SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (41108)4/2/2004 9:06:56 PM
From: lurqer  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Here's one way to lose an election. If you can't hold on to your base ...

Vote, or Revolt?

Beth Henry

Last December, I took my daughter and a friend of hers to a Distillers concert up in Houston. For those of you who have no contact with teen-agers, punk music, culture, and politics are becoming the “new” counter culture (and I have, I swear, actually heard those words used by people twenty years younger than I am). The reason for the quotation marks is that not only are the Distillers, Thrice, and NOFX popular, but so are the Clash, the Ramones, and other punk bands from the past two decades.

At punk concerts, you stand. For hours. This facilitates crowd surfing, which is enough to turn a fifty-year-old mother’s hair white, but reminds me of the “trust” exercises we used to do in acting class, in which we had to fall backwards and trust our classmates to catch us. After a couple of hours of keeping my daughter’s head in view, I was forced to take a restroom break. When I went in, I saw all manner of political and philosophical graffiti on the walls of the stall. I love bars with graffiti-friendly restroom walls, and have contributed my “eloquence” to many. Not having a pen, I took out my lipstick and added this sentiment:

“If you’re revolted, REVOLT!”

I am revolted. Disgusted, horrified, and outraged. I look back at the history of empire and oppression, and at the hideous cruelty it has wreaked upon human beings. I wonder what I could, or would, have done, had I been alive when those obscene abuses were perpetrated. I have always thought, “I would have stood up. I would have fought. I would not have compromised. I would have fought even in the face of certain defeat and irrevocable loss.”

That’s what I’ve always expected of myself.

What we have before us now is an opportunity to stand up, to make that choice to resist. To do all that we can to defeat the entrenched, elite imperialists who have turned the dreams of true democracy and equality, which have been the mainstay of our very souls, into a “horse race” in which we have no choice other than the ones offered by the oligarchs who got us into this bloody mess.

I find that I cannot use my vote to lend the legitimacy of democracy to anyone who does not completely reject our government’s rapacious and imperial policies

I cannot vote for anyone who believes that our country has a right to kill in order to support its swinish excesses of energy consumption.

I cannot vote for anyone who believes that Israel has a divine right to land and lives and resources that ensures them immunity from any international standards of law or human decency.

I cannot vote for anyone anointed by the corporate-owned media, because I know that, by the very fact of that ordination, he will support capitalist exploitation domestically, and imperial abuses abroad. His policies might, in the short term, pacify people in this country, but they will inevitably continue to pursue, albeit in a more tactful and politic manner, the aims of empire.

The results will ultimately be the same as if George W. Bush was reappointed, but the means by which those results are achieved would be more palatable domestically. There would also be a little more finesse and charm than W has displayed toward other heads of state, most of whom are fellow imperialists. Genocide and free-market abuses of human rights would simply go on under the radar, as they did during the Clinton administration.

I find I have no choice but to revolt, and to inspire others to do so, as well. I listened, on C-Span, to a Republican in the U.S. Senate going on about the failed socialist democracies of Europe. Well, why the hell have they run into trouble? It seems to me that those economies could not compete with economies like our own, which are based on free-market principles of Social Darwinism, elevated and promoted as inextricable from those of democracy and even morality.

For years, I have heard that “the government should be run like a business.” Now we see what happens when the government is run like a business. Our schools beg for crumbs. Our children go without food, health care, and, sometimes, even housing. Because the “defense” industry is the most powerful hammer for enriching the ruling class, every issue before this country becomes a nail. We therefore live in a world in which we are globally hated, and live in fear of reprisal both abroad and in our own country.

A government run like a business, devoted to profit above all other considerations, is what we have now. And it is not run by those who produce anything, but by those who live off the labor of others. It is run by those who believe that their profits are so sacred that they are entitled to kill and destroy populations all over the globe in order to sustain and increase them.

I do not see any media-endorsed candidate for the office of the president of this country who is willing to vocally and openly oppose the lethal and merciless policies of the “free market.” Therefore, I do not see anyone for whom I would vote.

My vote is my sacred pact with my country and fellow-citizens. I cannot cast it knowing it is an act of compromise and appeasement toward an empire run amok with hubris and obscene avarice. I do not see any strategic percentage in choosing the “lesser of evils.” Evil is evil, and there is nothing religious or supernatural about it. I define evil as the will to consume and destroy; as a narcissistic callousness toward life and freedom, and kindness and innocence. I don’t care what mask it wears, nor do I feel inclined to compromise with it, cajole it, or try to work with it in the hope that I can change its essential nature.

I’m revolted. And I will revolt. If all citizens in this country only voted for candidates who represented their interests and their principles, scarcely more than ten percent of registered voters would show up at the polls. Boycotting the vote can be an effective strategy for bringing about revolutionary change, if it is followed up with strategic refusal to serve the aims of empire.

What would take the place of the present system? We cannot even begin to address that question until we understand that we have exercised our options for changing that system from within to no avail.

The decision concerning whether or not we have reached that point is highly personal and agonizing for any socially responsible human being. I have reached my decision. Axis readers with questions as to the validity of that decision, or the process by which I made it, are welcome to challenge or question me.

At this point, however, I have to say again:

I am revolted, and I will revolt!

axisoflogic.com

lurqer



To: American Spirit who wrote (41108)4/3/2004 11:59:10 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Bush Puts a 'Cancer on the Presidency'
__________________

Watergate insider calls this White House 'scary.'

By Robert Scheer
Columnist
The Los Angeles Times
March 30, 2004
latimes.com

"Worse Than Watergate," the title of a new book by John Dean, Richard Nixon's White House counsel, is a depressingly accurate measure of the chicanery of the Bush/Cheney cabal. According to Dean, who began his political life at the age of 29 as the Republican counsel on the House Judiciary Committee before being recruited by Nixon, "This administration is truly scary and, given the times we live in, frighteningly dangerous." And when it comes to lies and cover-up, the Bush crowd makes the Nixon administration look like amateurs. As Dean writes, they "have created the most secretive presidency of my lifetime … far worse than during Watergate."

Dean knows what he's talking about. He was the one who dared tell Nixon in 1973 that the web of lies surrounding the Watergate break-in of the Democratic Party headquarters had formed "a cancer on the presidency." When Dean went public about that conversation, the Nixon White House smeared him as a liar. Fortunately, the conversation had been taped, and Dean was vindicated.

The dark side of the current White House was on full display last week when top officials of the Bush administration took to the airwaves to destroy the credibility of a man who had honorably served presidents Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes.

The character assassination of Richard Clarke, the former White House anti-terrorism chief, was far more worrisome than Nixon's smears of Dean because it concerned not petty crime in pursuit of partisan political ambition but rather the attempt to deceive the nation and the world as to the causes of the 9/11 assault upon our national security — and to justify an unnecessary war in Iraq.

First, Bush's aides suggested that Clarke had invented the meeting in which Clarke said the president pressured him to find a link between the 9/11 attack and Iraq, ignoring Clarke's insistence that intelligence agencies had concluded that no such link existed. But on Sunday, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice was forced to admit that Bush had pressed Clarke on an Iraq connection. This backed up earlier assertions by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill as to Bush's obsession with Iraq from the very first days of his administration at the expense of focusing on Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

That the Bush lies didn't work this time may be because just too many veterans of the U.S. intelligence community are finding their voices and are willing to denounce an administration that has seriously undermined the nation's security.

They are speaking out, as 23 former CIA and other defense intelligence agents did in Robert Greenwald's devastating documentary, "Uncovered." They have stepped forward, as did David Kay, Bush's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq.

This is an administration that has been dominated by the neoconservative ideologues who condemned the logical restraint of the first Bush administration on foreign policy as a betrayal of the national interest.

These neocons have made a horrible mess of things, but that gives them no pause. They went to war with a nation that had no weapons of mass destruction and few connections to terrorism — but have coddled Pakistan, which sponsored the Taliban and Al Qaeda and which recently was revealed as the source of nuclear weapons technology for North Korea, Iran and Libya.

The president's team is wrong to believe its outrageous lies can continue to lull a gullible public. Nixon's lies won him a second election, but then he lost the country.

Bush smiles better than Nixon, but when the lies are exposed, the smile turns into a character-revealing smirk. That happened last week when the White House released photos of a skit, performed for the amusement of jaded media heavyweights, in which the president pretended to look under his desk for the missing weapons of mass destruction. This may have amused his cynical audience, but to the general public, the carefully lip-synced policy pronouncements of the man who cried wolf has morphed into a sick joke.



To: American Spirit who wrote (41108)4/3/2004 12:21:51 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Fundraisers Vow to Keep Kerry in Financial Race
_______________________

By Maria L. La Ganga
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 3, 2004

With a record-breaking period of fundraising behind them, Democrats on Friday expressed confidence they could collect enough money to remain financially competitive in this year's presidential race.

John F. Kerry, the party's presumptive presidential nominee, raised more than $50 million in the first three months of 2004, campaign officials said Friday.

He took in an estimated $38 million in March alone, they said. And of the total raised for the quarter, $26.7 million came from Internet donations.

All three figures are milestones for a non-incumbent candidate of any party, according to campaign finance experts.

The Kerry campaign believes it is on track to raise at least $80 million before he officially becomes the party's nominee at its convention in late July.

The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, will soon report that its first-quarter fundraising will exceed $27 million, topping its previous record of $26.9 million from 2000.

"People who haven't given before are willing to give for the first time, and people who have [given] are willing to give more," said DNC spokesman Jano Cabrera.

Republicans traditionally have a financial advantage over the Democrats, and that remains the case.

As of Friday, President Bush has raised more than $180 million — the most ever by a candidate for the White House. That total includes more than $50 million during 2004's first quarter, according to his campaign aides.

And the Republican National Committee raised more than $48 million during the year's first three months.

Still, the Kerry campaign and the DNC once expected to be lagging much further behind Bush and the RNC in contributions at this point in the campaign cycle.

Anthony Corrado, a professor of government at Colby College in Maine and an expert in campaign finance, said that despite Bush's huge campaign war chest, Kerry had established that he would be financially competitive.

"It's not the case that Bush's financial advantage is going to lock up the race," Corrado said.

He added that Kerry's first-quarter haul had set "a new standard for fundraising in the Democratic Party."

For Kerry, the fundraising results underscored his candidacy's turnaround. Just weeks before the Iowa caucuses kicked off the Democratic presidential race in mid-January, his candidacy seemed dead in the water.

But Kerry surged in the final days of the Iowa campaign and he won the caucuses. That gave him the momentum to score a string of primary and caucus victories, and he effectively wrapped up the nomination in early March.

Reflecting that success, his fundraising total for 2004's first quarter more than doubled the contributions he received during all of 2003.

Kerry campaign officials were practically giddy during a morning conference call with reporters Friday to discuss their first-quarter donations.

Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry's normally sober campaign manager, described the results as "the largest grass-roots uprising in the history of American organizing as measured by donations."

She insisted that Kerry does not need to match his Republican rival dollar-for-dollar to hold his own in the campaign.

"We're a viable and competitive campaign financially," Cahill said Friday. "We've always known we'll be outgunned by the Republican money machine…. We do not need to spend as much as the president does."

Democratic fundraisers credited an "anyone-but-Bush" sentiment for Kerry's record haul.

"You don't have the usual Democratic food-fight going on," said Kerry fundraiser John Coale, a Washington lawyer. "This is a party that wants to win."

Coale said Kerry was benefiting from his decision late last year not to accept federal campaign funds during the primary campaign. That would have limited the amount he could have raised up to the Democratic convention to about $45 million.

Kerry opted out of the public financing system in response to the decision by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean to do so. At the time, Dean was seen as the front-runner in the Democratic race.

"I don't think money will be a factor" in the campaign against Bush, Coale said. "It looked like it would be if Kerry hadn't opted out [of the federal program], but now there's enough money to match Bush effectively."

He added: "The Democrats have never matched the Republicans. And the Democrats won a lot of presidencies…. We have enough. We're getting enough to do the job."

According to one prominent Democratic party fundraiser, who spoke on condition of anonymity, the totals raised by Kerry and the DNC are "far more robust than anyone would have thought possible four weeks ago."

Despite such Democratic comments, Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt said the reelection campaign was confident that "we will have the resources and have a superior message to deliver to the American people."

On Friday, Bush attended a cocktail reception and dinner in Greensboro, Ga., to thank 550 volunteer fundraisers from around the country for their work

Kerry campaign officials said contributions via the Internet amounted to $2.6 million on March 4 alone, two days after Kerry virtually swept 10 nominating contests on March 2.

Dean, whose campaign last year became known for its effective use of the Internet to collect money, raised about $820,000 on his biggest day online.

The campaign is negotiating with Dean to use its donor database. Even without it, Kerry managed to bring in 245,000 individual online contributions during the quarter, aides said. The average online donation was $109.

The Kerry campaign will start a new fundraising effort this weekend, which will include a full-page ad in the New York Times on Sunday and Internet ads on various sites, said Michael Meehan, a senior campaign advisor.

Times staff writer Maura Reynolds contributed to this report.

latimes.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (41108)4/3/2004 1:44:54 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
<<...William Blaine Richardson will remain one of the names on the short list until Kerry announces his decision. Richardson's positives are powerful, his negatives not readily apparent. He brings much to the electoral dance. "It's a chess match at this point," says Bill Sisneros, the former chairman of the Santa Fe Democratic Party and an ardent supporter of the governor, "and Bill is one of the key players in the whole process."

Steve Jarding, a Democratic political strategist and current fellow at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, says no veep candidate can do for Kerry what Richardson can. "If a governor gives you the strength to take a state, that in and of itself is important," Jarding says. "But I think Bill Richardson reaches beyond the borders of New Mexico."

Jarding, who, among other accomplishments, managed the improbable gubernatorial victory of Democrat Mark Warner in solidly Republican Virginia in 2001, says Richardson can supply the three things any running mate must do for a presidential candidate. First of all, Jarding says, the vice presidential candidate must not hurt the nominee. Here, he says, Richardson is clean. Second, the VP choice must deliver his home state. There seems little doubt that even if he broke his promise to stay, Richardson would remain a wildly popular political figure in New Mexico. Although this state went for Democratic nominee Al Gore by the slimmest of margins in 2000, it seems likely that with a favorite son on the ticket, it would move much more decisively in favor of Kerry.

Third, Jarding says, a potential vice president should be able to help secure other states.

Here is where Richardson may hold a clear advantage. Were Kerry to ask and Richardson to accept, Richardson would become the first Hispanic vice presidential nominee in American history. While that would not automatically secure the loyalty of Latino voters nationwide, it could become a powerful magnet for a burgeoning voting bloc coveted by both major political parties. With Richardson on the ticket, key swing states such as Arizona, California, Nevada, Florida, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania could be in play for the Democrats. He is, potentially, a market mover...>>

alternet.org