. third-party voters are outside the box. and you people inside the box are telling us that supporting such-and-such inside the box is more important than not supporting the box at all. It's like debating (just as an example) whether Chevy or Ford is better, while we shake our heads sadly at you as we ride by on our bicycles. and then YOU blame US for not fighting for the "right" cause in your petty little argument.

while you may have strong feelings about what is the proper way to conduct business inside the box, and may debate at length over the finer points of this; WE, on the other hand, are trying to get rid of the box altogether. and then you blame us when our actions haven't contributed to the "right" cause in your petty little argument in your petty little box. we're looking ahead at getting rid of the box itself and won't let ourselves be bogged down in the short-term effects of what goes on inside it.

while you may have strong feelings about whether Kerry or Bush is better, and may debate at length over the finer points of this; WE, on the other hand, are trying to get rid of the two-party duopoly altogether. and then you blame us when our actions haven't contributed to the "right" cause in your petty little argument in your petty (but unfortunately all too obese) duopoly. we're looking ahead at getting rid of the two-party duopoly itself, and won't let ourselves be bogged down in the short-term dynamics WITHIN that duopoly.

or, here's a more succinct way of expressing my view:

Bush is a rusty cog in the machine.
Kerry is a semi-rusty cog in the machine (but looks brilliantly shiny in comparison).

I am not voting for the machine.

I Don't Rub Elbows With Rabble. I'M IMPORTANT !! 23.Oct.2004 06:42

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

I saw an issue of Mazza's paper a few days ago in which a KBOO programmer poo-poohed all 3rd Parties, basically saying that they were all ineffectual and fringy and icky and stuff. Great, Pal. I'd sure love to sit across a committee table from you and know that you were one of the people deciding what news gets put on the air of the "community owned" radio station. :(

The circular logic of people who automatically dis 3rd Party efforts in the U.S. is nothing new to me, of course. The whole implication is that "those people" are weird and deluded, so I'll never go near them for fear that I might catch something. Never mind that as long as the "cool" people in our proverbial political High School use that as grounds for rejecting a movement, they guarantee that the situation they decry will never change. Sigh. I don't appear "fringy" because I'm sick in the head, Mr. Programmer. I appear "fringy" because there's one of me for every 6,000 of you, and you're too busy being a snot to consider whether my points might have any validity. Sheer numbers = Validity in your eyes. No other criteria can be as important.

I expect that sort of shit from some glorified Right-Wing asshole like Dan Savage, whose idea of political discourse is saying that Nader voters don't bathe. Coming from someone prominent at KBOO, though, I felt distinctly chilled, and deeply disappointed. :(

Yeah 23.Oct.2004 10:05

too bad

Yeah, KBOO is predominantly made up of liberals. It's most unfortunte.

Kerry: What He Stands For, And Why He Doesn't Deserve Your Vote 23.Oct.2004 13:33

Go To This Thread, "dudester"

if you really want to debate or analyze:

You Can't Blame Nader for This 23.Oct.2004 15:46

alexander cockburn

Weekend Edition
October 22 / 24, 2004

The Democratic Party: an Advanced State of Decay

You Can't Blame Nader for This


Let's hedge this with all the usual qualifiers. Kerry could pull it out. The spread's within the margin of error. Respondents to polls are lying out of fear of John Ashcroft. Pollsters aren't reaching Kerrycrats with cell phones. But whatever way you cut it, after three debates in which polls assessed him as the victor, most polls say Kerry is lagging. As of now (October 20), the spread mostly ranges from an eight-point Bush lead to a dead heat. Worse, from Kerry's point of view, some postdebate numbers show him dropping among low-income workers and urban voters, once the lifeblood of the Democratic Party. Margins in crucial states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida are razor-thin.

Why? Has a candidate or a party ever been more pleasantly caressed by the winds of history in an election year than John Kerry and the Democrats? A majority of Americans don't think Bush has done a particularly good job, and they've thought this for months, though more of them like Bush than like Kerry.

On Bush's watch the economy has performed poorly, and people are scared it will soon get worse. Headlines have blared the news: Real wages have fallen across the past year. Many people who lost jobs in the recession aren't getting them back. Under Bush the percentage of people with jobs has fallen by 2 percent, which translates into 4.5 million people. Middle-class income is falling. More are in poverty than ever before. The budget deficit is more than 40 percent of federal revenues, excluding funds ultimately committed to Social Security and Medicare.

Bush and his closest associates have been directly identified in almost all major mass media as perpetrators of one of the most colossal deceits in the history of propaganda, the concoction of Saddam's nonexistent WMDs as the pretext for attacking Iraq last year. Could any candidate have hoped for an October thunderclap as sonorous as that sounded by Charles Duelfer of the government's own Iraq Survey Group, that when the United States launched its attack Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction and had long since abandoned programs to produce them?

The war on Iraq itself is unpopular. It has carried other well-publicized scandals in its slipstream: the Plame investigation into the White House's outing of the identity of a CIA officer; the devastation to America's international stature wrought by the tortures ordered and perpetrated by Americans in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere; the Israeli spy scandal. In mid-month yet another October surprise was gifted to Kerry: a mutiny by US troops in Iraq, publicly accusing the Army of ordering them to risk death without adequate equipment.

So history has dealt Kerry all the high cards, save the one that bears his own face (against the scenic background of a billionaire wife and six houses). This card still lies on Bush's side of the table.

Only two men in US history have gone directly from the Senate to the White House, Warren Harding in 1920 and John F. Kennedy in the squeaker of 1960. This year the Democrats put two senators on the ticket, thereby burdening it with the deficits of incumbency endured by Bush. Few weapons in Bush's sparse armory in the debates were as effective as his riposte to Kerry's innumerable, pledge-laden plans for healthcare: "He's been in the United States Senate twenty years. Show me one accomplishment toward Medicare that he accomplished."

The evasions, compromises and contradictions in Kerry's political biography are there in the record to tally, and the Bush campaign has done so, to deadly effect. Kerry is a flip-flopper, and his votes show it. His leaps back and forth over the fence on the issue of the war across the past months have only compounded this career record. With the splendid gift of the fake WMDs placed before him, he has been incapable of unwrapping it. Worse, in early August he proclaimed that most likely he too, even if he had known the WMD threat to be bogus, would have authorized an attack on Iraq.

With the Bush Administration's overall record, particularly on the economic front, as poor as it is, one might have reckoned with near certainty that a hefty exchange of seats in the House, and even a handful in the Senate, would see a turnover of control from Republicans, with consequent splitting of power and a renaissance of vital important checks on the perils of a Bush second term.

But the Democrats have continued the disastrous displacement, familiar in Clinton-time, of resources away from winning back the Congress. To recapture the House the Democrats need to win twelve Republican-held districts. Overall, only sixteen Republican districts are in serious contention. Of these, two are rated as slimly tilting toward the Democrats, fourteen are tossups. In other words, recapture is a long shot. The Democrats have a slightly better chance in the Senate.

We are now witnessing the Democratic Party in very advanced decay. After the Clinton/DLC years, its street cred is conclusively shot. In formal political function the party is nothing much more than an ATM machine, spewing out torrents of cash, supplied by the unions and by corporations seeking favors, to the armies of consultants and operators who have lived off it for decades. Its right wing comprises people who could as easily be in the Republican Party, its center people incapable of standing on any principle. Its left, this season, is made up of the Anybody But Bush crowd, who last spring made the decision to let Kerry be Kerry, without a word of criticism, when he pledged a better war on Iraq and even a march on Tehran.

And if, against most current indications, Kerry wins? He has proffered almost nothing to look forward to, aside from a pledge, which can easily be aborted by a "crisis," to leave Social Security alone. With the Congress against him, he'll be mostly hogtied domestically. On the foreign front he's eagerly hogtied himself. No more compliant serf to the imperatives of Empire and to the government of Israel than Kerry has been visible this season.

A November 3 movement, to pressure Kerry if he wins, rebuild if he loses? Many on the left have argued that. But how will they know which way to march, when they started this year with all the wrong maps?