Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

View Poll Results: Which Democratic candidate would you support at this point?
John Kerry 4 36.36%
John Edwards 0 0%
Howard Dean 3 27.27%
Dennis Kucinich 1 9.09%
Joe Lieberman 0 0%
Al Sharpton 3 27.27%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jun 16th, 2003, 02:16 PM       
Thanks for the filler, clambake.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jun 16th, 2003, 02:31 PM       
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Former Aide Takes Aim at War on Terror

By Laura Blumenfeld
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 16, 2003; Page A01

Five days before the war began in Iraq, as President Bush prepared to raise the terrorism threat level to orange, a top White House counterterrorism adviser unlocked the steel door to his office, an intelligence vault secured by an electronic keypad, a combination lock and an alarm. He sat down and turned to his inbox.

"Things were dicey," said Rand Beers, recalling the stack of classified reports about plots to shoot, bomb, burn and poison Americans. He stared at the color-coded threats for five minutes. Then he called his wife: I'm quitting.

Beers's resignation surprised Washington, but what he did next was even more astounding. Eight weeks after leaving the Bush White House, he volunteered as national security adviser for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), a Democratic candidate for president, in a campaign to oust his former boss. All of which points to a question: What does this intelligence insider know?

"The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure," said Beers, who until now has remained largely silent about leaving his National Security Council job as special assistant to the president for combating terrorism. "As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done. And the longer I sat and watched, the more concerned I became, until I got up and walked out."

No single issue has defined the Bush presidency more than fighting terrorism. And no issue has both animated and intimidated Democrats. Into this tricky intersection of terrorism, policy and politics steps Beers, a lifelong bureaucrat, unassuming and tight-lipped until now. He is an unlikely insurgent. He served on the NSC under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and the current Bush. The oath of office hangs on the wall by his bed; he tears up when he watches "The West Wing." Yet Beers decided that he wanted out, and he is offering a rare glimpse in.

"Counterterrorism is like a team sport. The game is deadly. There has to be offense and defense," Beers said. "The Bush administration is primarily offense, and not into teamwork."

In a series of interviews, Beers, 60, critiqued Bush's war on terrorism. He is a man in transition, alternately reluctant about and empowered by his criticism of the government. After 35 years of issuing measured statements from inside intelligence circles, he speaks more like a public servant than a public figure. Much of what he knows is classified and cannot be discussed. Nevertheless, Beers will say that the administration is "underestimating the enemy." It has failed to address the root causes of terror, he said. "The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged and generally underfunded."

The focus on Iraq has robbed domestic security of manpower, brainpower and money, he said. The Iraq war created fissures in the United States' counterterrorism alliances, he said, and could breed a new generation of al Qaeda recruits. Many of his government colleagues, he said, thought Iraq was an "ill-conceived and poorly executed strategy."

"I continue to be puzzled by it," said Beers, who did not oppose the war but thought it should have been fought with a broader coalition. "Why was it such a policy priority?" The official rationale was the search for weapons of mass destruction, he said, "although the evidence was pretty qualified, if you listened carefully."

He thinks the war in Afghanistan was a job begun, then abandoned. Rather than destroying al Qaeda terrorists, the fighting only dispersed them. The flow of aid has been slow and the U.S. military presence is too small, he said. "Terrorists move around the country with ease. We don't even know what's going on. Osama bin Laden could be almost anywhere in Afghanistan," he said.

As for the Saudis, he said, the administration has not pushed them hard enough to address their own problem with terrorism. Even last September, he said, "attacks in Saudi Arabia sounded like they were going to happen imminently."

Within U.S. borders, homeland security is suffering from "policy constipation. Nothing gets done," Beers said. "Fixing an agency management problem doesn't make headlines or produce voter support. So if you're looking at things from a political perspective, it's easier to go to war."

The Immigration and Naturalization Service, he said, needs further reorganization. The Homeland Security Department is underfunded. There has been little, if any, follow-through on cybersecurity, port security, infrastructure protection and immigration management. Authorities don't know where the sleeper cells are, he said. Vulnerable segments of the economy, such as the chemical industry, "cry out for protection."

"We are asking our firemen, policemen, Customs and Coast Guard to do far more with far less than we ever ask of our military," he said. Abroad, the CIA has done a good job in targeting the al Qaeda leadership. But domestically, the antiterrorism effort is one of talk, not action: "a rhetorical policy. What else can you say -- 'We don't care about 3,000 people dying in New York City and Washington?' "

When asked about Beers, Sean McCormack, an NSC spokesman, said, "At the time he submitted his resignation, he said he had decided to leave government. We thanked him for his three decades of government service." McCormack declined to comment further.

However it was viewed inside the administration, onlookers saw it as a rare Washington event. "I can't think of a single example in the last 30 years of a person who has done something so extreme," said Paul C. Light, a scholar with the Brookings Institution. "He's not just declaring that he's a Democrat. He's declaring that he's a Kerry Democrat, and the way he wants to make a difference in the world is to get his former boss out of office."

Although Beers has worked in three Republican administrations, he is a registered Democrat. He wanted to leave the NSC quietly, so when he resigned, he said it was for "personal reasons." His friends called, worried: "Are you sick?"

When Beers joined the White House counterterrorism team last August, the unit had suffered several abrupt departures. People had warned him the job was impossible, but Beers was upbeat. On Reagan's NSC staff, he had replaced Oliver North as director for counterterrorism and counternarcotics, known as the "office of drugs and thugs."

"Randy's your model government worker," said Wendy Chamberlin, a U.S. Agency for International Development administrator for Iraq, who worked with Beers on counterterrorism on the NSC of the first Bush administration. "He works for the common good of the American people. He's fair, balanced, honest. No one ever gets hurt feelings hearing the truth from Randy."

The first thing Beers noticed when he walked into his new office was the pile of intelligence reports. The "threat stuff," as Beers calls it, was 10 times thicker than it had been before the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings.

He was in a job that would grind down anyone. Every day, 500 to 1,000 pieces of threat information crossed his desk. The typical mix included suspicious surveillance at a U.S. embassy; surveillance of a nuclear power plant or a bridge; a person caught by airport security with a weapon, or an airplane flying too close to the CIA; a tanker truck, which might contain a bomb, crossing the border and heading for a city; an intercepted phone call between suspected terrorists. Most of the top-secret reports -- pumped into his office from the White House Situation Room -- didn't pan out. Often they came from a disgruntled employee or a spouse.

When the chemical agent ricin surfaced in the London subway, "we were worried it might manifest here," he said. The challenge was: "Who do we alert? How do you tell them to organize?"

Every time the government raises an alarm, it costs time and money. "There's less filtering now because people don't want to make the mistake of not warning," he said. Before Sept. 11, 2001, the office met three times a week to discuss intelligence. Now, twice a day, at 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., it holds "threat matrix meetings," tracking the threats on CIA spreadsheets.

It was Beers's task to evaluate the warnings and to act on them. "It's a monstrous responsibility," said William Wechsler, director for transnational threats on Clinton's NSC staff. "You sit around every day, thinking about how people want to kill thousands of Americans."

Steven Simon, director for counterterrorism in the Clinton White House, said, "When we read a piece of intelligence, we'd apply the old how-straight-does-your-hair-stand-up-on-your-head test."

The government's first counterterrorism czar, Richard Clarke, who left his White House job in February after more than 10 years, said officials judged the human intelligence based on two factors: Would the source have access to the information? How reliable was his previous reporting? They scored access to information, 12345; previous reporting, abcd. "A score of D5, you don't believe. A1 -- you do," Clarke said. "It's like a jolt of espresso, and you feel like -- whoop -- it pumps you up, and wakes you up."

It's easier to raise the threat level -- from code yellow to code orange, for example -- than to lower it, Beers said: "It's easier to see the increase in intelligence suggesting something's going to happen. What do you say when we're coming back down? Does nothing happening mean it's not going to happen? It's still out there."

After spending all day wrestling with global jihad, Beers would go home to his Adams Morgan townhouse. "You knew not to get the phone in the middle of the night, because it was for Dad," said his son Benjamin, 28. When the Situation Room called, Beers would switch to a black, secure phone that scrambled the signal, after fishing the key out of his sock drawer. There were times he would throw on sweats over his pajamas and drive downtown.

"The first day, I came in fresh and eager," he said. "On the last day, I came home tired and burned out. And it only took seven months."

Part of that stemmed from his frustration with the culture of the White House. He was loath to discuss it. His wife, Bonnie, a school administrator, was not: "It's a very closed, small, controlled group. This is an administration that determines what it thinks and then sets about to prove it. There's almost a religious kind of certainty. There's no curiosity about opposing points of view. It's very scary. There's kind of a ghost agenda."

In the end, Beers was arriving at work each day with knots in his stomach. He did not want to abandon his colleagues at such a critical, dangerous time. When he finally decided to quit, he drove to a friend's house in Arlington. Clarke, his old counterterrorism pal, took one look at the haggard man on his stoop and opened a bottle of Russian River Pinot Noir. Then he opened another bottle. Clarke toasted Beers, saying: You can still fight the fight.

Shortly after that, Beers joined the Kerry campaign. He had briefly considered a think tank or an academic job but realized that he "never felt so strongly about something in my life" than he did about changing current U.S. policies. Of the Democratic candidates, Kerry offered the greatest expertise in foreign affairs and security issues, he decided. Like Beers, Kerry had served in Vietnam. As a civil servant, Beers liked Kerry's emphasis on national service.

On a recent hot night, at 10 o'clock, Beers sat by an open bedroom window, wearing a T-shirt, his bare feet propped on a table.

Beers was on a three-hour conference call, the weekly Monday night foreign policy briefing for the campaign. The black, secure phone by his bedside was gone. Instead, there was a red, white and blue bumper sticker: "John Kerry -- President." The buzz of helicopters blew through the window. Since Sept. 11, 2001, it seemed, there were more helicopters circling the city.

"And we need to return to that kind of diplomatic effort . . . ," Beers was saying, over the droning sound. His war goes on.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Reply With Quote
  #53  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jun 16th, 2003, 03:54 PM       
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_ar...6&sectionID=41

Kucinich, Sharpton and the Greens

by Ted Glick;
June 16, 2003

I was surprised, pleasantly surprised, to receive an email this past week announcing a rally in Baltimore on June 26th at which Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich will be the featured speakers. It’s a good move by Nader, leading by example for those who haven’t yet grasped the importance of Greens, other independents and genuinely progressive Democrats working together wherever possible. And it’s a good move by Kucinich, countering the regressive, anti-Nader, anti-Green attitudes of some Democrats, including relatively progressive ones who really should know better.



I wonder about the longer-term implications of this development. And I wonder where Al Sharpton and the movement he represents fit in the thinking of Kucinich and Nader.



I keep hearing about Greens and independents supporting Kucinich, re-registering as Democrats so they can vote for him in the Democratic primary. I assume, although I have not heard of it, that something similar is happening with some African American independents.



I won’t be doing this myself, but I have no problem with those who are doing so. I believe it would be a good thing if Kucinich and Sharpton get strong vote totals during the early Democratic primaries, as the only two of the nine candidates who have been consistent in their progressive politics over a period of years. Strong vote totals will be a shot in the arm for the peace and justice movement and bring political pressure to bear on the other Democrats to take better positions on the issues.



However, by mid-March of next year, when close to ¾ of the state caucuses and primaries will have been held, it is extremely likely that Kucinich and Sharpton will be out of the running as far as having any chance of winning the Democratic Presidential nomination. What will they do then?



One thing they could do is join together, perhaps with Howard Dean, to form a progressive bloc going into the Democratic Convention. But so what? What could they force the dominant players in the party to do? A better platform? The progressive movement has been there, done that. In 1988 a strong Rainbow Coalition/Jesse Jackson campaign rolled into Atlanta and parlayed its delegate muscle into just such a thing. But it meant nothing after Michael Dukakis was nominated and then ignored much of the platform, articulating only those issues—“centrist” issues—he and his handlers felt would appeal to the electoral mainstream. It was not until the last two weeks of that general election campaign that Dukakis began to use Jackson-like, populist language, attracting growing support from voters as a result, but it was too little, too late.



Contrast this with Al Gore in 2000. Pushed from the left by a Ralph Nader Green Party candidacy that was registering at 7-8% in national polls, Gore used the occasion of his nominating speech at the Democratic Convention to attack oil companies and other corporate targets, wiping out a ten percentage point lead Bush had prior to that convention. And he continued to use enough of that language throughout the campaign that he ended up winning the popular vote and the election, being denied it by five Supreme Court justices.



So what’s the point?



One point is that those who are calling for the Green Party to join the “Democratic Party family,” as Jesse Jackson, Sr. has just done in a Chicago Sun-Times column, should seriously re-think their positions. Depending upon who the Green Party nominates for President and how that campaign is run, a Green Party candidacy may be one aspect of a strategy for a Bush/Cheney electoral defeat. Can we really trust the DLC-dominated Democratic Party not to blow it again, take such moderate and mealy-mouthed, Republican-like positions that they will de-energize millions of voters they need to win?



Another point is that those who are supporting Kucinich and Sharpton need to think beyond mid-March, or the Democratic Party convention in late July. What if Kucinich and Sharpton fall into line—as is likely—and support Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman or whomever wins the nomination? What if the Green Party runs a politically superior campaign—as is likely—and does so taking into consideration the dangers of a second Bush administration by focusing the campaign in the non-battleground, safe states where the winner, Bush or the Democrat, is pretty much already known? Shouldn’t Greens and independents connected to the Kucinich and Sharpton campaigns talk up this option within those campaigns leading up to March, or July?



“Tactical flexibility” has to be the watchword for our electoral approach over the next 17 months. We should not underestimate the challenges, and the dangers, facing us. It is not just the Bushites we need to worry about. We need to counter those who would strip the progressive movement of its badly-needed independent political thrust by calling for the Greens to essentially dissolve into the Democratic Party. But the Greens need to resist tactical approaches—like an all-out campaign, including in the battleground states—that will alienate many of our allies.



The June 26 Kucinich/Nader joint speaking appearance cannot be a one-shot event. The political maturity which underlies it needs to be continued, in all its complexities, throughout the crucial political period in which we now find ourselves.



Ted Glick is the National Coordinator of the Independent Progressive Politics Network (www.ippn.org) and author of “Future Hope: A Winning Strategy for a Just Society.” He can be reached at futurehopeTG@aol.com or P.O. Box 1132, Bloomfield, N.J. 07003.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jun 16th, 2003, 04:07 PM       
At least Max will (maybe) read these things. :/

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8087

Rising Values

Rhoades Alderson worked on Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. He is now an executive with Trion Communications in Providence, R.I.

Things are not nearly as bad for Democrats as they seem to think.

It is true that if the 2002 mid-term elections were held again tomorrow the result would likely be the same. But it is also true that Democrats have made two immensely important realizations since November: they have a big problem; and the problem is that they don't have a clear message. As Adam Clymer recently noted in his broad analysis of the party in The New York Times, "If there is one thing all kinds of Democrats agree on, it is that they need a better message."

It isn't as bad as it sounds. An important point seems to have gotten lost, especially in the context of petty squabbling among the party wings. A message problem doesn't mean you don't stand for anything. It means you don't know how to say what you stand for. The difference is huge. In terms of a comeback, it is the difference between months and years. There are, in fact, big, fundamental, unshakable ideals in which all Democrats, from John Breaux to Al Sharpton -- and no Republicans -- believe. It's just that they are unprocessed and conceptually unconnected to policy ideas.

A closer look at four of these universal Democratic values reveals the power waiting to be unleashed by effective messaging. They are mainstream American values, as old as the republic. If Democrats can argue on these terms they will win a lot more arguments.

Democrats Believe Government Makes A Society More Free

Democrats believe that society requires a consensually sanctioned central authority strong enough to defend the public good against private interests that seek to undermine it. Government and its laws restrict a few freedoms in order to ensure all the others. The idea is central to the American Constitution and articulated in Federalist #10: "Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice."

Does John Breaux believe this? For sure. Does Al Sharpton? Yep. Karl Rove? No. Republicans believe that government makes society less free. Republican group-think guru Grover Norquist famously illustrated this view, saying his goal for government is "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." The cluster of organizations he helps coordinate is informally called the Leave Us Alone Coalition.

Democrats Believe That Governmental Oversight Of The Economy Increases Prosperity

This is really just the previous value applied to economics. Members of both parties believe that a market-based economic system is the natural outgrowth of human social behavior and creates real wealth more effectively than any other system ever tried. Democrats believe that such an economy is most efficient when a publicly legitimate central authority exists to ensure a fair and competitive environment.

Would Joe Lieberman agree? Yes. Dennis Kucinich? Yes. Tom DeLay? No. The Republican view is captured in the North Carolina Party Platform, Article II Section 2, "Government regulation and taxation reduce and redistribute income rather than create it."

Democrats Believe The Government Must Ensure All Citizens A Fair Opportunity For Economic Viability

Democrats think that if you're born here or become a citizen you deserve a fair shot at economic viability, which requires more than sheer will. It requires adequate health, housing and education. Democrats offer different solutions, but they all believe that citizens who are unable to access those standards by other means must be able to turn to the institutions that represent the manifestation of the people: local, state and federal governments.

Let's check more litmus tests. Zell Miller? Yep. Barbara Mikulski? Check. Mitch McConnell? No way. In the Republican philosophical view, government support to individuals corrupts them by making them dependents, robbing them of their will to get ahead.

Democrats Believe In Democracy, Debate And Deliberation

Democrats believe that means are as important as ends. A fair process that allows for the expression of opposed viewpoints adds legitimacy to the final decision and prevents the kind of resentment that foments revolt and dangerous instability. A fair process also allows for the possibility of being persuaded by an opposing viewpoint. It accounts for the humbling fact that absolute "rightness" does not grace our earthly existence.

Bob Rubin? Yea. Rosa DeLauro? Yea. Dick Cheney? Big nay. Every national Republican leader since Nixon has justified a deliberate bypass of the democratic process either through an assurance of greater morality or a cynical belief in the law of the jungle. Nixon had Watergate, Reagan and Bush 41 had Iran-Contra. Bush 43 has, well, take your pick.

It has been a long time since the party has been forced to justify its existence -- so long that its values have migrated from the mind to the gut. They have always been available to the heart, but became lost to the tongue.

The presidential primary offers a great opportunity for candidates to articulate these kinds of "higher purpose" beliefs and to explain how they guide and inform their platforms. If the candidates can take this crude oil and turn it into gasoline, they will not only give themselves the best chance to win; they will give a majority of Americans the chance to vote Democrat again.

Published: Jun 13 2003
Reply With Quote
  #55  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old Jun 17th, 2003, 12:07 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
Thanks for the filler, clambake.
You know, that's the same exact thing your momma said last night after I got done pounding her pussy raw.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jun 17th, 2003, 05:23 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceZeb
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
Thanks for the filler, clambake.
You know, that's the same exact thing your momma said last night after I got done pounding her pussy raw.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Carnivore Carnivore is offline
Red, dead meat!
Carnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Carnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jun 17th, 2003, 11:58 PM       
You personify overcompensation, Vinth.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jun 25th, 2003, 08:49 PM       
http://www.bobharris.com/kucinichdean.html

Kucinich vs. Dean.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jun 28th, 2003, 01:49 AM       
http://moveon.org/pac/primary/release.html

Dean won the MoveOn online poll, ran away with it.

EDIT: However, nobody got the mandate, so MoveOn won't be endorsing anybody yet.

(I HATE the MoveOn PAC)
Reply With Quote
  #60  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 03:59 AM       
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/5284324

Nader considering another try at White House in 2004

Mon Jun 30, 8:19 AM ET

Tom Squitieri
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- Ralph Nader (news - web sites), still blamed by many Democrats for draining critical votes from Al Gore (news - web sites) in the 2000 race for the presidency, says he is seriously considering running in 2004.


His decision has the potential to vex Democrats who worry that he would divert some of their supporters and delight Republicans who think the same thing.


Nader says he has moved closer to a repeat run as the Green Party nominee after concluding that Democrats have no one who can defeat President Bush (news - web sites).


''It is quite clear that the Democrats are incapable of defending our country against the Bush marauders,'' Nader, 69, says. ''They have been unwilling to go all out to stop the destructive tax cuts for the wealthy. They have been soft on corporate crime. They have gone along in almost every issue except judicial appointments. They have cowered, surrendered or divided themselves.


''So what are you to replace Bush with? They won't go after him the way I could,'' says the longtime consumer activist, who won fame as author of an auto expos챕 titled Unsafe at Any Speed in 1965 and founded an advocacy network under the Public Interest Research Group umbrella.


Nader has not taken any formal steps such as creating a campaign committee or registering with the Federal Election Commission (news - web sites). However, he is doing what he did in 2000: He has told Green Party officials he is interested in running and is encouraging ''Draft Nader'' movements.


Nader acknowledges he could harm the Democrats' chances of winning the White House. But he also maintains that if he runs, and Democrats do not attack him, he will motivate thousands of people to go to the polls and cast votes for him, then mark the ballot for Democratic House and Senate candidates. He says that's what he did in 2000 for successful Senate candidates Maria Cantwell in Washington and Debbie Stabenow in Michigan.


Nader says his candidacy could boost the vote for Democratic candidates by up to 4%, but he doesn't say how he came up with that number. ''It is a question of how badly they want to win,'' he says. ''They know my phone number.''


In 2000, Nader got 2,878,157 votes. That was 2.73% of the votes cast, a distant third place. But he tallied 97,488 votes in Florida and 22,188 in New Hampshire, many of which Democrats said would have gone to Gore to help him carry those states and win the election.


Nader says he is ''carefully watching the situation'' and will decide early next year. The Green Party will pick its nominee next summer at its convention in Milwaukee.


Nader says he would campaign on a strong liberal message that ''is now easier to make'' because of higher unemployment and wider economic pain, ''the more outrageous giveaways'' to the wealthy and corporations and ''the tax cut that forgot 11 million kids.'' But he may not have as easy a time getting the Green nomination in 2004 as he did in 2000. Some party activists say he has become too divisive. Some Greens remain irked that he refuses to join their party; he is an independent.


Ben Manski, national co-chairman of the Green Party, says Nader probably has the most support and momentum, followed closely by former Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and David Cobb, a party activist from Texas. Manski says Nader ''is still the favored candidate, but that is not to say it is a done deal.''
###
Reply With Quote
  #61  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old Jul 1st, 2003, 08:47 AM       
I can see Nader's slogan now:

"If you have to be poor and miserable, let's make EVERYONE poor and miserable!"
Reply With Quote
  #62  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 2nd, 2003, 01:39 PM       
I'll say this to you once, and hopefully you will absorb it.

I don't know that I'll be supporting Ralph Nader in 2004, nor do I know that I'll be supporting a Green Party candidate at all. But I do know one thing. Ralph Nader has selflessly worked for the betterment of the environment, clean elections, and consumer safety for the past several DECADES. He has done more for this country and her citizens as a private crusader than the likes of George W. Bush could EVER hope to do. The entire Bush family's story is a story of privilege and entitlement. Nothing is without personal gain or motivation. So, before you dismiss the politics of Ralph Nader again, I suggest you educate yourself, okay? Good boy.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old Jul 3rd, 2003, 08:37 AM       
Oh, well, in that case, we should elect Nader president! I mean, he has helped out the bunnies and the trees so much, so that must equate to an ability to be president! Those damn Bushes never had to work a day in their lives and someone just dropped a bunch of money in their pockets! W just sits in his office everyday, yukking it up with his oil barron buddies, while putting his boot on the neck of the black man!

Yep, that's the way it goes... in Kevin's world.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 3rd, 2003, 12:58 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceZeb
Oh, well, in that case, we should elect Nader president! I mean, he has helped out the bunnies and the trees so much, so that must equate to an ability to be president! Those damn Bushes never had to work a day in their lives and someone just dropped a bunch of money in their pockets!
Well, leaving Prescott's connections to the Third Reich aside, what about their millions? Tell me what George W. Bush has done with his life, tell me his success stories, please!

Quote:
W just sits in his office everyday, yukking it up with his oil barron buddies, while putting his boot on the neck of the black man!
Vincelation: "I have no argument, I can't compete, and I'm concerned about the size of my genitals."

Quote:
Yep, that's the way it goes... in Kevin's world.
Well, in my world, the majority of Americans didn't vote for W, but I digress....

Vince, tell me something Bush has done with his life. Either for the betterment of mankind, or if nothing else, the betterment of himself? Is he a self made man, clambake?
Reply With Quote
  #65  
ScruU2wice ScruU2wice is offline
Mocker
ScruU2wice's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: thursday
ScruU2wice is probably a spambot
Old Jul 3rd, 2003, 01:40 PM       
thanx alot guys now i realize how fucked our country really is
Reply With Quote
  #66  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 3rd, 2003, 01:43 PM       
Then please do us both a favor and go away. Don't make me click on a useless response again.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
ScruU2wice ScruU2wice is offline
Mocker
ScruU2wice's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: thursday
ScruU2wice is probably a spambot
Old Jul 3rd, 2003, 06:08 PM       
never
Reply With Quote
  #68  
slain slain is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
slain is probably a spambot
Old Jul 5th, 2003, 11:55 PM       
teh ralphinader
Reply With Quote
  #69  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old Jul 6th, 2003, 09:14 AM       
W fought off addiction and found his belief in God. It helps him guide our country. He protects our country everday with and has to deal with more information about the threats against our country than any of us will ever know about.

But Kevin, don't worry. You can still vote for the Communist party. Your vote won't count, but still, you can humor yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 6th, 2003, 11:09 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceZeb
W fought off addiction and found his belief in God. It helps him guide our country.
How so? How does this make him qualified? Millions of Americans deal with addiction every day, and many find salvation the very same way he did. How does this make him a qualified leader???

Quote:
He protects our country everday with and has to deal with more information about the threats against our country than any of us will ever know about.
This is why when he went to Iraq, and wanted to talk to the guy in charge of finding WMD, he had no clue who that guy was. Even if he did have all of these supposed responsibilitiesthat you claim, he has a staff around him of conservative relics and super heroes to delegate tasks to.

None of this answers my question. What has this man done with his life??? Is he a self made man?? Is he successful?? Is he really reflective of any of the so-called Republican values he espouses...?

Quote:
But Kevin, don't worry. I'm still really worried about my pee-pee, and I can't think of any good argument. I still find that refering to Communists and stuff helps bail me out of tough spots though. Hey, it worked for Joe!
LOL, THAT'S MY VINCE!!
Reply With Quote
  #71  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old Jul 6th, 2003, 01:41 PM       
What has he acomplished, kevin? He is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED FUCKING STATES! How much more did you want him to do, kevin?

What the hell have you done, Kevin? Answer that question.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 8th, 2003, 01:14 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceZeb
What has he acomplished, kevin? He is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED FUCKING STATES! How much more did you want him to do, kevin?
Karl Rove had more to do with this than W.

Quote:
What the hell have you done, Kevin? Answer that question.
Weren't we comparing the rich boy to the self-made man, Ralph Nader...? No argument? Huh? Typical.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 25th, 2003, 12:58 AM       
Thanks for shutting your mouth, Vince.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Lieberman Tops Democrat Presidential Poll

The Associated Press
Thursday, July 24, 2003; 10:18 AM


Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman had the most support from Democratic voters in a national poll released Thursday, followed closely by Dick Gephardt. But if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York were in the running, she'd outpace all Democrats.

Recent polls have projected Clinton as the winner if she joined the field. That was also true in this survey: she had 48 percent to 11 percent for Lieberman, with others in single digits.

Lieberman, a Connecticut senator, was at 21 percent and Gephardt, a Missouri representative, was at 16 percent - just within the error margin of plus or minus 5 percentage points in the Quinnipiac University poll.

Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, was at 13 percent and Dean, a former governor of Vermont was at 10 percent. Other candidates in the nine-member field were at 6 percent or lower. More than a fifth, 21 percent, were undecided.

In several recent national polls, Lieberman, Kerry and Gephardt were grouped close together at the top. Lieberman led early national polls, at least partially because of his higher name recognition.

When President Bush is matched head-to-head against top Democrats in the poll, he leads by margins ranging from 7 points over Clinton to 16 points over Dean. Bush's lead against Kerry, Gephardt and Lieberman was about 10 points.

The poll of 1,055 registered voters was taken July 17-22, including 372 Democrats. The error margin for the overall sample was plus or minus 3 percentage points.


© 2003 The Associated Press


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0724-09.htm

Published on Thursday, July 24, 2003 by CommonDreams.org

Green Party Taking the Plunge for 2004
by Norman Solomon

For the 2004 presidential race, the Green dye is cast.

"The Green Party emerged from a national meeting ... increasingly certain that it will run a presidential candidate in next year's election, all but settling a debate within the group over how it should approach the 2004 contest," the Washington Post reported on July 21. The Green Party promptly put out a news release declaring that Greens "affirmed the party's intention to run candidates for president and vice president of the United States in 2004."

That release quoted a national party co-chair. "This meeting produced a clear mandate for a strong Green Party presidential ticket in 2004," he said, adding that "we chose the path of growth and establishing ourselves as the true opposition party." But other voices, less public, are more equivocal.

Days later, national party co-chair Anita Rios told me that she's "ambivalent" about the prospect of a Green presidential race next year. Another co-chair, Jo Chamberlain, mentioned "mixed feelings about it." Theoretically, delegates to the national convention next June could pull the party out of the '04 presidential race. But the chances of that happening are very slim. The momentum is clear.

Few present-day Green Party leaders seem willing to urge that Greens forego the blandishments of a presidential campaign. The increased attention -- including media coverage -- for the party is too compelling to pass up.

In recent years, the Greens have overcome one of the first big hurdles of a fledgling political party: News outlets no longer ignore them. In 2000, the Green presidential ticket, headed by Ralph Nader, had a significant impact on the campaign. Although excluded from the debates and many news forums, candidate Nader did gain some appreciable media exposure nationwide.

Green leaders are apt to offer rationales along the lines that "political parties run candidates" and Greens must continue to gain momentum at the ballot box. But by failing to make strategic decisions about which electoral battles to fight -- and which not to -- the Greens are set to damage the party's long-term prospects.

The Green Party is now hampered by rigidity that prevents it from acknowledging a grim reality: The presidency of George W. Bush has turned out to be so terrible in so many ways that even a typically craven corporate Democrat would be a significant improvement in some important respects.

Fueled by idealistic fervor for its social-change program (which I basically share), the Green Party has become an odd sort of counterpoint to the liberals who have allowed pro-corporate centrists to dominate the Democratic Party for a dozen years now. Those liberal Democrats routinely sacrifice principles and idealism in the name of electoral strategy. The Greens are now largely doing the reverse -- proceeding toward the 2004 presidential race without any semblance of a viable electoral strategy, all in the name of principled idealism.

Local Green Party activism has bettered many communities. While able to win some municipal or county races in enclaves around the country -- and sometimes implementing valuable reforms -- the Greens stumble when they field candidates for statewide offices or Congress.

When putting up candidates in those higher-level campaigns, the Greens usually accomplish little other than on occasion making it easier for the Republican candidate to win. That's because the U.S. electoral system, unfortunately, unlike in Europe, is a non-parliamentary winner-take-all setup. To their credit, Green activists are working for reforms like "instant runoff voting" that would make the system more democratic and representative.

In discussions about races for the highest offices, sobering reality checks can be distasteful to many Greens, who correctly point out that a democratic process requires a wide range of voices and choices during election campaigns. But that truth does not change another one: A smart movement selects its battles and cares about its impacts.

A small party that is unwilling to pick and choose its battles -- and unable to consider the effects of its campaigns on the country as a whole -- will find itself glued to the periphery of American politics.

In contrast, more effective progressives seeking fundamental change are inclined to keep exploring -- and learning from -- the differences between principle and self-marginalization. They bypass insular rhetoric and tactics that drive gratuitous wedges between potential allies -- especially when a united front is needed to topple an extreme far-right regime in Washington.

Norman Solomon is co-author of "Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You." For an excerpt and other information, click here.

###

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0724-08.htm

Published on Thursday, July 24, 2003 by CommonDreams.org

Open Letter to Nader Voters and the Greens
by Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich

When we marched against the WTO and the corporate trade regime in Seattle in 1999, we marched together.

When we stood together against the war with Iraq, half-a-million strong in New York City, and 15 million strong throughout the world, we stood together.

When we fought the badly-named "Patriot Act," we fought it together -- and I was the only one running who voted against it.

When we tried to stop this war from starting, we fought it together -- and I was able to pull together 126 of my colleagues to vote no to war last fall, working with my friend and ally Barbara Lee, as Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

We stand together in opposition to the death penalty; in support of living wages; in support of boosting alternative energy rather than wars for oil; in support of medicinal marijuana; in opposition to corporate hog farming; in support of organic farming; in opposition to nukes in space; in opposition to Star Wars; in support of cutting the military budget by 15% and applying those funds to public education.

We stand together for national health insurance, Canadian style. We stand together on public financing of campaigns, on same day voter registration, on instant runoff voting. We stand together on civil rights, and equal rights, and human rights. We stand together on voting reforms for ex-felons. We stand together on ending the trade and travel embargoes on Cuba. We stand together in opposition to the current war on drugs, which is all too often a war on the urban poor.

We stand together in demanding that publicly-owned clean water is a human right. We stand together in demanding that the developing world's debt be forgiven, as if it were still the Jubilee Year; and that we act seriously to build a world in which arms sales decline, hunger declines, poverty declines, and human rights increase.

We stand together on rejoining the rest of the world, and signing the Kyoto Treaty, the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Land Mines Ban Treaty, and all the rest of the treaties and agreements and working relationships that the current Administration has so cavalierly tossed aside.

We stand together in opposition to excessive CEO salaries; in opposition to offshore tax havens for corporations; in support of real pension reforms, real SEC enforcement, real crackdowns on corporate scofflaws. And we stand together in opposition to sweetheart deals for corporate friends of this Administration, whether it's Enron wrecking California for profit, the drug companies ripping off seniors and HIV patients and poor people for profit, or Halliburton ripping off Iraqi oil revenues for profit.

I am a Democrat, but I understand that Greens and Nader voters are not just liberal Democrats. Still, I note that in Europe, even when political parties disagree on issues, they are often able to work together with each other in coalition. I'd like to raise that possibility again today. And I note that Ralph Nader has suggested that my candidacy is worth supporting.

We all know we will do better if we work together. Perhaps we can find common ground on issues and principles. I would like to open up that possibility. And I would like to ask that you give serious consideration to my candidacy for President. Because a better world is still possible.

Rep. Kucinich is a presidential candidate and co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

###
Reply With Quote
  #74  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jul 25th, 2003, 09:38 AM       
Vinth forgot what the argument was. Or maybe he thinks you ARE Ralph Nader. Or maybe he didn't understand what you were saying.

I want Kerry to make more clear why he voted to authorize the Iraq war and how he feels about that vote now. I have followed his career for years, since he was a lone voice in the wilderness on many elements of Iran/Conta YEARS before it became a major story. I think he is disciplined, driven and intelligent. I am VERY frustrated by that vote, I was majorly disapointed by it. It prevents me from supporting him, and I'd like to support him.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
ranxer is probably a spambot
Old Jul 25th, 2003, 11:18 AM       
Quote:
Those liberal Democrats routinely sacrifice principles and idealism in the name of electoral strategy. The Greens are now largely doing the reverse -- proceeding toward the 2004 presidential race without any semblance of a viable electoral strategy, all in the name of principled idealism.
yeehaaw idealism is the only way to go! (for me)

i still cant decide if i'm going to campaign against bush.. or For the Greens yet..

If the Democrats run Lieberman i think ill be campaigning for the greens.. if they run kucinich, kerry or dean ill be campaigning against bush..(kid gloves for the dems in that scenario of course, i'm distributing kucinich material at the moment.

and yes, i know my efforts make a huge difference =)

/goes off grumbling
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:01 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.