'It's Time to Get Over It' John Kerry Tells Antiwar Movement to Move On

by Mark Hand

Researchers and investigative reporters are fascinated with the neoconservatives, that group of American empire peddlers who turned George W. Bush into a junkie war criminal. A similar group, the New Democrats, has been pushing its own dangerous brand of U.S. hegemony but with much less fanfare.

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

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

In fall 2000, PNAC released Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. It's a blueprint for "maintaining global U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests."

More at link:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HAN403A.html

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

No offense Dirk, but this is BS.

Explain exactly.

RC

I haven't been able to find a quote where he said that we would withdraw...

Is he going to reduce troop strength?

Will he turn it all over to the UN?

Has he said? What is the exit strategy?

I'm surprised given your extensive knowledge of other aspects of him that you didn't already know that.

Now that Bush has "fucked" it up?

Not being negative here. Just trying to understand it.

Electing Kerry is not enough.

to have Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld and w hole host of other nuts hyper critical of the UN and our allies in his administration combined with the fact that he is MORE likely to operate from consensus than unilaterally unless the actual threat were indeed imminent.

types right?

from a humanitarian aspect, one of the complaints about Beers is that he cost cocoa growers their income and didn't go after the processors..but if there's no cocaine, there's nothing to process...I object to the use of round-up and the fact that these chemicals don't just remain on the crops but cocaine also funds some pretty dark characters as well...such as the extremely violent Medellein cartel...so I don't blame a counter-terrorism specialist for wanting to eliminate the SUPPLY of cocaine.

The OTHER complaint against Beers is that he claimed the funds from Columbia cocaine was funding Al Queda but PROMPTLY backed off the complaint and admitted he was misinformed....I'm not sure that rises to the level of the Perle's, Wolfowitz's and Rummy's.

The article may be exactly what Kerry is about.
However, I still look at it this way....

"Am I better off with the smirk out of the White House or In It?"

Out Smirk!
Out Smirk!:kick:

The administration has nothing to run on. The economy? Iraq? Health care? Education? Nah...

They're banking on instigating a whole lot of Democrat party in-fighting. Just what do you folks think the "World is a safer place without Saddam" vote was about?

This is good news, folks.
Once they march out Osama's body, the tank is empty...

in a bright shiny new package!

The lesser of three evils.

Bush is the worst evil.

Nader is a faux candidate, simply masturbating the naive and idealistic 3rd party folk who have yet to hear what a closet repuke he truly is...

Or Kerry. More of a centrist, but he's still infinitely better than the two drunken clowns he's running against.

"Hello from Germany".

:D

oh how I remember a certain rabid antiKerry poster being slammed around here for having the temerity to suggest that Kerry might be an imperialist in sheep's clothing, an evil Skull&Boneser who would just neatly step into Bush's shoes and continue his evil work.

oh but he's "electable" so I guess any other qualms we might have about him should be swept aside.

this whole Democratic campaign fiasco has made me so bitter and cynical I doubt I will ever vote again. Kerry was "anointed" by the party elites and we must fall in line and vote for him or be blamed for Bush's re"election"--but what's the difference between Kerry and Bush??

Get real.

I'm sure Kerry will keep John Ashcroft as AG, invade Syria and Iran within weeks of being sworn in, will let the energy industry continue to "regulate" itself, let Halliburton have no-bid contracts, encourage outsourcing, lie about anything and everything and suck up to the Saudis. :eyes:

that tired old "no difference" schtick. The reasons why, I cannot tell.

We need to take care in articles about Kerry, there are provocateurs abounding. .

:(

Is that what you are referring to also?

by error of omission (although the word error is generous)does not mention the role the FRENCH played in the start and raison d'etre for the Viet Nam conflict, nor does he acknowledge the casualties inflicted by the Viet Namese on the Viet Cong or vice versa.

Perhaps the most repulsive section of the book is where Kerry discusses the Vietnam War and the antiwar movement. On page 42, Kerry writes:

"I could never agree with those in the antiwar movement who dismissed our troops as war criminals or our country as the villain in the drama. That's one reason, in fact, that I eventually parted ways with the VVAW organizations and instead helped found the Vietnam Veterans of America." If the United States was not a villain in the "drama" of the Vietnam war, then who is to blame for the million-plus Vietnamese who were killed during the 20-year period of naked U.S. aggression that ended in 1975? Surely, John, you don't wish to blame certain communist dead-enders in Vietnam for the carnage?

In America you pander to the base of your party to get on the ticket. Then you take the pulse of the middle and slide to it pronto. When the final election day rolls around you have two choices and they are usually so close to each other you can't tell the difference. Every now and again a third party gets in and tries to attract the smarter voters to his side and winds up losing because most voters vote not with their heart but with legacy and other false hopes.

Right now Kerry is running full trot back to the middle.

Try again.

article, but the linguistic methods employed speak to a bias that compels me to read it so I may rebut this person's interpretation.

In the matter of France and Russia, even during the debates concerning the war, it is certainly clear that MUCH of their objections (the leaderships) were not so much to the war but as to how the "spoils" of the war would be divvied up...so I am going to give Kerry a pass on the quote cited by the author. Certainly no one would accuse Putin of being a peacenik or a straight shooter.

Finally, we are a global leader and will have a presence in countries by virtue of our wealth and the desire of SOME of those countries that we DO have a presence there, so frankly I think the fear mongering coming from the FAR left in regards to some of this is unwarranted.

While I reject us meddling in the affairs of nations for our own selfish gains, I support us participating with nations toward their own ends of humane development which DOES involve creating SOME REASONABLE safety nets for investments and I do believe the devil in in the details...but I see no reason why I should have a phone line, running water and electricity in MY home while so much of the world still lives without and that IS contingent on participation and investment as well as providing the safety for it to even be considered and accomplished.

Sometimes I wonder if we went with the views of some people on these issues if they wouldn't be perfectly satisfied to let the entire third world dig a hole and bury their shit while we post on wireless computers aboard the luxury of our porcelain thrones.

invaded Iraq for just what you say. So that every Iraqi can have a phone line running water and a MickyD's on every block and Walmart for their convenience. Some folks might be able to do this for themselves if we didn't intervene in their affairs by destabilizing them when we want their oil, mineral rights, or crops? Did you ever think of that?

Quote from you: "While I reject us meddling in the affairs of nations for our own selfish gains, I support us participating with nations toward their own ends of humane development which DOES involve creating SOME REASONABLE safety nets for investments and I do believe the devil in in the details...but I see no reason why I should have a phone line, running water and electricity in MY home while so much of the world still lives without and that IS contingent on participation and investment as well as providing the safety for it to even be considered and accomplished."

Mexico was not destabilized to a large degree by us any more than they were by their own ruling party's capacity for corruption and THEY didn't create the infrastructure for phone lines and still don't have the infrastructure for running water in place in many areas.

It came through JAPANESE investment to a large degree. As far as farming, property rights and pollution, Kerry is MILES above Bush on these issues.

As far as MINERAL rights, we certainly have a poor record as a nation but much of that is also fed by multi nationals acting INDEPENDENTLY of our government.

Again, I reference for the hundredth time on DU the MILLIONS of Africans that have died in the pursuit of COLTAN...without any major intervention by the American government through the 90's.

Some people might be able to do this for themselves, but in many cases, they DO tend to ask for our support and when we leave them to do it themselves we often are accused of being SELFISH when we HAVE the means to help them.

I wish for once people could see these issues for ALL THE COMPLEXITIES and stop dropping it all into the RIGHT/WRONG tunnel where everything is EITHER/OR.

Is that asking too much?

"Mexico was not destabilized to a large degree by us any more than they were by their own ruling party's capacity for corruption and THEY didn't create the infrastructure for phone lines and still don't have the infrastructure for running water in place in many areas."

The problem is that corruption is rampant in most developing countries. Sometimes people really DON'T have any choice in elections... for example, in Paraguay just a few years ago each election was White Party (rightwing) v. Red Party (rightwing). Same thing in Guatemala. And in other cases, all parties are equally corrupt.

Some countries had state run companies (some still do) that theoretically try to do the best to ensure everyone has the basic needs. A lot of countries decided to privatize, after pressure from IMF and the US, and the results haven't been positive. A few years ago you had to pay $500 to get a phone line in Argentina.

The truth is, this probably will never be fixed, but a Democratic administration is a zillion times better than the GOP. For example, if Democrats were in the White House right now I'm sure CAFTA would be something different from what the project is now.

AND the corruption occurred just as much under STATE RUN as it did under privatisation with the difference being that under STATE RUN at least a large degree of the wealth was not sucked out of the companies.

I also believe Kerry would be BETTER than Clinton on this issue.

It also should be noted that financial problems in Argentine while worse under the IMF are nothing new..for much of the 70's inflation was a mess there as well....my steak dinner in 1976 ran 30$ back then for a steak and salad.

Yeah, inflation has been a huge problem in Latin America. Argentina was one of the most expensive countries in the world before their recession.

Anyway, yes, I agree... Kerry will be much better than Clinton. Although I wanted Dean to get the nomination, there's no doubt in my mind Kerry will be a much better President than Clinton, and definitely much more progressive.

In my country the government still has the monopoly over electricity and telecommunications. There is a 97% (80% hydroelectric) coverage on electricity, and we are not that bad on telecommunications either. Now, with CAFTA, they are going to open up the telecommunications market because the US demanded that American companies should participate in it. We still don't know what is going to happen, but I personally think rates will probably go up. Right now we pay something ridiculous for our cell phone service, for example, we pay just $7 for 1 hour, and $0.07 for each additional minute... and for short text messages, we pay just $0.003 (each)!

Did you just step out of the 17th Century or what?

Are we a poor nation who does not have the means to help other nations?

They are over exploited. Get a history tome. "We" shouldn't be oh so kind to them and allow them to sell their countries to our financiers. We should be paying them reparations instead.

I've traveled extensively throughout Latin America.

Look at the success stories.
Look at South Korea. Did they turn out so great by selling their country off to external financiers or were they very protectionist?

For the record, while I am not in favor of privatisation of resources, it doesn't alter the fact that much of Latin America HAD no infrastructure in place PRIOR to privatisation and phone lines in Mexico are a glaring example of such.

I recall a time when it took $500 and MONTHS to get a phone in Mexico.

I agree the DEALS are upside down, and feel there needs to be a correction in that but as it goes to the subject of this post...I DO still feel that there needs to be investment in countries regardless of details.

I also( WHILE being a HUGE advocate of slowing the arms race, especially the SMALL ARMS business which kills far more people than any wars have in recent history) do believe there are SOME instances of groups that do mean to do US or other nations harm and that we should do what we can. I supported our presence in Somalia and felt we should intervene in Rwanda.

Can anyone say the TALIBAN was a contribution to Afghanistan? (and I DO concede that WE were at the source of that power grab but nevertheless they did an awful job long after we were gone and disinterested in the cold war)

If they want help with an IOU +interest then OK. Right now we are drowning in debt thanks to tax cuts for the richest 1%.

We also had manufacturing: textiles, furniture, small applicances, large appliances, made here. Our Gross Domestic Product is debt built on folks charging credit cards to the Max and Refinancing.

Most people didn't use credit cards during Reagan like they do now.

That's the difference. Really.... We live in a totally different time.:-(

have any money to help anyone because we spent it on tax breaks for the wealthy, the corporations and on Bush's adventure in Democracy in Iraq.

Without the Bank of Japan buying up our treasury notes we would right now be in a recession or a depression.

We are broke and dependent on the world for our debt. We just "Consume" and we don't make much anymore. Our folks are losing jobs in the thousands with not much in site for replacement. If you think Kerry can get support for hiring these thousands by putting money into alternative energy all within a couple of years, then I'm sorry to tell you that when what Bush has done to our Economy hits the fan when Kerry is elected the whole house of cards is going to come down on his head and the Repugs will blame him, Americans will not know who to blame and our "Great Power" will be as a limping Goliath who fearing for a David to take him down.

There isn't any money to do what you want to do. There was once, but no more.

People said the same thing after Reagan got done with us...when we were ALSO a debtor nation.

I realize there is a problem with manufacturing and our own labor base...I'm not a neophyte where the news is concerned...I also cannot volley back and forth between your criticism of Kerry as imperial war lord and your obvious statements concerning his commitment to alternative energy (which is an investment that will EASILY pay back the investment, not just here but everywhere...ours is not the only oil based economy) It just gets too dizzying.

If he doesn't have an exit strategy then he is an "imperial war lord."

Or does he get a pass because Bush "misled" him?

anybody can put up a website.

the book:

Amazon.com: Books: A Call to Service: My Vision for a Better ...
... Have one to sell? Don't have one? We'll set one up for you. A Call to Service: My
Vision for a Better America by John Kerry see larger photo. List Price: $24.95. ...
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/ detail/-/0670032603?v=glance - 88k - Cached - Similar pages

Democrats.com
HOME : BOOKS : ELECTION 2004 : JOHN KERRY: A CALL TO SERVICE, MY VISION FOR A BETTER
AMERICA. John Kerry: A Call to Service, My Vision for a Better America. ...
community.democrats.com/store/details.cfm?item=10090 - 16k - Mar 17, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

And a couple more:

Compare Prices and Read Reviews on A Call to Service at Epinions. ...
... A Call to Service My Vision for a Better America By John Kerry. Only $17.47. ... A Call
to Service Buy John Kerry's book Now at 60% off. associate www.amazon.com. ...
www.epinions.com/content_126031990404 - 43k - Cached - Similar pages

Barnes & Noble.com - A Call to Service: My Vision for a Better ...
... skip navigation. A Call to Service: My Vision for a Better America
John Kerry. Larger view, Hardcover, October 2003. List Price: $24.95. ...
btobsearch.barnesandnoble.com/ booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?sourceid=00395996645644787198&btob=Y&pwb... - 51k - Cached - Similar pages

that it is being accurately represented.

from other candidates:

A Call to Service
... Bush. Boston debate. Wake Forest debate. St. Louis debate. A Call to Service,
by John Kerry. ... The above quotations are from A Call to Service, by John Kerry. ...
www.issues2000.org/Call_To_Service.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

the discussion honest? my question was does anyone have first hand knowledge of these documents, are they being quoted accurately, and represented fairly. silly me, i thought we were discussing the article that was posted. guess y'all are just grinding old axes.

then conveniently ignores history to make his points as with the casualties in the Viet Nam war (see my response to Bloom above)

head off. I thought you wanted to look through the book?

(and I mean this in the nicest possible way)

Get bent.

If you are unfamiliar with our homely colloquialisms, PM one of your American DU friends to tell you.

there to say except that some of us find it chilling reading this just
a day before the anniversary of the Iraq Invasion. It's pretty obvious what this means and it's Kerry's own words, unless the writer of the article deliberatly changed the quotes.

people would rather be maimed, killed and imprisoned on the orders of a really tall guy with exceptional verbal skills than a developmentally disabled guy smirking in a flight jacket.

got a lecture on how good it all was. :-(

"electable." I imagine that bush would say it is not his intent to kill and maim innocent people, if you asked him, and he is not even a tiny fraction of the politician Kerry is.

Kerry's skills are enough to pull people out of the peace marches and into the crusader's camouflage.

You know...Kerry's move to the middle now that he is a shoe-in.

to continuing Bush's Iraq war...I have indeed read statements where he invokes including the international community in participating in the reconstruction of Iraq...do you have a cite for that?

CRUSADE isn't on it to my knowledge and I have read the whole thing.

He calls things by much better names than bush does. bush doesn't call it a crusade either. Crusade supporters seldom do. bush doesn't even call it "kick their ass and steal their gas." Even bush knows "Operation Iraqi Freedom" sounds better.

Kerry will call it something even more attractive.

"Operation roses and sunshine."

Has a nice ring

Whatever else he may be, he is a gifted speaker and phrasemaker.

by a particular world view in which we are the source of all evil and no other real terror exists.

policies. We have fomented anger in the Middle East. Payback is a bitch isn't it?

Was it Ben Franklin who said beware of foreign entanglements?

history classes from conspiracy sites on the internet..the battle in Cloumbia but for a brief respite in the mid 1900's has been one that has been in place for over 100 years in varying degrees.....LONG before our business interests got involved in ANYTHING to do with Columbia circa the building of the Panama Canal.

I acknowledge our policies DO create terrorism abroad but our policies are NOT the SOLE source of all terrorism.


Franklin was (I believe) referencing England getting involved in ours as well as the Federalists...feel free to correct me on that if I got the quote out of context.

conspiracy sites on the internet. I am talking about the Middle East. We installed the Shah...Saddam...etc etc etc. Brutal dictators...our policies are a direct and proximate cause of the current situation. We are Imperialists wether you like it or not.

As for the Franklin Quote England...Iraq or France...it is still the same. Unless we are invited in to help...we should kep our noses out of the fray.

The source of all evil are any and all who fail to kneel at the altar of Everlasting Kerry, and no other real terror exists.

world views at times.

I'm beginning to realize why you seem so well versed on the mechanism of crusades, given your own.

we may be, the insignificant handful of people whose blatant prejudice against imperialism in any and all of its haute couture are irrlelevant to the momentous task of herding the possibly 25% of the American voters to the polls to cast their votes for the corporate oligarchy's next pet figurehead, in order to cast the pall of legitimacy on Diebold's leap year gig.

We read. with comprehension. One of Kerry's first acts must be to ban this practice.

cant quite put my finger on where...

That's why we need a vibrant, noisy left constantly at his heels so that his "camoflage" will be exposed when he goes to far towards Imperialism.

good point. But will the noisy left go back to sleep after he is elected? Do we allow him to start drafting? He already has said Spain should stay. I fear the, we broke it, we gotta fix it meme is going to be the mantra.

So we are gonna have to stay noisy...Providing Diebold lets him get elected.

please.

and the burden in this debate is clearly upon those making the assertion. Prove it isn't with any other candidate...oh wait...you mean they SAID they wouldn't?

"19. Thanks, Dirk. It is amazing how many people sincerely believe that
people would rather be maimed, killed and imprisoned on the orders of a really tall guy with exceptional verbal skills than a developmentally disabled guy smirking in a flight jacket."

I would tend to agree with that statement. Our goal now should be an exit strategy, or do you prefer Empire?

Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy

snip

"We also backed the goal of ousting Saddam Hussein's malignant regime in Iraq, because the previous policy of containment was failing,"

Really?

"We believed then, and we believe now, that this threat was less imminent than the administration claimed and that the United States should have done much more to win international backing and better prepare for post-war reconstruction."

Then why attack?

"Too many on the left seem incapable of taking America's side in international disputes, reflexively oppose the use of force, and begrudge the resources required to keep our military strong."

When the US is wrong I will say so loudly!

"However troubling the Bush record, the pacifist and protectionist left offers no credible alternative. "

Did Rove write this shit?

"It derives as well from our nation's other strengths: a large and dynamic economy, the capacity for innovation and self-correction, energetic diplomacy and the moral allure of our founding ideals."

What about the people?

"Democrats believe that America should use its unparalleled power to defend our country and to shape a world in which the values of liberal democracy increasingly hold sway."

Nation Building via police actions?

...they start flapping their arms, in a vain attempt to fly? As useless an effort as it is, what else are they going to do at that point?

It's like that.

Check back when people in the US are hungrier and cold. Perhaps necessity will drive us to engage in a more useful gesture by that point.

But, when it comes down to voting Bush vs. Kerry, I'm going to vote Kerry. After all, what else am I going to do at that point?

But nobody should think that after Kerry wins, that we're 'done'. I won't be.

vigilant. I think there are more angry folks out there than we know. They are lazy though and think Kerry will maybe fix things so they don't have to take to the streets.

But, our consumer debt and living off Mortgage refinancing can't go on much longer. This stuff will come tumbling down just about after the election. I think it's bubbling under the surface in smart Americans minds but they don't know what to do about it. Hopefully our new more progressive groups and Dean can be a voice these folks who are worried and confused but don't know what to do.

Electing Kerry isn't all that needs to be done, anyway.

...The conservative talk shows are all trying to demonize John Kerry, the democratic party, liberals and anyone else who does not agree with the neo-conservative right-wing agenda of a new American empire and world rule. These talk show hosts (Limbaugh, Hannity, O-Reilly, Savage, etc.) continually use a familiar term. I heard it tonight while scanning the radio dial. It was used on the Michael Savage Show by a guest host, Jerry Doyle. That word, was the word "they". It is a term that their listening audiences can use as a reference point.

Who are "they"? "They" of course are anybody who does agree the BushCo line of propaganda. "They" as opposed to "us". The "us's" are the people on the right, the so called "real Americans", Christian, family values oriented, who stand for freedom, those who not only fully agree with Bush on every issue, but those who would never criticize or object in any way whatsoever, any decision that comes out of the Bush White House. The "us's" know who "they" are, that is the "they" who are the enemy, and are truly at war with "them". "They" of course are the evil ones. "They" are all enemies of America, enemies of George W. Bush's America, enemies of Christian conservative America and its values,and "us" or "we" who know, know that "they" are out to destroy all of "it", the "it" that belongs to "us". So "us", the "we" have to be constantly vigilant and you got it, when "we" spot one of "them" and hear what "they" are saying about our beloved American values and ideals whatever that criticism might be, because "we" know that "they" being evil will deceive and lie to get "their" way, well it is "our" duty to root "them" out, expose "them" for who and what "they" really are and in the end destroy "them" before "they" destroy "us" and the America that "we" love. Got "it" now? Oh, and it should be noted that "they" once identified, can never be one of "us", because "they" have be tainted and are no longer pure. So it's okay to make "them" disappear :freak: Yep! :nuke:

quotes from Progressive internationalism. The Neo Cons aren't the only ones deamonizing the left.

Anyway, while they might both be for 'proactive engagement' as opposed to isolationist, I'll stick with Kerry. Picture the same game, with superior diplomacy. Go Kerry.

They stick with their horse no matter what!

I'm remembering ARNOLD the GROPPER...what happened to their Christian Right Beliefs with his assaults against women? - No Problem
:silly:
Why would they go along with someone married to a Kennedy of all things? - No Problem :silly:

Why would they go along with Arnold's belief in a few well chosen "civil rights and liberal ideas?" - No Problem :silly:

The scumballs DO NOT CARE WHAT THEIR CANDIDATES DO OR DID IN THE PAST. Repubs vote for and support their chosen scumballs with $$$$$$$$$$.

Repubs see the bigger picture. They want to run the congress and the White House and run the States as well.

They got exactly what they wanted with Arnold...someone with the potential to run for President and turn California more Republican.

I don't care if John Kerry leaves his wife for Gennifer Flowers. I'm with him all the way.
:silly:

Why not just vote for Bush?

If the Dems wanted the votes of the left, they would nominate a candidate the left could vote for without becoming nauseous.

No thanks.

don't you?

"CROOKED LIARS! LYING CROOKS!"

:headbang:
rocknation

We're going to keep the war and oppression going but our bombs will be more gentle. SAME OLD SHIT.

So far as I'm concerned, with Kerry WE STILL LOSE because the elitist agenda still reigns.

BMU

Not me, and not most Americans who are being fucked by Bush.

Elitist Agenda?- like what?

Crap, crap, crap!

John Kerry can speak for himself. No need to talk for him psycho freak website!

Daily news and commentary on the media presented from a libertarian/anarchist point of view.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a Coke and Pepsi election.

A vote for Nader is a bullet in a soldiers back.

We are talking about the DEM nominee here. What kind of strategy is it to ATTACK our guy in the race.

You people are acting like FOOLS....

will he satisfy the anti-war sentiments of the voters?
will he for instance support Chavez and Aristide?

...and people who join the GOP & media in attacking Democrats get no smile & handshake from me.

Thanks Dirk, good catch.

Once again, the two party/same corporate master system of government rears it's ugly head. How much more of this can you ABBers take before you wake the hell up and realize that you are being sold a bill of goods? Didn't anybody learn from Clinton's administration that these corporate Dems will promise you any damn thing you want, yet once in office they will act like 'Pugs, just in a "kinder and gentler" form. Look, you vote for the lesser of two evils you are still voting for evil. Soldiers and innocents are still going to die in Iraq, civil liberties are still going to be shredded at home, and corporations are still going to rule uber alles.

Wake the hell up people, and stop buying into this two party bullshit. You're going to kill your country with good intentions.

There is no way that anyone can tell me that this would be the year for a third party building effort. This election is far too important for any creative mess ups.

And, how in the world would a Nader type have any power to do anything!?

Would he/she have any support in Congress? - No

Would he/she have the power to appoint Supreme Court justices that would be meaningful to a huge segment of the DU population and their friends? - No

Where would all the money to run the campaign come from, not from me and not from the huge majority of Americans that plan to support Kerry with every ounce of their being.

Know that I was a L O Y A L supporter of Gen. Wesley Clark's.
If Kerry is good enough for Clark, Kennedy, the Black Caucus and other clear thinking people,then he is my man for this election.

If I want to express my opinion to Kerry on any issue, this one included, I will do so by writing a letter, contacting his website with an email, telling my congressperson.

Third Party - Not!

Kerry is being rammed down our throats through a combination of fear and bullying. Clear thinking has very little to do with this process.

And if this is not the year, when is it? There is always some excuse, some bullshit to get the hoards into line. Meanwhile the country continues to go to hell, no matter who is in office. The main difference between a Dem and 'Pug administration is how fast we are getting there.

Are you really that foolish to be fooled by this good cop-bad cop routine? Are you really that naive? Wasn't the example of the Clinton administration enough of a demonstration for you. Welfare "reform", NAFTA, the '96 Telecom Act, the ratcheting up of the WOD(and subsequent loss of civil liberties), the list goes on and on. When are you going to wake up and say ENOUGH!?

And tell me how that contacting Kerry with your opinions works out. Probably just as well as contacting Clinton did:eyes:

And no, a third party candidate would have little support in Congress, and in fact it would be a bipartisan effort on the part of Congress to hamstring and smear any such candidate. But, the executive branch still has plenty of stand alone power, like getting us the hell out of Iraq, and the machinations of a vengeful Congress would show them up to the public for the corporate whores they are.

But, hey, if you want to keep on voting for the same ol' same ol', be my guest. Just don't bitch when things don't change.

this is garbage...