The General and the Governor - Two Measures of American Desperation

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Enthusiastic support for front-running Democratic presidential contenders Wesley Clark and Howard Dean from liberals and some progressives reveals the dismal state of oppositional politics in America.

Decades of unremitting right wing assaults on every sphere of American life has so jerked the political landscape to the right, that instead of clamoring for sweeping or even revolutionary changes as in days long past, the main battle-cry coming from "the left" is "Anybody But Bush."

Long before the first primary, genuinely progressive platforms of Democratic candidates such as Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich have been deemed unrealistic and unworthy of consideration not only by the media, as can be expected, but by liberal activists and advocacy groups who often concede privately that they prefer a Kucinich, Sharpton or Ralph Nader.
http://www.counterpunch.org/sharma10152003.html

Hey I know a lot of you hate Counterpunch. But, there it is.

[sandnsea]

1. Lays it out fairly well

Except I disagree that they wouldn't be monumentally different than Bush. As much as I dislike Dean and think he would be more centrist than Clinton, that's still a VAST improvement over Bush. And Clark, who knows, I wish I did. But I've never understood an anti-war left that's for Dean instead of Kucinich. And I've never understood anybody who's for Clark instead of Kerry. Neither one of them were anti-war which is supposedly their selling point. This primary is going to be written up in political books for decades.

[AP]

2. The danger for any democrat who doesn't deal with the economy exactly righ

is that we'd go into a depression, a republicans would get elected in 2008, and that Republican would become their party's FDR. They'd repeal the amendment limiting terms, and we'd have 50 years of Republican presidents.

[Punkingal]

3. Puhlease.....

"50 years of Republican presidents." What a horrible thought! (Not that I am arguing with your logic...it is just such a horrible thought.)

[JohnKleeb]

4. I shall hope not 50 years of republican presidents

Youre probably wrong though AP, even with Mr. Roosevelt thank god for him we only ruled the white house for 20 years, even during the most powerful GOP days from the beginning of the civil war to Grover Cleveland's first election, those two combined werent even 50 and if thats the case then I am leaving the country I well could. I wish I had FDR in my lifetime.

[AP]

5. Well, if I were making a futuristic political-thriller movie, the plot....

...would be that the next dem president presides over a great depression, the media blames him, a Republican takes over, enacts the opposite of the New Deal (which is what they wanted back in the 1930. In the world they create, the right wing, and the media totally dominates the way people think. The Republicans install Libertarians as their opposition, displacing Democrats. Fast food and Espn (bread and circuses) keeps everyone too stupid to realize what's going on. We all turn into wage slaves. American civilization declines. the Canadians see their opening and invade from the north. The Bush twins and their families fuck off to the south of france. The end.

[JohnKleeb]

6. christ dont scare me AP

and you forgot I flee to another country preferably the Isle :).

[ModerateMiddle]

13. hahaha

<b>The end.</b>

Whether it is time to make any significant difference to the Shrub, the economy is showing signs of sputtering to life. One of the biggest choices that the Dems face in putting forth a candidate is whether we want one who will make drastic changes or necessary changes to our economic policy.

I believe that Gep's plan for health insurance is unrealistic. Of course, I also believe that both Dean and Gep have bad tax policy in mind. They both are lumping ALL of the tax cuts into something called "Bush's tax cuts" and calling them failed economic policy. I believe that one of the reasons that the economy IS sputtering back to life (and didn't remain in recession all that long, even if the jobs situation has sucked for 3 years) is because of the lower income level tax cuts. Those people DO spend their increased disposable income, unlike the wealthy, for whom it makes no difference on their actual lifestyle.

Gep would impact the economy with rolling back those "Dem tax cuts", as would Dean. Gep would do it not to pay down the debt (which has great appeal) but to insure most American's health. Unfortunately, as was displayed at the last debate, he was making assumptions about small businesses already insuring their employees, and Kerry recognized that this is not the case. Gep's plan is bold, but it's not realistic - in either passing, or working, IMO.

Dean wants to undo the tax cuts to help balance the budget. He says it is to pay for social programs, but with the extreme emphasis that Dean is placing on a balanced budget (and evidenced by his actions in Vermont with regard to balanced budgets and cut programs in order to do it), Dean will have to cut social spending, even with the repealed tax cuts (or sunsetted ones).

Edwards and Kerry recognize that the middle class tax cuts are what helped the economy in any way and possibly kept the economy (barely) afloat over these past couple of years. They will not drastically change the way the economy is working, because the tax cuts for the wealthy did little if anything to impact folk's behaviors. (The estate tax repeal might impact behavior, but according the wisdom of the R-planners - it will only be repealed for a SINGLE year - will we see an increase in suicide by the wealthy that year?

:eyes:

Dean claims that Kerry (and by default Edwards, but Dean doesn't openly attack any of Edwards' claims by name) cannot do what he says he will do if he doesn't repeal ALL of the tax cuts. Kerry says he can. It would be interesting to see their numbers and the underlying assumptions about the economy each is making, no? I wonder if that's possible.

[robbedvoter]

16. Good analysis but you left Clark out. He also would only cancel

the cuts for the very rich.

[AP]

19. The economy is sputtering because tax breaks and handouts to big

companies are helping them report higher profits without actually doing more business.

This sleight of hand will become apparent and it will collapse like a house of cards soon enough, but not until after the next election. If Bush is still president, the media will tell us shit is sugar and we'll all eat it and say yum. If it's a Democrat, he or she will be blamed for the worst economic Depression in the history of humanity.

[sandnsea]

15. We need policy

The problem with the Democratic Party right now is that we don't have a clear vision of economic and social policy with a clear goal and clear reasons why it will work. It just looks like an endless stream of programs and tax increases. We were going to solve crime through rehabilitation. When that didn't look like it was going to work, we got on board 3 strikes and more laws. So it ends up looking like Republicans were right all along. Same with welfare to work. So if what we have is confusing, it only makes sense that alot of people would just go for the simple plan. Keep their money and let the great American independent spirit work. We've really got to have somebody that clearly defines Democratic Party policies with solid evidence that those policies have always worked.

[AP]

20. reword work with wealth rather than wealth with wealth, and the idea

that we can over-burden the engine of economic growth -- the middle class -- are actually brilliant, concise, truthful epitomizations of complicated economic policy, and I find them more compelling this year than ever. The question is whether the whore media will ever give the person delivering this message a chance to get it across to the public before the primaries are decided.

[sandnsea]

23. That's true

But is that the platform of the Democratic Party or just one candidate? That's what I meant. And I love Edwards by the way. If we didn't have this pesky terrorism thing going on, I'd be solidly behind him.

[Upfront]

17. Who Can win

Howard will, Dennis can't. Try to face facts as they are not as you wish them.

[sandnsea]

18. So just compromise your principles

I thought Deanie's were tired of Democrats who compromise their principles. That's the part that makes no sense. Kucinich is a pure liberal and if Deanie's really wanted what Howard says he offers, they'd be going for Dennis. Howard is a compromising centrist. He governed that way, he says he governed from the center and was all about getting compromise. Everything he did in Vermont shows that's what he's about. It makes no sense to me go wild for a candidate who says he's all about taking back the Democratic Party when he never represented the Democratic Party in the first place.

[KaraokeKarlton]

7. Counterpunch is clueless

And out of touch with reality. When is everyone going to wake up and realize that it's not just "liberals" and "progressives" paying attention and getting involved? There is a whole new primary voting "base" this time around. In fact, there will be more primary voters this time than possibly ever before. It's NOT the "liberal base" anymore. It's the woken beast of past political apathy rising to reclaim the country. The "liberal base" isn't choosing the nominee this time and neither is the party leaders. This primary belongs to the people, ALL people, not just liberals and progressives. This is why no one can stop Howard Dean. This new base is motivated because of him and that's who most of them are going to vote for. Newbies to politics and activism don't typically get polled, either. When reality hits, those who oppose Dean are not going to know what hit them.

[w4rma]

8. I tend to agree.

I find Counterpunch divisive and reactionary. I find that Counterpunch tends away from convincing people that we are correct and towards kicking people out of the Democratic Party who we disagree with.

One aspect of Dean that I like is that he is explaining to folks what our situation is. He's bringing back some reality to Americans. Other candidates seem to be following Dean, rather than leading.

[Octafish]

9. You don't like it because it laid out the goods on Dean.

Strange. Counterpunch has done more to fight the BFEE than most other publications. For proof, try:

http://www.counterpunch.org/homeland1.html

It's a 7-part study of Who's Who in the BFEE, written a couple of months after 9-11 by an expert on the Phoenix Program.

If you want to know about how the ex-governor ex-doctor ex-stockbroker really thinks, check out:

Meet Howard Dean

The Man from Vermont is Not Green (He's Not Even a Liberal)

by MICHAEL COLBY

For Vermonters who have seen Howard Dean up close and personal for the last eleven years as our governor, there's something darkly comical about watching the national media refer to him as the "liberal" in the race for the Democratic nomination for president. With few exceptions in the 11-plus years he held the state's top job, Dean was a conservative Democrat at best. And many in Vermont, particularly environmentalists, see Dean as just another Republican in Democrat's clothing.

As the son of a wealthy Long Island family (his father was a prominent Wall Street insider), Dean's used to having his golden path well greased. After dutifully attending Yale and then medical school, Dean looked for a state to launch both a private medical practice and a political career. He chose Vermont as much for its beauty as its lenient mood toward carpet bagging politicians, thus joining Brooklynite Bernie Sanders as a born again Vermonter.

Dean became Vermont's accidental governor in 1991 after Governor Richard Snelling died of a heart attack while swimming in his pool. Dean, the lieutenant governor at the time, took the state's political reins and immediately followed through with his promise not to offend the Snelling Republicans who occupied the executive branch. And Dean carried on with his right-leaning centrism for the next eleven, long years.

With his sights now set on the White House, the Dean team has been doing its best over the last year to polish up a mediocre gubernatorial record. They're also trying to position Dean as "the liberal" in the Democratic field so as to grab the much-coveted early primary voters.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/colby02222003.html

[KaraokeKarlton]

10. Wrong, I don't like Counterpunch because

they make it a habit of lampooning Democrats with articles written by activists of other parties. Their bunk (and that's what it is) about Dean comes from the Vermont Progressive Party, who routinely attack good Democrats for their own selfish political gain. When you use Counterpunch against the democratic candidates (not just Dean, ANY of them) you are doing the exact same thing Nader and the Green Party did to Gore. We all know how that turned out, now don't we? Counterpunch is divisive, don't even bother to research these sources, give totally butchered and warped information and end up spreading lies and misinformation. THAT is why I have no use for Counterpunch. I take their crap about as seriously as I take Rush Limbaugh if that tells you anything. Garbage, plain and simple. I'd say the same thing if it were Kerry they were doing this to, despite the fact that I can't stand him, either.

[dsc]

25. No it is that they don't like Democrats

Here is their take on Kerry.


(Nine Reasons for Nader
... mimic the few cosponsors of Feingold's bill to slap a moratorium on the federal death penalty. And where were those supposed liberals like Kennedy, Kerry, Bayh, Feinstein, Schumer, Torricelli, Levin, Durbin, Reid, Reed, Sarbanes? We need the Democrats to recapture Congress? Here's another number: nineteen ...
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader.html 01/17/03, 10212 bytes







Anis Shivani: The Fading Democratic Delusion
... reaches a point of complete irrelevancy. This book's message should go out the door, along with discredited Daschle, Gephardt, Edwards, Lieberman, Kerry, Gore, and the party's entire "centrist" wing. It is as irrelevant as Terry McAuliffe's chairmanship of the party, and Clinton's appearances ...
http://www.counterpunch.org/shivani1114.html 01/17/03, 62873 bytes



Alan Maass: The Real Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.
... the same sense of consciousness, the same guts, the same determination, and the same impatience to change America for the better," Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), an early favorite of many liberals for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, said of King. This from a man who voted for Bush's war ...
http://www.counterpunch.org/maass02212003.html 03/02/03, 24326 bytes


ANd this doesn't include the open letter they published. This is a magaizine which hates Dems which is why I don't like it.

[Meshuga]

11. immedeatism is the problem here...

Our current front runners offer a gradual change while people want immediate results.

I'm a liberal who concedes that I would like a candidate like Kucinich winning the election. But we need to nominate someone who is electable against Bush and the changes these candidates have to offer, in my opinion, is a baby step towards the radical changes we need and it's good enough for now. First we need to get rid of Bush and get the country going in the right direction again. From there we can demand more changes.

Immediatism caused Nader to take a lot of votes away from Gore. See where we stand now? We regressed. We need to get back in the right direction.

[OKNancy]

12. Counterpunch hates all Democrats

They hate Gore, Clinton, Dean, Clark or anyone with a chance to win. Organs like Counterpunch are the reason progressives aren't taken seriously.

They just sit there and spew. The real world of politics doesn't phase them.

[robbedvoter]

14. I agree. Their goal is vote supression - same as the right wing

That's why you'll see many websites where their stuff is mixed in with wingnut stuff (on the anti-Clinton ones - Ken Starr et al).
They mau dislike bush, but they secretly want him there - he's good for business - theirs. Forever protesting - in 2005 when a Dem is in power watch for Counterpunch to rip him apart!

[AP]

21. You think people who would take the time to read Counterpunch

wouldn't take the time to vote???

Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood suppress voting. Counterpunch doesn't.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. Yeah, it makes no sense to stick our heads in the sand

[dsc]

27. Not total votes maybe

but they do supress our vote and do so on purpose. They aren't Democrats and they make no bones about it.

[killbotfactory]

24. Where else can you find choice quotes like this:

"It's hard to imagine that either Dean or Clark would be monumentally different than George W. Bush. Perhaps they would. However, its clear our struggles must continue well beyond the 2004 elections. The Democrats may save us from Bush, but with the likes of Governor Dean and General Clark leading the oppositional pack-its apparent the Democrats won't be able to save us from themselves."

CounterPunch: The choice of the angry kook generation.

[carpetbagger]

26. Dean and Clark not different than Bush? What a joke.

Methinks Counterpunch prefers we be the opposition party.

Methinks the republicans would make a fine opposition party.