Sorry, Billmon, but I can’t help feeling that it’s better to have somebody to vote for rather than just to vote against. In my book, Nader is the best candidate. And while I can see that having Gore in office rather than Bush would have made a difference, I’m not sure that the difference would have been all that great. Gore said he would have attacked Afghanistan, too – just not Iraq. He probably just would have continued the weekly attacks on the country that we knew from the Clinton era. He wouldn’t have gotten the US to sign Kyoto, either.
The question is: How do we get such bozos out of the Beltway for good, not how do we get Bush out of office. We need greater change and a great movement away from both parties.

Posted by: french speaker | Jul 20 2004 5:50 utc | 3

Wow, I was expecting a storm of ‘i told you so’. I’m glad, though it’s probably still to come.
I am certainly disappointed, though, with Nader’s direction over the last few months. I thought he did pretty well in the debate againt Dean, but a number of his excuses were basically a version of “if they can do it, why can’t I” with respect to where his money or ballot-access is coming from.
But the main reason I’m saddened by these many turns of events in his campaign is that I really hoped he’d be a force to move Kerry leftward. It wasn’t really happening much before, but by now Kerry can totally disregard him.
Lesser-evilism reigns again. May the worst candidate loose!

Posted by: æ | Jul 20 2004 6:41 utc | 5

Kate (says the guy who really ought be writing his dissertation)
‘m moving for something better than the lesser of weavils
By which do you mean still supporting Nader? Just not sure if you meant him or some other, less Republican-supported indie, and if the latter, who?
I think the long term/short term dichotomy is pretty important. It’s quite right to say that we need much bigger change than is going to happen in this election, or in the next 5 years, or let’s face it, most likely the next 50. So on that theory, the results of this next election do not matter much, especially given the thin sliver of difference between Messieurs. Kerry and Bush.
On the other hand, I have to say, I really don’t want anyone in the White House (or as AG, come to think of it) who thinks they’re working for God. That’s insane. And very dangerous when you add in that ‘Rapture’ crap.
So… whether i vote my conscious or vote pragmatically, I seriously hope I don’t have to live though another Bush pResidency.

Posted by: æ | Jul 20 2004 7:05 utc | 7

We forget that having Bush in office strengthens resistence. When Clinton was in office, everyone on the left was hush-hush, as Barbara Ehrenreich pointed out. With neo-cons in office, it is easier to mobilize people for real change. Putting the Dems back in office will only slow things down.
Now if we could only get our soldiers back home, first…

Posted by: french speaker | Jul 20 2004 7:23 utc | 9

I’ve argued this point myself, but one has to ask: can we resist the jackboots of the Bush admin?
Today is the 50th anniversary of the failed assassination of Hitler. Over here in Europe, German TV is full of documentaries about that event. One contemporary said that it was probably best that Hitler was not murdered in ’44. As things went, it was possible to have tabula rasa, start from scratch. If Hitler had been killed by high-ranking Nazis officials, he would have been replaced by those closest to him. The result? A toning-down of matters, no doubt, but not a full renouncement of the Nazi past. Hitler would have been criticized for having gone too far, not for the very principles on which he stood.
I’m not saying we have to have complete destruction to effect real change. But maybe letting these guys go another four years would give them the time they need to discredit themselves further. In the meantime, we can act like we have real choices and vote for people we believe in, not stooges who have the sole merit of being the lesser of two evils.
Just an idea.

Posted by: french speaker | Jul 20 2004 8:30 utc | 11

Hello – somewhere, in a VFW Post in America, many ex-soldiers are drinking, smoking and weeping for their comrades STUCK IN IRAQ! WAKE UP! We need to get our boys and girls home now – and Ralph Nader cannot do it. George Bush does not give a RAT’S ASS for the welfare of our soldiers. Bush will not help.
Kate – Kerry is a soldier and he knows they must come home. So stop theorizing on whether Bush or Nader does this or that. The only hope we have is to vote for Kerry and then pressure him to bring ’em all home. Can you trust Kerry? I say YES! You all know what to do – GET RID OF BUSH! Neither Bush nor Nader can be trusted!
This post in memory of CW2 Stephen Anthony DeSantis, 129th AHC, 1 avn. bde, KIA 9/12/1969, Binh Dinh, RVN. Panel 18w, line 74 of the Wall.

Posted by: sen. bob | Jul 20 2004 12:22 utc | 13

Kerry is a soldier and he knows they must come home.
I wish. I hope. The thing is, he’s not talking like he plans to bring them home soon. He’s the logical, reasonable alternative, but the things he’s saying don’t sound like the alternatives one thinks is reasonable. He keeps talking like he wants to increase the troops in Iraq. I’m still supporting him as an alternative to Bush, but I just have no idea where we’re headed, and he seems to have no strategy that is catering to those of us (and there are so many) who feel this wr is a terrible mistake. Maybe it’s the triangulation strategy again, but who in power will relinquish some of that power without feeling any pressure to do so? My cynicism gets in the way of any optimism.

Posted by: x | Jul 20 2004 12:49 utc | 15

tgs,
I share your doubts regarding the conventional wisdom that Nader will siphon off votes from Kerry. Here in California (where our individual votes hardly matter this election since we’re SO pro-Kerry), the only three people I know who are saying they will vote for Nader are disaffected Republicans.
Only anecdotal, true. But I suspect there are a group of Republicans so disillusioned by the rightward theocratic lurch of their party that they will vote Nader as a protest vote, knowing he can’t win. These lifelong Republicans just can’t bring themselves to cast a vote for a Democratic, and Nader may well reap more than his share of moderate Republican votes — precisely because they know he can’t win.
Yet these Republicans feel obliged to still honor the system by casting a vote.
Strange poligical strategic times indeed. Desperate times make for oddball bedfellows.

Posted by: SusanG | Jul 20 2004 13:35 utc | 17

Billmon’s position on Nader is well argued – but only convincing if you have faith in the system, and faith in the Democrats. For good reasons, many people don’t.
Either way your fooked.

Posted by: DM | Jul 20 2004 13:52 utc | 19

These lifelong Republicans just can’t bring themselves to cast a vote for a Democratic
wow, even a ‘Democrat’ like Kerry, who seemes to hold 85% of the same positions but not mispronounced? That’s impressive, I must say. Such rigid thinking is pathetic. It is my firm belief that it is a mistake to have firm beliefs, as they say.
Jackmoron’s point above is the key- we progressives have got to get our feet in the door at the local level, and then move upward from there. It’s the only way, and it is slow (from a non-geological perspective, anyway), but I think our European readers will agree- that’s how it works. To the extent that the Greens have had any success, abroad as well as at home, it’s there.
As for the president- it’s a loose/loose/gonna loose situation, so we may as well turn our attention to the local level.

Posted by: æ | Jul 20 2004 14:35 utc | 21

@Debts in ´04
I am afraid you are right

calls upon all State Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), including the United States, to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, including ending all nuclear and other cooperation with Iran…

From the House Resolution 398
Roll Call No. 152, 6-May-2004, Yeahs 376, Nays 3 (Conyers, Kucinich, Paul)
How any Dem AFTER Iraq can vote “Yeah” on such a free ride for Bush is beyond me.

Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 20 2004 15:00 utc | 23

@æ
you are bringing up somehthing in your comment that has been on my mind since reading Billmons post.
Somehow Nader seems to me like someone who wants to build a house by starting with the roof and then move downwards. But my guess is, this just doesn’t work. I also wonder what has he been doing since 2000 – why didn’t he work to create a solide 3rd party, so that he has a fundament.
I mean, lets assume the absolute crazy and unthinkable thing happens and Nader gets elected. How will he govern? He doesn’t have a base in Congress and I am sure both the Republicans and the Democrats would be furious. So I do not see what good he does at present, what change he can actually bring by running this year.
I do believe that 3rd party leaders can come into powerful positions. One of the best examples is Joska Fisher, the German Foreign Minister. But the Green Party, if I am correct – Bernhard and Teuton??? – started locally then went on to the state level and then nation wide. A build up over years and starting with the fundament first. I can not see Nader doing something similar.

Posted by: Fran | Jul 20 2004 15:18 utc | 25

How a new party can grow.
The greens in Germany started in 1977 by wining one seat in the county election in Hildesheim. These were independent lists coming out of the anti-war, pro environment, anti nuclear power movement. The first try to grow a party was at the end of 1977 in the state of lower saxony. The party manager of the SPD (labor party) called them “a danger for democracy”.
Over the next year green list came up across the countries usually getting some 1.5 to 3.5% of the votes – enough for some seats in city and county parliaments. In 1979 the first two greens could reach a state house seats in Bremen.
1980 the greens get established as a nation wide party. In federal elections they get 1.5%
1982 in Hamburg, 7.5% in the state election.
1983 federal election – 5.6%
The following years see a lot of internal struggle.
1987 federal election 8.3%
up to 1990 the party splitters of some smaller parties of special interests (ecology)
1990 federal election – in West Germany under 5% in East Germany 6%
1994 a reunited green party gets 7.5% in federal elections
1998 federal election 6.6%, in a coalition with the SPD the party is becoming part of the federal government
2002 federal election 8.6%
today the greens would get some 10+%
The real power of the movement/party was/is not the winning of a majority. The power is to move all other parties into its direction.
This prevented Thatcherism in Germany so far and helped extremly on the general move to alternative energy and less use of Oil/Gas.
It took quite some years and many steps back, but it shows that a third party can move the whole ship onto a different course. I do wish my American friends would try this way. Otherwise they will have to resort to do only “panic” votes for the less-than-evil party/candidate and nothing will change.

Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 20 2004 15:33 utc | 27

Sen Bob, my heart is with you and yours….unfortunately, based on what JK and surrogates are saying I cannot discredit x’s thesis.
However, it is Susan G. who always gets me off the horns of this dilemna by clearly articulating why it must be ABB this time around. Thus, whether or not JK truly intends to go for a pragmatic spin on the Rovian/PNACKWackian road is rendered irrelevant.

Posted by: RossK | Jul 20 2004 15:50 utc | 29

Bernhard-
thanks for that, it was exactly my point.
Though, there’s a key difference between us and you what makes it much harder here, and that is the parliamentary legislature. Our ‘winner takes all’ legislature ensures that one or two indy reps can be safely ignored, except when things are very nearly evenly split (as in the Jeffords situation). Not saying this to undermine my own (and your) point, only to say that when coalitions of the otherwise unwilling aren’t necessary, it’s hard for small voices to be heard above the bipartisan din.
Still, though, the focus on the presidency is misguided to say the least. And the fact that Nader is doing no party building is a sure strike against him in my mind. The Dems got their stinking paws into the Greens at the national level, which is the main reason he didn’t get thier endorsment this time around. More dirty tricks, and certainly another reason to despise the official organization behind Kerry.
Sad to see Dean whoring for them now after they engineered his defeat. He should get together with McCain and start the “no, we are the center” Party.

Posted by: æ | Jul 20 2004 16:14 utc | 31

Like Alabama I see no reason to “ralph” on Ralph. He is already dour enough.
The real story here is an affirmation of what we all know: The GOP will do anything to win.
It is all hardball for them. They have no qualms with throwing fastballs at the heads of foes. Politics isn’t discourse for them, it is a killing field.
And just as they behave that way at home, so too, once in power they behave that way globally.
Their will to power is like a colossus: one foot atop dissenters at home and one foot on the throat of any foreign states that refuse to obey their dictates.
And worse: both home and abroad they repesent only the interest of the “haves.”
Their appetite for the world’s resources knows no bounds. No limits. No sate.
This is how the GOP represents you and I to the world.
So I agree with Billmon. We have a moral obligation to oppose their meanness, their gluttony, their ugliness and their hegemony.

Posted by: koreyel | Jul 20 2004 18:06 utc | 33

OH to have Proportional Representation in the US Presidential Election!

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 20 2004 18:22 utc | 35

Here are just a few of Bush’s accomplishments.
Bush refused to extend insurance payment premiums for the unemployed after the huge numbers of job losses in 2002.
Bush did, though insist on a 100% bailout of the airline industry, while, at the same time, demanding those airlines make union concessions.
Dems wanted to compromise with an 80% bailout. The diff. b/t the 80% and the 100% was 8 billion dollars, which is what those insurance premiums would have cost.
On the day Bush was inaugurated, his chief of staff issued a sixty-day moratorium that halted all new health, safety, and environmental regulations issued in the final days of Clinton’s presidency.
Bush suspended Clinton’s “roadless rule” that protected nearly sixty million acres of forests.
Senate Republicans, with Bush cheerleading all the way, introduced a bill to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration.
Bush went back on his pledge to regulate co2 emissions from power plants.
Bush worked to overturn a democratic regulation to reduce levels of arsenic in drinking water.
Bush rejected a treaty on germ warfare and biological weapons.
Bush wants to privatize social security, so that his buddies, like Kenny Boy, can “invest” your retirement income, and in 2001, a WH commission recommended just that very thing.
IRS audits of the working poor are at an all time high during the Bush prez, while they are at an all time low for the richest of the rich.
Bush’s “welfare reform” recommended that workfare recipients receive less than minimum wage.
Bush’s Pentagon has called for “low-yield” nuclear weapons and has listed SEVEN “rogue” nations as possible targets for NUCLEAR ATTACKS.
The Office of Management and Budget prevented the EPA from declaring a public health emergency over dangerous levels of asbestos from fibers in a Montana mine that are used in insulation throughout the country.
EPA altered its definition of “fill material” to allow coal companies to dump rubble from mountaintop removal into valleys and streams.
BUSH VOIDED THE U.S. SIGNATURE on the treaty to establish an International Criminal Court.
Bush’s State Dept. withheld 34 million in international family planning from the UN…because they wanted to talk about something other than abstinence.
Bush wanted to veto a Homeland Security Bill because it had civil service protections for employees.
Bush issued new privacy regulations that did not require patient consent to share records with insurance and pharma. companies or that restricted use of medical information for marketing purposes.
Bush’s “healthy forest initiative” would allow more logging of old growth forests by limiting environmental impact reviews.
The Transportation Security Aministration barred 56k airport screeners from unionizing…and we get those miminum wage slave screeners at airports…
Bush issued guidelines to exempt up to 20 million acres of isolated wetlands and seasonal streams under the “Clean Water” Act.
Bush sought to exempt banning the use of the ozone-depleting chemical methyl bromide (used on golf courses, for instance) in international treaty.
Dept of Labor, under Bush, proposed new overtime rules that would strip millions of pay for extra work by creating “mcdonald’s line white collar workers.”
Bush issued an executive order shielding all oil companies in Iraq from legal liability.
The US Army Corp of Eng. awarded…how many no bid contracts to Halliburton…who has no obligation to fulfill those contracts because they cannot be forced to put employees in war situations.
the Fed. Energy Reg. Commission rejected CA’s request to cancel 12 billion in long-term contracts, even though there was evidence of market manipulation when those contracts were signed.
EPA downplayed the health risks from 9-11.
EPA repealed a rule that required electric cos to install anti-pollution equipment when making major upgrades at coal-fired plants.
Millions of jobs have been lost under Bush, while BILLIONS in tax cuts on dividends and capital gains increase the gap between the middle class and the plutocrats.
Bush tried to pass (and Congress stopped it) an energy bill that would give BILLIONS of dollars in subsidies to some of Bush’s biggest supporters in oil and gas, coal, and electric utilities.
…this bill, btw, could trace its origins to Cheney’s Energy Policy Task Force.
The Republican medicare bill prevents the govt from negotiating lower prices from pharmas…and one month after this bill, Medicare chief Tom Scully announced he was stepping down to consider job offers from three lobbying and two investment firms.
Two months later, Bush’s Admin. reports..oops! the new Medicare law will cost 30%, or 530 billion more over ten years, than they said it would when they pushed it through.
Two months after that, a medicare actuary said the Bush administration threatened to fire him if he told Congress the truth about the costs of the Medicare plan.
Bush opened 300,000 acres of old-growth timber in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest to logging.
the USDA rejected a ban on the sale of “downer” cattle….until one week after when the first case of mad cow disease was detected in the US.
Bush appointed Charles Pickering to the US Court of Appeals, even though this right wing extremist had been rejected twice by the Senate.
Bush appointed the lawyer who helped Gonzalez write a justification of torture to to a judgeship, too.
Sixty top U.S. scientists, including a dozen Nobel Prize winners, openly accused the Bush Administration of misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge.
Bush man Ron Paige called the Nat’l Asso. of Teachers a “terrorist organization.”
The FDA blocked the over-the-counter sale of the morning after pill. btw, an Eckerd pharmacist in Texas refused to fill a dr’s script for RU-486 for a RAPE VICTIM because it was against his religious beliefs…even though there was no knowledge of any pregnancy.
Maybe there’s a little bit of difference between a democratic and a republican adminstration, and congress, for that matter.

Posted by: fauxreal | Jul 20 2004 19:21 utc | 37

fauxreal–
Thanks to you as well for a factual, concrete, step-by-step reminder of why it must be, at least this time around, ABB.

Posted by: RossK | Jul 20 2004 20:23 utc | 39

koreyel:
So why would Hersh say this is the most important election since 1860, and so many posting here say roughly that this is just a sham choice between tweedledum and tweedledee?
Actually, Hersh characterized it as “Bush vs. Bush” in his speech to the ACLU, and also alluded to the fact that he’s not greatly enamoured of Kerry. I mean, there’s not really a great contrast between what a lot of people are saying here and what Hersh is saying.
Nobody here needs convincing about Bush. I personally still reluctantly support Kerry but have my doubts about the change that will be affected. One of them is: how many of those things on fauxreal’s list is he going to overturn or change? I’m sure at least some of them he will, or at least do differently. But there are other things he plans for besides what’s on that list that trouble me, frankly.

Posted by: x | Jul 20 2004 20:41 utc | 41

x–
point taken….but what about this….what will be the difference in the new items on the list Rovians vs neoCarvillians 4 years from now?

Posted by: RossK | Jul 20 2004 20:45 utc | 43

Looks like the death rate in Iraq is still an electoral concern
A retreat by any other name…

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 20 2004 21:12 utc | 45

Thanks fauxreal and Koreyel – You speak for me too. I read arguments against Kerry with disbelief. Ask any of our friends overseas how critical this all is. I worried in 2000 that he would trash our country the way he did Texas but he never checked. He couldn’t wait to trash the world. He and the rotten stinking creatures he rode in on. We’re not just getting rid of him, we’re getting rid of a blinking machine!

Posted by: beq | Jul 20 2004 21:21 utc | 47

four more years of bush, eh?
Guess I’ll start doing my pushups now.

Posted by: dc | Jul 20 2004 21:45 utc | 49

btw, I don’t know how many of you are aware of the public pile-on on Sandy Berger for taking some sort of documents in regard to the 9-11 Committee hearings….my tv has been on with no sound, so I’ve only seen the talking heads and the constant graphics…
…but didn’t Bush refuse to turn over reams of documents relating to Clinton…not to mention having to be arm-twisted to turn over their own documents, as in the PDB of Aug. 6th?
Is this being included in “fair and balanced” coverage, I wonder?
…and isn’t it convenient that this is such a stink two days before the 9-11 Commission releases its report.
…because this sets up the “Clinton administration blunder” meme in the sort of playing attention public’s mind.
but who knows, maybe this is the worst thing about the whole mess…worse than those 20 plus redacted pages supposedly about Saudi Arabia, too.

Posted by: fauxreal | Jul 20 2004 22:30 utc | 51

@Nemo @Finding WMD
Blair’s display today makes me want to be a hermit free nuclear free zone.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 20 2004 23:49 utc | 53

He still doesn’t get it
CAUSE FOR REJOICING?
* British soldiers killed during Iraq war: 60
* British soldiers injured in the conflict: 2,200
* Iraqi soldiers killed: 6,370 (estimate)
* Iraqi civilians killed: 13,000 (estimate)
* Projected cost of reconstruction: £55bn
* UK cost of war: £3.2bn
* Annual cost of keeping UK troops in Iraq: £1.5bn
* Percentage of Iraqis who would feel safer if US and UK troops left: 55
* Percentage of UK voters who believe Blair lied: 55
* Weapons of mass destruction found: 0
And maybe not just Blair who doen’t get it. These people are able to operate because WE let them.
Even so-called intellectuals and progressives enhance the prestige and mystique of these less than ingenious individuals – who are able to play out their fantasies on the world stage to the detriment of all civilized norms of behaviour – by endlessly debating the nuances of what the say, and reading in cleverness where non exists.
Do we really get the leaders that we deserve? The fact that Blair was able to delude himself and lie the country into this preposterous war is facilitated by the measured and temperate debate by politicians, journalists, everyone.
The fact is that Blair has a tenuous grasp on history beyond the junior high school level, and is obviously a nutter whose only apparent motive was to seize the moment – to bignote himself.
And we are still having a debate with him.
I can’t afford to fork out money to buy his biography, but somewhere in his life – something is missing. Someone should have punched out the lights of this snotty nosed little Edinburgh effete.

Posted by: DM | Jul 21 2004 0:47 utc | 55

I have to admit, Kerry has been busy promoting “unity” and, if you are ‘progressive’, ‘unity’ means one thing – surrendering everything you believe in. Thus, Kucinich’s delegates, in the name of party unity, gave up their demands that the Party’s platform include:
1) the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
2) the establishment of a Department of Peace
3) a call in favor of same-sex unions
4) an endorsement of Palestinians’ rights.
I hope that Willie Nelson, a Kucinich supporter, is singing the blues in some honky-tonk about this.

Posted by: tgs | Jul 21 2004 2:15 utc | 57

There is a story about FDR, that should give us guidance towards John Kerry —
A liberal interest group was pitching their cause to FDR, when he stopped them in the middle of their presentation. FDR said, “Alright, you’ve convinced me. Now, go out and put some pressure on me.”
John Kerry is one of the most progressive senators we have. His administration will be as progressive as the political climate allows.
If we want John Kerry to be more of a lefty, we need to give him solid Democratic majorities in Congress.
If the people will lead, the leaders will follow.

Posted by: ck | Jul 21 2004 2:26 utc | 59

We’re not just getting rid of him, we’re getting rid of a blinking machine!
I wish this was true.
This machine has been gaining strength since it’s creation in the late 1970’s, a movement funded by filthy rich family interests and corporations. Money is their primary weapon, and they have more of it than anyone else on the planet. BushCo is the fruit of their efforts. Theirs is not a war on women or other ethnic groups; it is a war on ordinary people everywhere, a movement to control societies and resources around the globe. They will, however, employ the tried and true techniques of divide and conquer against the populations they want to control, pitting ethnic, religous and other groups against each other so that they can control the masses. They are so powerful (MI complex, the banksters, the oil industry and now the wealthy Likudnics with their media clout) that Kerry cannot simply appeal to voters with different values and priorities; he has to assure this group that their interests will be served even if he doesn’t advance them as far as Bush would. The right wing machine will still be powerful even if Kerry wins and he’ll have a hard time making the substantive policy changes required even if he sees the necessity, which is not at all certain. I expect this machine to make it extremely difficult for Kerry to govern and to return in 2006 and 2008 even more determined since their stranglehold on this country (and by extension, their world ambitions) is at stake. This coalition of wealthy interests, which does not really believe in democracy, continues to consolidate power and distract the population with disinformation and irrelevancies. It is our real enemy; BushCo are their ministers, and they will find others just as willing and possibly more competent if BushCo loses. Until that group and the machine they created is exposed, broken up and dispersed, this country will remain on a fascist path domestically and an imperialist one globally.
I’ll vote for Kerry because he represents slim hope vs. no hope, but I see him as a rear guard action against a well-financed, well-mobilized right wing juggernaut. The reason he has a chance to win is not because BushCo’s policies have been largely rejected but because they have been so incompetent. The 2004 election is important, but I doubt it will be decisive. We are in a long term struggle with interests that will not yield power willingly or peacefully, nor quit trying for complete control until they succeed or are destroyed. In short, I believe these interests and the machine they created are the gravest threat to the country we thought we knew since the Civil War.

Posted by: lonesomeG | Jul 21 2004 2:41 utc | 61

x or /rant is, IMO, completely on the money. John Kerry and the Democratic party claim to want to return us to ‘internationalism’ – the great flaw of the personification of evil in the WH being his ‘go it alone’ frame of mind. As, x’s post indicated, the Democratic response to to the international court’s decision on the wall points out clearly that this fundamental premise of Kerry’s foreign policy is complete bullshit. In fact the Democrats led by liberal hero Nancy Pelosi tried to preempt this decision with a a resolution completely in support of Israel’s land grab and against international law and opinion. In his discussion of this issue, Stephen Zunes writes:
“Minority leader Nancy Pelosi and Deputy minority leader Steny Hoyer (who was a cosponsor of the DeLay resolution) refused to place a resolution cosponsored by Stark (H.R. 479), which applauds Israelis and Palestinians who are working together to conceive pragmatic, serious plans for achieving peace and encourages both Israeli and Palestinian leaders to capitalize on the opportunity offered by these peace initiatives.”
But actually, this ‘internationalism’ riff is even worse. Kerry just doesn’t get that Chirac and Schoeder didn’t participate in our illegal, not to mention immoral, invasion and sacking of Iraq because of the enormous objections to this action by their own people. Kerry seems to think that he is such a charmer that the French and Germans would have “seen reason”. This despite the fact that now everyone realizes that the so-called case for wars was a pack of manufactured lies.
Sorry to run on. Just that the fact that literally every premise of Kerry’s foreign policy, though I have not shown this here, is based on fantasy.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 21 2004 3:11 utc | 63

Sorry, post beginning
“x or /rant is, IMO, completely on the money. John Kerry and the Democratic party claim to want to return us to ‘internationalism'”
is by me.

Posted by: tgs | Jul 21 2004 3:19 utc | 65

RossK —
Be hopeful, and work like hell . . .
Things will sort themselves out in their own time, and for good or ill — there will be plenty of time for wailing and nashing of teeth, or rejoicing and celebration.
The funny thing is — one side will be doing one, the other side doing the other — no matter how it plays out.
Rejoice, and be of good cheer — life is short, and we do the best we can with what we have.
There’s no sense fretting about what has not yet come to pass . . .

Posted by: ck | Jul 21 2004 3:29 utc | 67

tgs:
Sorry to run on. Just that the fact that literally every premise of Kerry’s foreign policy, though I have not shown this here, is based on fantasy
That makes two parties whose foreign policy is based on fantasy. And what kind of trouble are we in when it comes to that? What does it say about us? The myopia too uncomfortably reminds me of other doomed places in history.
vbo:
I read that as part of the Nato negotiations recently, tiny impoverished nations like Armenia whose people, as MidEast Christians, probably suffer most threats from such stupid policies in the first place, will send forces there to be transport drivers, among other things. Pity the poor of the world.

Posted by: x | Jul 21 2004 4:18 utc | 69

The fact that we do not see things at the time when they start shaping political scene (but much later when we see consequences) make it even much more harder to change the course of political events later. These things didn’t come over night and will not go away suddenly…More and more I start to believe that they are unstoppable until they reach “full circle”…
I for one, am a reader of political tea leaves — and there are several trends worth noting.
First — every political movement has it’s phases:
Passion; Growth; Maturity; Decrepitude.
Modern American Conservatism is headed towards decrepitude — which is why they are working so hard to fundamentally change the political landscape in their favor.
Second — demographics. The long term trends favor the Democrats — the Hispanic voter bloc is the prize, and it is still up for grabs.
Third — the corrupt incompetence of George W Bush.
Unless they manage to steal the election, or Osama Bin Bombin’ manages to skeer’ an electoral stampede in Bush’s direction, the Fraud from Crawford is going to drag down the GOP nationwide. And if they go down — big time — they ain’t coming back.
That’s why I’m hopeful. But I also try to be optimistic, simply because pessimism is injurious to the Psyche. Life is tough enough, without poisoning our minds with doom and gloom about things that we cannot control.
Maybe an asteroid will wipe out all life on earth. Maybe radiation from a nearby super nova will crispy fry our planet. Or maybe, the BushCo greedheads will exterminate us through greenhouse gasses.
The only thing we can personally control — is the narrative construct, and the emotional melody — between our ears.

Posted by: ck | Jul 21 2004 4:55 utc | 71

Who wants to suggest a non-paranoid foreign policy?
…A goal of vengeance makes for a tough political battle: “It’s foolish to fight people who want death; that’s what they are looking for”…
Arnold Beichman – The Politics of Vengeance

Posted by: Nemo | Jul 21 2004 5:23 utc | 73

I think the answer to tonights equation is thus;
french speaker,Susan G,KateStorm,Debsn04
Ralph Nader,in the current presidential race,is closer to how I think about the the important issues,the war and its quick resolution,the degeneration of the 2 party system into a non-differential corpocracy, a more radical stand against the rampant gutting of all important social programs,and enviromental programs.
Nader may draw some republican votes.
A vote for Kerry over Nader would enervat the above agenda through poor implementation.
ae,jackmorman,x
There are problems with DNC/Clintonian/Carvillian influence on the Kerrys ability to get anything done (effective action on above mentioned)
jackmorman,ae,Fran
Why does Nader want to start from the top? Everyone knows he cant be elected.
Bernard,Fran
Outline of Green Party successful development in Germany,thats from the local and then up to the national.This runs counter to Naders attempts to develop of an effective Green movement.
fauxreal
Mile long trail of tears list of “accomplishments”of the current pResedent (thanks ae).
koreyel,(SyHersh)
The overridding moral obligation entailed in the current choice cannot be underestimated or ignored.
williamtreat
“When the house is burning down,its not the time to be planning for new construction”.
anna mist
While I think its safe to say most here would embrace Ralph Naders political platform,I think we should also take strong exception to the means he has attempted to bring it forth.This running for president thing is down right counterproductive.Billmons piece pretty much lays it all out,especially this (Im actually buying the drugs now) crash landing in Michigan.In this election,as so eloquently stated in some of the above posts, voting strictly by trees is to miss the forest,and it is very much on fire.At this point a vote for Ralph could mean serious damage to an unlimitted number of people,a vote for the pResident (again ae) its guarantied.A vote for Kerry is really the only hope for finding the brake.
I always take a little solice from Chomsky in that the politicans will only do what we allow them to do, if we allow them.
Good Night Moon

Posted by: anna mist | Jul 21 2004 9:04 utc | 75

Democrats Richly Deserve Nader by Alexander Cockburn in an LA Times commentary:
Always partial to monopolies, the Democrats think they should hold the exclusive concession on any electoral challenge to George W. Bush and the Republicans.

Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 22 2004 9:40 utc | 77