Kerry: "we don't really have an opposition party in this country...

...except during the brief period, every four years, between the nomination and the election."

-----

Published on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

Kerry/McCain Anyone?

by John Stauber

How desperate is John Kerry? How desperate is the Democratic Party to win the White House in November? So desperate that Kerry is still all but begging conservative Republican warhawk John McCain to be his vice-presidential running mate, according to a front page article in the June 12th New York Times. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. This is the same John Kerry who was quoted in the February 9, 2004, New Yorker admitting that "we don't really have an opposition party in this country except during the brief period, every four years, between the nomination and the election." Apparently Kerry, who along with John McCain voted to support the war on Iraq, would erase even that narrow period of supposed differences to morph the Democrats into the Republican Party Lite version of the Bush/Cheney gang.

Why would Kerry embarrass himself and his party by courting a conservative Republican? The answer is easy: a recent CBS News poll concluded that Kerry/McCain could beat Bush/Cheney by 14%. In our new book, Banana Republicans, Sheldon Rampton and I analyze how the far right first took over first the Republican party and now all branches of the federal government through decades of discipline, strategic funding, political organizing, coalition-building and a passionate far-right pro-business vision. For the first time since 1932 Republicans control all branches of the federal government and for the first time since 1952 they dominate at the state government level. Republicans have planted the myth of the liberal media firmly in the public mind, while moving mainstream news coverage to the right. They have created their own media -- right wing talk radio and Fox News -- and made it the most important opinion shaping force in the United States.

The progressive Democratic base of unionists, women, minorities, environmentalists, gays and others are rabidly anti-Bush and furiously mobilizing to win in November. The scores of leading progressives who publicly supported Ralph Nader in 2000 -- such as Michael Moore, Barbara Ehrenreich, Jim Hightower, PhilDonahue and Susan Sarandon -- are all supporting Anybody But Bush. Yet the image of Kerry courting McCain and declaring that America is essentially a one-party state has got to be troubling to progressives who are generally avoiding criticism of Kerry and the Democratic leadership and focusing their wrath on Bush.

Anyone who believes that the Republican far-right's ascendancy to power is going to fade away should Bush manage to lose in November is over-medicated. The powerful right-wing juggernaut constructed over the decades is just hitting its prime, politically. Sure, the Republicans are far to the right of most Americans on key issues such as tax fairness, health care, abortion rights and the environment. But that was true during the Reagan regime, too, and we've just had a non-stop, week-long, media love-in reminding us how little it mattered then or now that Reagan was way out of touch on policies, since his tough-love patriotic cowboy image still sells so well.


John Stauber is the Executive Director of the Center for Media & Democracy and the Co-Author of 'Banana Republicans: How the Right Wing Is Turning America into a One-Party State'

###

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0615-04.htm

- I'm voting for Kerry. But I have to say that it's looking more and more like BOTH parties are complicit in creating a one-party state where those with the most gold make the rules.

I think we do.

where is the opposition, truly, party-wise?

Geez

which comes at the beginning of the whole piece....

...that we don't have an 'opposition party in this country' except for during campaigns. Is he sending a message that we need to be an proactive opposition party...or is it an admission that the one-party state already exists?

in this country, which is not parlimentary, there is no "opposition" party since there is not only no requirement for a party to gain a legislative majority before organizing a government but it happens more often than not that the out party controls one of the branches of government.

There are no responsibility-free backbenchers who can while away the years backbiting and heckling although it is pretty cool when they do that.

the quote is not in context even in the original article.

Kerry has worked for campaign finance reform, so I'm pretty sure he's aware that the high cost of campaigns (and that the Democrats have had to sell themselves out to the corporate state to keep up with the Republican fund raising)is one factor that is turning our political system into a one party state.

Howard Dean showed that the internet can level that playing field, and Kerry has learned that lesson well. Money, unfortunately, is what drives everything in politics and I'm hopeful that this newfound way to raise funds will eventually wean the Democratic Party from the corporate teat.

Seriously. I mean, in presidential politics the TV ads would be very expensive, but in some races, like the secretary of state race, who ever sees the candidates on TV?

I was approached about a year ago to run for secretary of state here in Washington. They told me at the time it would take about $125k raised in order to win. With candidates vying for the primary, they say it will take $250k to win. But my very simple question: What on earth would they be spending $250k on?

I keep asking that question. No one seems to answer it -- remember, I'm talking about races that aren't as high profile as the national congressional and presidential races.

Okay, yard signs. Bumper stickers. A campaign staffer. A few ads. But $250k?

I guess I got the answer yesterday: A huge amount is spent on polling, to know what to say to the voters. It was explained to me that it doesn't work, in today's politics, for a candidate to educate the public about an issue. Instead, what makes someone "electable" is parroting back whatever is popular, and this is determined by investing money in polling.

If we had publicly funded elections, might we be able to retrieve just a little more integrity than just paying someone to find out the most popular opinion to have, and then spouting that, whether you believe it or not?

I also, by the way, was educated that in order to draft legislation, one MUST listen to the lobbyists. "Why?" I asked. "Why do you have to listen to vendors of voting machines, for example? Voting is public policy. Why let for-profit vendors have any say? Why aren't we defining it for them, not letting them define it for legislation?"

That's just the way it is, I was told. You have to listen to what the vendors want.

That, by the way, is what's at the bottom of the entire argument over whether to call it a paper ballot or a paper trail. Politicians who are familiar with the issue, but insist that they will only call it a "trail" and never a "ballot" are listening to vendor lobbying -- VoteHere, a vendor, is peddling a cryptography solution. It is a paper trail. But it doesn't make the voter verified paper BALLOT the document of record, and in fact, there is still no ballot.

But we must listen to the vendors. And we must pay pollsters to tell us what our opinion will be.

Somewhere along the way, we lost sight of the big picture.

Bev Harris

...before they 'allow' anyone to run on a particular ticket. The system is 'rigged' so that only those who 'play the game' are allowed to participate.

- It's difficult to admit it...but corporations and their lobbyists now control even our election process and public debate. THEY dictate which issues will be debated and how much cash it will take to 'win'.

- This has been my contention all along: that Democrats have joined with Republicans in allowing corporations to make the rules and determine which candidates will be nominated and participate in a mock democracy.

Although I agree the corporations do as well.

Take Nader for example. If you asked many people here if the system should be open they would say yes. But when Nader wanted to debate he was denied by dem individuals. Why? Because the system should be open... so long as it benefits the person saying it should be.

We are taught that the population supported the American revolution, but it was not so. There were the diehards who persevered and eventually changed the course of the struggle. Had the population been polled, no one would've bothered.

And now, without the benefit of Thomas Paine, now with Fox News setting the agenda, the Democrats are formulating their message based on Right-wing spin and they are willing to pay for it?

How desperately sad.

Government,at all levels, seems to have lost sight of who they represent.


A few years ago I got involved in a zoning issue, and led two separate petition drives to stop the conversion of a church into a multi-unit condo. A city council person who was sort of on our side told us to concentrate on parking issues - and to stay away from multi unit issues, because the city wanted multi-unit housing to take hold in our neighborhood. As I went from door to door one thing became very clear - the number one reason people opposed the development was because they didn't want any more multi-unit housing. Which begs the question... who do our representatives represent?

We were able to present a legal protest petition that forced a super majority vote (ten of thirteen)in order to approve the project. Within a 200ft radius of the property, 18 households disapproved and only 2 approved - the city council (dominated by "liberal Democrats", I might add) rejected the petition and voted 12 - 0 to approve the development.

So I guess that answered the question of who the City Council and Mayor's Office represent - they represent the people who fund their campaigns - the development and real estate communities. And the thing is, I can't say I blame them - in the subsequent municipal elections, elections which local pundits described as "the most important in 60 years" voter turnout in the runoff was only 20%.

I'm not even sure public campaign funding could surmount that kind of apathy, although it's certainly a step in the right direction.


------

I got polled the other day - the city has a 30 million dollar shortfall for 2005 and they're trying to figure out what to do for funding our brand spanking new incredibly expensive public library. They had several options, and were soliciting public opinion on them. I answered the questions and when the pollster got done I asked him to forward a message to our city council - to the effect of "Why are you asking me? I don't know enough or have the time to educate myself on this issue so as to make a decision. That's your job. That's what we pay you for..." In the context of your post, that poll suddenly makes a lot more sense.

I wonder if my message got forwarded...

...have allowed it to get out of hand. What happened to the time when ANYONE could run for office and win on the issues? We'd have a much stronger and more 'democratic' country if teachers, farmers, bakers and machinists had an equal opportunity to run for office with the rich fat cats.

1. Abolish the office of the president and go to a parliamentary style of government. This would cause a HUGE focus on congress (parliament?) - the voice of the people. Congressional races would become massively important.

Can you believe that in this country one single person can cause so much death and destruction and *get away with it*? I'd love to have a parliamentary system where the PM would have to face tough questions and be accountable. Can you imagine Bush answering questions in the house of commons? We should have something like that here.

2. Establish run off voting. This will allow more parties to come in to the system.

3. Abolish the electoral college.

An argument can be made that US politics has always been corrupt. Look at Boss Tweed. Daley's machine in Chicago. I'm sure there are many other examples throughout our history.

I'm not disagreeing with you that it's a problem, but I think that "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" is something of a myth.

Not that I have an answer - I mean, as Bev Harris points out upthread, politics has become an industry - and once something becomes a moneymaker here in the USA it's damn hard to change things.

Meaningful campaign finance reform, publicly financed elections; these are starting points - and I still remain optimistic that the internet will become an even more powerful tool for enhancing the voice of the people - but make no mistake, we're in a war that will last for generations.

...mostly because it didn't take a quarter of a million bucks to 'get in the race'.

- The Corporate Media makes a KILLING on campaigns. The campaign cash simply changes hands: from the corporation to the candidate and back to the corporation. Everyone 'wins' except the people.

I fear, as time goes on, so many younger Americans have been indoctrinated into hating liberals, without knowing what we stand for, that it will get even more difficult for us to win key elections. That's why this one is imperative.

... then it's high time to start working to address their concerns.

Off the top of my head:

better schools, better access to public officials, more respect for youth counterculture (especially among law enforcement), better access to college (and all forms of higher education), DRASTICALLY LOWER COLLEGE TUITION, more REAL opportunity (not just a "program" here or a "program" there), bringing down rents, more entry-level jobs with actual futures, better starting wages, better job security, the end of the 90-hour week (esp. for techies), better public investment in developing technologies, complete rejection of the RW's "culture war" on the youth, less authoritarianism and more inclusion and empowerment, "NO" TO THE DRAFT, rethinking the drug war (and America's *two million* imprisoned citizens), ...

But, most importantly:

doing what the Dean campaign began --> making young people more than just a "demographic" to be courted. Instead, make them a *central part of the effort*. *Involve them in policy-making*. Listen to them directly. And then adjust your platform to address their concerns.

Do these things, and all the hate-rhetoric in the world won't stop the youth of America from beating a path to your door.

Young people in this country are neither stupid nor disinterested. They are simply waiting for someone to finally say something that's worth their time to hear.

</.02>


MDN

unless you win. Too often, too many voters can't see the difference in candidates, and won't spend the time to learn. That's why turnout gets lower and lower. Too many folks, young and old, want instant Utopia and won't put in the hard work, for years, to make the incremental changes to accomplish the common goal.

- Read this article. Not for the 'Kerry/McCain' quote...but for a broader look into the forces working AGAINST Democracy and the Democratic party. It won't do a damn bit of good if Democrats win the White House and the Republican fascists keep all the power.

What I'm talking about here really boils down to just two things:

PRIORITIES and PROCESS.

Neither of those things requires a single electoral victory to accomplish. These are matters that can be improved right here, right now, today. Electoral victories are the result, not the precondition, of such change.


MDN

...advertorial being that is is an editorial seeking to sell something.

The scores of leading progressives who publicly supported Ralph Nader in 2000 -- such as Michael Moore, Barbara Ehrenreich, Jim Hightower, PhilDonahue and Susan Sarandon -- are all supporting Anybody But Bush.

No, they're supporting John Kerry.

is worth reading -

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040209fa_fact

more so than Mr. Stauber's preaching to the choir, actually.

...that both parties seem to be...uh...promoting.

Maybe it is because it is dated, but that certainly was a rambling and dull account.

Funny thing is, no Republican would ever be caught dead THINKING such a thing. they're opposition, opposition, opposition 24/7. What a shame you are, John.

people they do not consider "liberal" enough. I have looked far and wide to find evidence that these recurring allegations re: Kerry and McCain are true but have found not a single PIECE of confirmation of anything in the articles.

I think it is rw disinformation designed to hurt Kerry and bolster the commander-in-theif's chances. It saddens me that lefties so cynically employ not only the accusations but the same sort of techniques.

...to his wishes for dictatorial powers. Democrats seem scared to death of Bush* and his smear machine. They're frozen with fear.

- Look at all the IMPEACHABLE offenses Bush* has committed in the last four years. Any other president...especially a Democrat...would have been GONE by now...driven out of DC by true patriots and loyal Democrats.

- What's really too bad is that more and more Democrats tend to think that politics is about winning and nothing else.

it takes a resolution that is scheduled for hearing in Judiciary by the House Rules Committee as well as the Speaker. All of those folk that make the decision about allowing it to go forward are repuublicans.

...for the 'high crime' of lying about a blow job? Republicans FORCED that impeachment even though they didn't have a solid majority or the people backing them.

- Politics is about passion. Bush* HAS committed high crimes and could easily be impeached if enough Democrats brought the evidence before the people and DEMANDED justice. Passion initiates impeachment.

- If Democrats lose in November...it will be because of a lack of resolve and passion.

he was impeached in the raw exercise of majority rule in the House. Period.

Which is what we DO NOT HAVE.

...because at the time very few Republicans wanted to impeach. It was the 'house managers' and the Neocons who continued to push and push until they got enough members to follow their lead. It was the passion and resolve of a few men that made impeachment possible.

- But the PURPOSE of the exercise is not necessarily the impeachment itself. The GOAL is to expose the criminality and to be on the side calling for justice instead of trying to help coverup the crimes.

- A majority isn't needed to demand impeachment. This is a cowardly argument for doing nothing. For allowing criminals to go unpunished. For allowing Democracy to be destroyed piece by piece.

nt

is that the repugs are hitting their stride and have laid the foundations for their power while simultaneously weakening the very core structure of American democracy. The Dems in congress are nearly equally as chummy with lobbyists/corporations as the pubs (10% corporate tax cut, anyone?). I can see a lot of backroom shit going down in order to keep up appearances. We may be fucked - next 4 years should be pretty telling of just how bad this train wreck is.

The progressive Democratic base of unionists, women, minorities, environmentalists, gays and others are rabidly anti-Bush and furiously mobilizing to win in November. The scores of leading progressives who publicly supported Ralph Nader in 2000 -- such as Michael Moore, Barbara Ehrenreich, Jim Hightower, PhilDonahue and Susan Sarandon -- are all supporting Anybody But Bush. Yet the image of Kerry courting McCain and declaring that America is essentially a one-party state has got to be troubling to progressives who are generally avoiding criticism of Kerry and the Democratic leadership and focusing their wrath on Bush.

Anyone who believes that the Republican far-right's ascendancy to power is going to fade away should Bush manage to lose in November is over-medicated. The powerful right-wing juggernaut constructed over the decades is just hitting its prime, politically. Sure, the Republicans are far to the right of most Americans on key issues such as tax fairness, health care, abortion rights and the environment. But that was true during the Reagan regime, too, and we've just had a non-stop, week-long, media love-in reminding us how little it mattered then or now that Reagan was way out of touch on policies, since his tough-love patriotic cowboy image still sells so well.

-----

Have people forgotten how so many applauded the nothing less than "brilliant" move by Kerry to pick McCain as his v-p when information first surfaced?

Where are they now? Now we hear nothing but denials any such offer ever was made!

So are ya fer it or agin it?

Am starting a "headline-SELECTED-for-DU-dissention" tickler file.

3. Kerry: "we don't really have an opposition party in this country... - 6-15-04
2. Kerry on C-SPAN - middle class? - 6-15-04
1. What's Disturbing about Theresa Heinz Kerry - 6-15-04

- Instead of throwing blanket statements....why not explain what Kerry may have meant with his statement "we don't really have an opposition party"? If you read the entire quote...he's outright saying that the only sign of opposition occurs during a short period of time every four years.

- I shouldn't have to explain that this is the antithesis of the two-party system of government. It's also why Bush* hasn't been held accountable.

quite apart from what might-------or might not------be inside. And it's not that I'm a nanny, just irritated for the moment.

I've got a few saved

I'll soon be put in my place, but it just gets irritating sometimes...

...but the quote in this thread isn't opinion or rumor. It's a direct quote from Kerry.

- As to the Kerry/McCain story...I tend to believe it because even those close to Kerry have confirmed that there was/is an interest in such a matchup. No one can determine just how 'serious' Kerry was about this because it has been kept under the radar.

- It would be nice to know if this story is true. I'd like to know if this was a serious consideration. It won't change my vote for Kerry...but it will provide an insight into the direction of the party.

- I'm sorry you're irritated. Free speech can be a bitch sometimes. Kerry has my vote...but that doesn't mean I won't challenge what he does and says.

As I posted the same thing in another "selected" thread: That's right, DON'T unite with like-minded people. That's the ticket to success.

(& I'm focusing on the first-impression headline, not the discussion.)

...and believe you're right in many ways.

- But perhaps we have a different definition of 'success'? I think success in politics is being true to your principles...even if there are temporary setbacks and losses. I'd rather lose than sell my party's soul to the Republican party.

- Many Democrats are not seeing the larger picture. We're so determined to 'win', compromise and concede that we can't seem to see that we're giving away the very issues that could inspire a majority to vote Democratic.

as do MOST people who are Center-Left-and-Lefter, which is generally something having to do with being principled about things bigger than our own self-interest.

The problem is that if you (we, whoever) DON'T WIN in the *SHORT RUN* our winner-takes-all system pretty much obliterates our "success" in doing good for a LARGE number of people. It's not so much the ONE PERSON who is "president," the one who gets credit and blame for lots of things are actually are beyond their control---------it's that this person and their subordinates get to nominate hundreds of people up and down the government, and the EFFECT on policy expands expotentially. So, yes, I am willing to compromise a lot of battles for the sake of winning the biggest one and thereby reversing the smaller losses later.

Please, let's stop with the number-of-angels-on-head-of-pin thing, please. *I* am (stopping). Experentially, we both could be accomplishing a lot more by registering voters right now.

...and we'll have a Democratic figurehead president. Not that he won't TRY to advance the Democratic agenda...it's that he'll be prevented from doing so by those who own our government. And here's a hint: it ain't the people.

- These aren't 'battles' we're compromising. I wish it were that simple. What we're compromising is truth and justice. Is it worth it? Many don't think so.

- Justice should never be about 'waiting for the appropriate time' to prosecute wrongdoing. The Bush* gang should NOT be allowed to escape responsibility because it would be easier and expedient for the Democrats. Dems shouldn't allow the Bushies to cover their trail of blood and crimes simply to avoid being a target for their smear machine.

- As has been stated many times before: after a time...silence becomes betrayal. There will come a time when Americans resent the Democratic party for not honoring their duty to the Constitution. In a two-party system it's the responsibility of the opposition to keep the other side honest and force them to obey the laws of the land. When these checks and balances are missing...corruption consumes government and destroys nations.

The "purity" debate has gone on since before you and I were born and will not be resolved by you or me. Please re-read your post ("...the Right will still 'have it all'..." and we'll have a Democratic figurehead president.) Frankly, my pure friend, this is just SO defeatist. According to this, we just might as well pine away and die or else go have an orgy. Like, the 2000 "there's no difference" meme. You and I have both heard each other's arguments before and we will NEVER convince each other, O.K.?

"In our new book, Banana Republicans, Sheldon Rampton and I analyze how the far right first took over first the Republican party and now all branches of the federal government through decades of discipline, strategic funding, political organizing, coalition-building and a passionate far-right pro-business vision. For the first time since 1932 Republicans control all branches of the federal government and for the first time since 1952 they dominate at the state government level. Republicans have planted the myth of the liberal media firmly in the public mind, while moving mainstream news coverage to the right. They have created their own media -- right wing talk radio and Fox News -- and made it the most important opinion shaping force in the United States."

Is clearly reaching. It's kind of sad really. It's called a publicity move, creating the perception that Bush's Republican party is broken. It worked didn't it?

I am afraid that the lines between some Democrats and Republicans have blurred. In some respects, we really don't have any opposition parties and that is sad. It makes Russia more of a democracy than we are. There are I think 9 parties represented in Russia's parliament and in Canada, there are 4 political parties in the House of Commons.

I wished we could have political reform and improve the range of our political choices. Not choosing those parties and candidates who have the most money (Republicans and Democrats.)

John

...of public financing of national campaigns? They would immediately lose their influence over politicians and the political process if the People financed campaigns instead of their corporate masters?

Most of the US Corps are mocking Democracy.

Dems have been complict in the expansion of the Right Wing Dictatorship. Only a few speak out and many conceed defeat of
being able to do anything substantive. BushCo can only defeat themselves. Dems cannot defeat them.

Don't tell that to the Kerry supporters. They still think taking back the WH is going to change something.

Let them dream their pathetic little dream for a while.

...to our problems. We've had warnings for literally decades now...that the very infrastructure of our government has been usurped and transformed into something else entirely: a one-party corporate state.

- It's never 'pathetic' to dream. Kerry is definitely not the answer to all our problems...but then again we can't have Bush* for another four years. We simply have no other choice but to vote Democratic.

- But even with Kerry in office...the Republicans/Neocons will still OWN our government. They've owned it since Clinton was in office. This means that even though a Democrat is president...THEY will still be calling all the shots. They don't HAVE TO have the WH in order to continue their plans and agenda.

being blind isn't. There is nothing wrong at all with wanting and working for positive change. The problem arises when the want for positive change so overwhelms the senses that you are blind to the end result.

People must be able to separate their wants and needs to look at the bigger picture. Instead many of us, especially here at DU, prefer the tunnel vision approach to politics. They are so focused with getting rid of W that the bigger corrupt picture is being missed.

It really doesn't matter who is in the WH anymore except for the fact that with a Dem there it is a "kinder, gentler" sort of fascism. If you can believe that.

There are those of us who believe electing Kerry will give us a chance to effect change in Washington. Yet when you look at the voting record of Congress you really have to ask yourself is that possible and how long will it take.
Those bastards in the House went 7 years without an ethics complaint and it wasn't until Delay clearly went nuts that someone had the balls to do it.

Dream a little dream Amerika.

It won't change a damn thing. It will however but the breaks on the direction we are heading. Though we may still be going the same direction at a slower speed.

We can't even BEGIN to change things for the better until we have the white house AND the congress. Until that time we a fucked, (and even then probably with out major reforms) but Kerry will still slow that down to an extent. (I hope)

But the cynic in my is winning.

Who do you support?
What's the point of your post?
What's your solution?
Do you really think your constant trash Kerry hit and run attacks accomplish anything? If so, what?

1. I support America, its citizens and the Constitution.

2. The point of my post is to poke fun at the delusional Kerryites who believe the end of our woes begin with getting Kerry elected.

3. The solution is far more complex than you can imagine.

4. My posts are NOT hit and run. I stand and fight. I don't expect the mindless to be swayed by what I am saying but there are some who see beyond Kerry and "they" get it.

Kerry is not a panacea for what ails America, as someone else mentioned Kerry may just slow the momentum down a little. There are no easy answers and no quick fixes for the problem that confronts us. The Republicans have spent decades and billions of dollars to get the kind of power they have now.

It won't disappear just because John Kerry is in the White House. Especially since JK has stated pretty clearly that he will continue Bush's war. The rest of what Kerry says is political window dressing.

Don't get me wrong...I am voting for him...I just don't like him and I refuse to shut up about it. If you don't like that...tough shit.

who believe getting Kerry elected will solve all of our country's problems. It's a conceit of yours, as far as I can tell. Perhaps you need to characterize Kerry supporters that way to make the loss of a candidate you supported more palatable. I don't know - I can't say what your motives are.

I do know that calling people delusional and "mindless" is damn insulting, and if you consider that "standing and fighting", then your argumentative ammo is running out.

It's obvious you don't like Kerry and you make that known at every opportunity. And you're right, I don't like it. Your constant attacks on Kerry are not constructive, they add nothing to the debate, and, in fact, IMO they are detrimental to the cause of removing GW Bush from the White House.

And of course you can't say what my motives are...because you don't know me.

What I said was meant to be insulting. There are quite a few Kerry supporters here who have taken it upon themselves to be some sort of Kerryite Police force stomping out and shouting down any sort of criticism of their candidate. For these sort of people I have a visceral dislike.

My constant criticism of Kerry will always rub the group-think addled mind the wrong way. Which debate am I adding nothing to? There is more than just one debate going on you know. Lastly, a fucking ham-sandwich could beat Bush this November. This race is Kerry's to lose. No amount of criticism from the left is going to damage his chances. This tired worn out canard needs to be put to rest right next to "Support our Troops".

"group think addled mind"?

I think the members of DU are some of the most educated, astute political minds around - quite capable of reaching conclusions on their own. That the majority of them have reached a conclusion different than yours does not justify lumping them into a "group think". If you make a "criticism" on this board, you need to be prepared to defend it - and insulting people really doesn't make for a very persuasive argument.

And what does the word "criticize" mean to you? Does your original post here constitute a "criticism" in your book? Because I read it as an attack - in fact, a personal, nasty, unprovoked attack on not just Kerry, but his supporters. And you never answered my question - what do you hope to accomplish with this sort of attack?

Are as diverse a segment of population as any other message board or group that exists pretty much anywhere. You are going to have all sorts of different levels of intellect. We have our share of bright, intelligent and witty people ...we also have our share of not so bright, not so intelligent and not so witty people.

If you believe that ALL the members of DU as intelligent, astute and educated as each other (which you seem to be claiming in your post) you are being disingenuous. Certainly not EVERYONE here is going to be as smart as everyone else.

Your post is so full of straw men I don't know if I can finish it with the limited time I have this morning.

"That the majority of them have reached a conclusion different than yours does not justify lumping them into a "group think". "

I think pretty much everyone here agrees that Bush needs to go...that is the collective group think at DU right now. Would you agree? Yes, I think you will.
When you focus so hard on this particular issue, like many of the Kerryites do, you lose sight of the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that Bush is just a symptom of a larger disease. Getting rid of him still leaves the disease behind.

The next step is to get the Democrats to be the party of the people again and NOT just the party of the people when they want to get elected. The Democrats have become all too willing accomplices in the dismantling of America.

and we absolutely shouldn't look at the election of Kerry as anything but a first step to changing this situation.

...or drastically change direction? Kerry and others actually ADMIT there is no opposition party in America...except for that short period of time during presidential campaigns. This is an astounding admission in a democratic nation.

- I submit that it won't be a 'first step'...but a step backwards. Not that there's anything we can do about it at this point. The writing is already on the wall.

different from a drastic change in direction. I am not putting my eggs in Kerry's basket. I am looking to change the party leadership and I am looking to strategically intelligent third party movements. This would not include Nader, since Nader is not capable of campaigning in a non self destructive manner. The only viable third party would recognize the spoiler effect and plan its campaigns accordingly. That means dropping out if the polls look like the third party candidate will spoil. We should also demand the dem drop if the dem will spoil the third party candidate. It would also include voting for third parties in swing states but not in tossups.

Was it a criticism of the Democratic Party, or a statement of purpose?

I generally vote Green, and Kerry was certainly NOT my first choice for a presidential candidate. I'm making an exception in November, because Bush is simply disastrous.

However, if the Democratic leadership doesn't move back to the left- and I mean WAY to the left on issues like labor and national health care, then I won't be voting for them after November. I hope they learn a lesson from this whole episode and don't assume the support they find in November is a permanent, party-loyalty vote.

THE SHAKEOUT
by PHILIP GOUREVITCH
Reversals of fortune in a high-stakes race.
Issue of 2004-02-09
Posted 2004-02-02

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040209fa_fact


John Kerry said much the same thing. “We don’t really have an opposition party in this country except during the brief period, every four years, between the nomination and the election,” he told me. Richard Holbrooke, who represented the Clinton Administration at the United Nations, agrees: “The primaries provide an opportunity for opposition parties to get their act together.” This is especially significant when a single party controls the White House and both houses of Congress, as the Republicans do now. The Democrats, without any means to set the agenda, are not so much in opposition as in exile. So, while policy differences do matter in a primary, Kerry said, “I think people are really measuring who has shown leadership, whose vision is consistent with the fights he’s picked in a lifetime, and whose vision connects to his life and to their gut.” An aide to one of Kerry’s rivals put it more bluntly: “The way people elect Presidents is very different from how they elect other officeholders. If it was smarts or experience people are looking for, Gore would’ve won in a landslide. But with Presidents they vote a feeling. They don’t give a crap whether they like their senators. But they care whether they like their Presidents. They’re going to watch him on television for four years and have feelings about him every time, and they vote for someone they like and want to keep liking.”

I realized the quote still isn't really in context.

It's difficult to tell what Kerry is saying here when you don't know what point he was making prior to that statement.

unless it agrees with his already formed opinions. Then it's a documented fact.

...but thanks for dropping by.

You won't even try to deny that you don't believe the media, but this time you do. All you can do is quibble about a word

My, sangha/sangh0, you have managed to display both of your personas on the same thread.

I wonder why you did that??!!

"...Democrats who never took to Dean celebrated his defeat as a liberation from doom But many who dreaded the prospect of Dean a the presidential nominee also acknowledge that he had liberated the party and given it spine after the protracted period of cowed complacency following September 11, 2001. “Before Dean did his thing, the Party, the press—everyone—had this idea that it was impossible to confront Bush without looking unpatriotic,” James Rubin, a former Assistant Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration, who is now General Clark’s senior foreign-policy adviser, said to me. “ give the guy full credit for restoring politica opposition—well, that is, restoring normal politics—in America.” And a veteran Democratic strategist who worked closely with Kerry for a time said, “I think what Dean has done is tapped into a notion of an opposition party. But no candidate yet has really created an opposition identity to stand up ideologically to the Republican Party. You haven’t seen anyone out there announcing their New Deal-- their New Frontier.

What Democrats who speak this way are grappling with is the fact that their party lacks cohesion, discipline, and direction. Its identity is entirely dependent on its leader, and, ever since Gore conceded the election to Bush in 2000, that means it has been a party up for grabs. As the Party chairman, Terry McAuliffe, told CNN on the morning of the Iowa caucuses, “Whoever the nominee of the Democratic Party is,” that person “will become the messenger . . . and that will become the message as we head forth.”

Because you can't have these things when you are playing follow the leader.

It seems like some people are twisting in the wind over this article. It spells out doom for for us regardless of who gets elected president.

well...DUH!

NADER IS A REPUBLICAN WHORE!!

...I can only assume that you didn't read the entire thing. It DID talk about the Democratic candidates and gave quotes from them.

- The article also covers the aspects of the campaign where 'new' Democrats were afraid of Dean's ability to gather popular support and gave him credit for a partial implant of spine into Dems afraid of confronting Bush*.

- It's interesting to note that the few candidates that DID take Bush* to task were labeled as 'crazy' by both the RWing media AND the DLCers.

nader said the parties are the same, Kerry verifies it.

Nader opposed Bush corporate policies, Kerry voted right along down the line--and now we have to rally around the one who supported what we are supposed to be opposed?

There is no denying it. The only thing Kerry has going for him is that he is not Bush--even though he supported all those horrible terrible things that Bush pushed from the patriot act to voting for the Invasion.