Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Check out Chomsky's blog for his position re: this election

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:06 AM
Original message
Check out Chomsky's blog for his position re: this election
http://blog.zmag.org/ttt/

There are also tactical questions. Those who prefer to ignore the real world are also undermining any hope of reaching any popular constituency. Few are likely to pay attention to someone who approaches them by saying, loud and clear: "I don't care whether you have a slightly better chance to receive health care or to support your elderly mother; or whether there will be a physical environment in which your children might have a decent life; or a world in which children may escape destruction as a result of the violence that is inspired by the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Cheney-etc. crowd, which could become extreme; and on, and on. Repeat: "slightly better." That matters to sensible people, surely the great mass of people who are the potential victims. So those who prefer to ignore the real world are also saying: "please ignore me." And they will achieve that result.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. I guess now some people will say Chomsky is a tool of Corporate America
That will be amusing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Actually
You're right! Chomsky is a tool for corporate America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDStutts Donating Member (62 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I didn't get that at all.
Chomsky seems to be saying that the left wing of the party should march in lockstep with Kerry. Sorry I'm not so sure anymore. Kerry is better than B*sh, but is he the best we can do? Kerry voted for the war in Iraq...He says he was mislead, but it is his job as a Senator to think for himself. If Kerry picks a strong antiwar running-mate, Dean I hope, I will vote for Kerry...but if Kerry picks a business as usual(big oil profits for war)VP, I've had it. I'll vote for Nader and a pox on the Demican party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yes that's what he said
"march in lockstep with Kerry".... yep that's what he said. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
15. I just love the words "seems to be saying"
It allows one to say almost anything about someone else
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomKoolzip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #4
19. Isn't everyone tired of "march in lockstep" by now?
Jesus, can't we think of a different word-phrase, PLEASE?! Me and a lot of others are REALLY FUCKING tired of reading that. It's meaningless and stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yep
I don't trust Kerry BUT I don't think that Kerry would not be SO bad, if there is enough pressure on him...but I don't see that pressure. I think that there needs to LOTS of pressure to force him left and anti-war. I don't see it (and I think that the ABB, Unity stuff is a bunch of propaganda to shut people up and keep people from being demanding and insistent).

The thing with Kerry is he's NEVER going to be able to do it all on his own -- only through extreme pressure. Basically, he needs all the pressure he can get...but that means everyone has to be very demanding and obstinate. This Unity stuff, and ABB stuff just won't cut it.

Kerry needs to be forced to represent the people (and not corporations). Kerry especially needs to be pushed to oppose the war. Right now, the Dem party has become basically what the Repub was under Bush Senior. No one notices, cuz Shrub is so bad. But, if the Dems move more and more right -- than, it just justifies the right moving more and more right. It's about that bad. So, It's necessary to either reign the Dem candidates back in, or to blow open the stagnant two party system that are cooperatively serving corporate interests.

I like Kucinich, myself, and I hope he can be part of that pressure and forces Kerry to do right. Nader is a big help for Dems, despite the blame and fury, because he is literally there as an anchor to keep the dems honest and as much to the left as possible. If kerry is wise, he can use Nader and the nader constituency to justify the need to balance his agenda to the left, and to oppose the war and have an exit strategy. If kerry is not wise, than there is a legitimate and urgent to bail the Kerry ship, and it'll be lucky that Nader is in the race. Local and house seats will be most important -- even if a broken bush then ends up in office, he can be dealt with and brought to justice (impeached) accordingly.

(By the way -- I also do think that Kerry is pretty much allied with Bush on "big" issues (IWR, Patriot Act, Fast Track, Chavez)..this is why I don't trust him. BUT -- if he's under pressure and under scrutiny, he's not going to be able to get away with this stuff.)

I don't like Chomsky, and I don't think he's on the up and up. So, yes...I really DO think he is a corporate tool, in a strange way. But, that's a very long and complicated discussion all on its own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kodi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. did he really, or is that merely your projection?
chomsky punched nadir right in the heart with his post, and made clear that the perfectionism of ideologues is oft times so perfect that they accomplish nothing at all but that the greater evil prevails.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Put it on pause
Kerry did not "vote for the war in Iraq".

Kerry voted for the UN to do its job. And use force with a multinational force AS a last resort.

Saying Kerry voted "for the war" is like painting a picture of a scene where there is a barn and a field and you don't bother putting the barn in the painting. You'd call it a painting of a field.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDStutts Donating Member (62 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Maybe I'm thinking of another vote.
The vote I'm thinking of gave B*sh all the cover he needed to invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people. What exactly are you trying to condone?

Looks like you and Kerry were fooled by spin. I was not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. "gave B*sh all the cover he needed to invade Iraq "????
Have you been watching the news at all lately?

It doesn't look like Bush* has been inoculated against criticism for his Iraq invasion. The media is all over the Clarke story, and Bush*'s numbers are going down on a daily basis.

If IWR is "cover", then good for the Dems because that "cover" ain't worth crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. ?
Chomsky seems to be saying that the left wing of the party should march in lockstep with Kerry.

Where does he seem to be saying that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #3
20. I think he just said hold your nose and vote against bush, actually
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #20
30. Sorry my friend, I think the point is FAR more salient and is
EXACTLY the point I made

Here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=400199

and here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=370031

and just what is there to hold your nose for in this statement?

Few are likely to pay attention to someone who approaches them by saying, loud and clear: "I don't care whether you have a slightly better chance to receive health care or to support your elderly mother; or whether there will be a physical environment in which your children might have a decent life; or a world in which children may escape destruction as a result of the violence that is inspired by the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Cheney-etc. crowd, which could become extreme; and on, and on. Repeat: "slightly better."

You can claim "slightly better" saves him with his faithful, but Chomsky is LIKEWISE acknowledging that the results of those who would criticize this manner of voting are FAR LESS and even LAUGHABLE compared to the alternative
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #20
57. I think his blog proves Chomsky is sane.
He actually wants US rescued from a fascist dictatorial take-over. What a concept! Wish his (former?)devotees could get a similar clue. I say "former", cause if you don't move "in lock step" with the far left mantra it seems you instantly become persona non grata. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 06:19 AM
Response to Original message
9. Chomsky is ignorant
Chomsky is ignorant about the mass of people and their motivations. His rant is so bourgeouis and demeaning. Chomsky talks about the "mass of people" like they are some all-the-same homogenous group of victimhood and low expectations. What the hell does he know of the masses?

When you grow up poor, or in a bad situation -- the "slightly better" risks like he describes are slightly nothing. He gives health care as an example of that "slightly better" -- but the democrats won't give a shit about you if you're poor either. Hell, I couldn't get any fucking health insurance under DEMOCRATIC rule. Chomsky's mass of people are upper and middle middle class!

If you grow up when things are bad -- things suck so bad, that it doesn't really matter if some upper middle class people have some extra perks in their life, when you don't get ANYTHING.

You learn its better to take serious gambles and risks in life, than to live half-assed. And if you are smart enough to not be so "sensible" (like Chomsky thinks that folks OUGHT to be) -- you can act like a fool and talk back, speak out, make loud and serious demands, show foolish courage and determination -- instead of cowering and begging for crumbs your whole life. Then, you're getting somewhere...(and at least then if you are getting screwed, at least you are not being USED on top).

Chomsky wants to fantasize that the "mass of the people" can be some hapless little pawn-victims to be manipulated on some chessboard of systemic hopelessness. Chomsky is a firm believer in systemic hopelessness and perpetual powerless victims of circumstance. And whats laughable is that chomsky's view of the mass of people IS an "abstract discussions suitable to some seminar."

Chomsky is really just bought into the mainstream media and should get a grasp on how they manipulate language in order to determine public opinion and imagination for their own corporate/imperialist ends. Chomsky's real world is real middle/upper class intellectual ivy league world of pedantism, NOT any real world I've lived in. In "REAL"ITY -- people aren't so HOPELESSLY beholden to the prisons of chomsky's worldview of: language, media, thought, politics.

But, I guess Chomsky likes to look down on people.

Chomsky knows full well that demands can still be made, that the "mass of people" are powerful (not small and weak)...he is disingenous in the extreme to call for Unity when it's precisely premature Unity which will stifle progress. People are full of courage and intelligence -- people aren't so stupid to take the not at all acceptable "slightly better" bait only to wind up caught in the same trap in the end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vladimir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. No, Chomsky knows where its at
From the same post:

Activist movements, if at all serious, pay virtually no attention to which faction of the business party is in office, but continue with their daily work, from which elections are a diversion -- which we cannot ignore, any more than we can ignore the sun rising; they exist.

Chomsky does not pretend about the value of 'slightly better', any more than he is calling for unconditional unity. His argument is simply that every 4 years, you vote for the less bad option. And perception matters, so even if you believe that there is no difference between the two main parties, a lot of other people disagree. So to make any progress in getting them to pay attention to your agenda, you pay attention to theirs. If it truly doesn't matter who is in power to you, then help elect Kerry. By your own logic, nothing has changed, except that a fair few people who believe that there is a difference will now be a lot more willing to listen to your arguments and not dismiss you as the fringe.

Note that Chomsky makes no plea to you other than at the balott box. In fact, I suspect he would urge you to be as angry and brave as possible between elections. Now of course, if you are in a totally solid Republican state, even election time doesn't matter one bit. If not though, there is a real decision here.

As I have said many times before, I have a lot of sympathy with people too disillusioned to vote tactically anymore. But at the same time, there is no point calling Chomsky names - if his goal os to further middle class interests, then I am the Duke of Wellington.

V
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Chomsky Knows How to Discourage the Left
Help elect Kerry? A
First, Chomsky has no REAL aim or intent is is to further middle class interests. I was explaining that the Democratic Party has no interest in the lower or lower middle classes. I don't think that upper middle class interests should be more important than the interests of the poor, who are much more in need of everything than the middle class. Also, as of this moment, the war is the top priority -- and Kerry is not opposing the war. If Kerry can't get us out of the war, I'm not voting for him. He needs to get us out of the war. Because everyone is so "unified" he feels no pressure to get out of the war, so he won't (because Kerry is also controlled by corporate interests).

As for Chomsky, I disagree with Chomsky on many matters. I think his analysis is suspicious, to say the least. Where is the guy coming from? I question his real motivations, and his real attitudes concerning imperialism. Chomsky generally tends to argue that problems being "systemic" (part of systems, not due to actual individuals or networks) inevitable, and out of control.

Chomsky's ideas misguide the left into learned helplessness, and into the belief that it monolithic abstract systems (like the "media" or even "language"), and not actual individuals (like Rupert Murdoch) and networks of individuals have and use power. This is to lure people into a sort of learned helplessness, where no one is held accountable because it is the system to blame (and we can't blame individuals because they are just a cogs in the system, veritable victims of society). But, its alot harder to hold an abstract system accountable, than individuals. He is preaching, in effect, that we should continue to be in a state of learned helplessness, products of these systems that have a stranglehold on our political structure and beliefs.

He should know better. Throughout history, progress is made when people get together and oppose their oppressors and demand change -- often, radical change. Funny how Chomsky ALWAYS seems to leave this stuff out of his anaylsis. He likes to blame "systems" for the problems, so that the problems seem irrevocable and naturally occuring. It's a "cute" way of trying to place the blame onto some abstract entity -- instead of the actual, real life individuals responsible for the suffering, poverty, environmental destruction and problems of the world. It basically amounts to taking personally responsiblity out of the hands of those who are personally responsible (people like the Bushes, Cheneys, Clintons, and yes, Kerry and Theresan Heinz)and making them almost into "victims" of the "system", instead of responsible adults who should not engage in wrongdoing, injustice, and unethical behavior.

In effect, now everyone expects the worse of the government, and I have to think that Chomsky has something to do with this. I believe systems are mutable, but only if individuals are taken to task, held accountable, and if people expect the best (and not the worse), from their government. We can't think in terms of systems, while ignoring the actual individuals responsible for the systems and the perpetuation of the systems. There needs to be accountability from individuals especially politicians.

You state:
"And perception matters, so even if you believe that there is no difference between the two main parties, a lot of other people disagree. So to make any progress in getting them to pay attention to your agenda, you pay attention to theirs"

By your very argumentation, you can see the reason why someone would want to "waste" a vote on a third party, can't you? For instance, I don't think that Kerry is paying ANY attention to any part of the agenda I, as a voter, would like to see addressed. In fact, I really think alot of his agenda is terrible. AS for the democrats? Increasingly, any of my concerns as a voter ARE made to be "perceived" as fringe. Voters like me ARE marginalized. The democratic party keeps doing this -- claiming they might address the agendas, but just becoming more and more right-wing. It never ends. And if people dont' draw the line, it never WILL end. Who is paying attention to Kucinich, for instance? He's been totally marginalized. Sorry, but I'm not going to buy into any "one-way" compromise, where I get the raw end of the deal. That's not how "compromise" works. Kerry's not going to get votes that he won't give anything for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zomby Woof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #14
25. discourage the left??
Edited on Fri Mar-26-04 11:04 AM by ZombyWoof
Um, if I hadn't started reading him nearly 20 years ago, I may have never woken up to the extent that I have, and become an activist. I first took on my congresspersons over apartheid and the ME because of what I learned from reading him. I did my homework to verify his sources, because I am an inveterate skeptic. It was well worth it. He may be a book-bound, lecture-circuit academic bourgeois bore to some, but he is an activist, and at his core, an optimist. He encourages me when I read him, understands the media-government dynamic between language and thought control like no one since Orwell, and although 'worship' is too strong of a word, I do admire him. If one compares his works to the allegedly intellectual rightists Buckley or Sowell, the evidence is quite damning that Chomsky's progressive global/language/power frame of reference runs rings around the right.

He gave me the courage to be a lefty at a time and place very unwelcome to original, progressive thought.

Discourage! You have some kind of ax with academia to grind that goes beyond Chomsky. You protesteth too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #25
39. Discourage the Left
PART I: CHOMSKY

I never needed Chomsky to teach me anything about the media-government dynamic. I figured it out on my own -- so i don't think anyone actually NEEDS Chomsky to really point things out. There are lots of smart people figuring out things all the time, and often with better analysis. Chomsky, I feel, is disinformative on class, gender and power issues. Almost any feminist would have just as fine (if not a better) concept of these sorts of issues and their implications than Chomsky. But, Chomsky has alot of hype around him. Again, why is that? Who is letting that happen?

If Chomsky is so irritating to Buckley, by the way, why does Chomsky go ahead and basically endorse Buckley's Bonesbrother? What's that about? Kerry has done nothing close to denouncing Skull and Bones, and it's just not okay for him to be in this sort of elite, secretive organization based on Aristocratic power and control.

Shouldn't Chomsky be concerned about the Aristocratic skull and bones "system" and what that entails? That is a social network with political/business allegiances -- and it is a concern, especially because it is secret and involves both Bush and Kerry (as well as prominent members in the media, that you learned so much about from Chomksy, for instance).

No, Chomsky isn't adding up.


PART II: ACADEMIA

Ax with Academia? Actually I do have an axes with academia. Can't go into all of them, for they are many. But, none of them are personal in any way you might think (I'm no grad student or grad student wannabe, if thats what you are thinking). But here are my general complaints:

Academia is a way to reward conformity, pretty much. Academia is a way to "filter" out, monitor, and preoccupy individuals from getting things done:

First, Academia filters out those who are not compulsive specialists (although this may be changing nowadays to a certain degree).

Academia monitors academics, as many Universities have CIA student investigators and other members on their campuses (another form of filtering/monitoring). Published work is used as intelligence gathering.

Academia provides government funded R&D to the military, pharmaceutical industries, and other industries through taxpayer expense.

Academia can make academics feel superior to others, because its rewards are based on a grading/testing system that is concerned with rewarding conformist behaviors and beliefs. Academics than might think themselves superior to others, especially those without an academic background.

Academia can distract otherwise activist thinkers from activist work by preoccupying them with specialized intellectual labor.

Think of it this way: Academia turns otherwise intelligent and curious people from comprehensivists to specialists. This is an intellectual form of division of labor, so that everyone is generally kind of kept stupid, except in a very specific field. It's sort of like educating people to be intellectual idiot-savants.

Academia is hierarchical and does not accurately represents the demographics of this country. Women, Minorities, GLBT, and others who are poorly represented or who haven't the tenure that white males do. This makes academis extremely suspect to me. Academia tends to be patriarchical because of this.

Academia is inherently classist -- the priveleged tend to have more access, and those from poverty or lower classes are generally left out of the academic discussions.

No, I don't think all academics are bad or inefficient or anything like that. Yes, I do think that the system is meant to keep minds busy and preoccupied from politics/activism. Yes, I think that the educational system should and could be structured in a far better way.

In factories, they divvy up the labor -- each person doing one little specific thing -- this way, no one worker can know how the whole thing operates, so they cannot compete against their bosses by replicating the factory (or whatever). In the past, people were apprenticed, and they would learn a skill in its totality. They would be indentured for a while, of course...but in the end, they'd be a craftsman. They stopped letting people apprentice, to keep people stupid. That is also what Academia is doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vladimir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #14
36. I disagree entirely
First of all, Chomsky is telling you to be an activist and scream all you like. All he asks is that you vote Bush out. Secondly, your argument about third parties is fair but in my opinion misguided. If Bush wins, the lesson the Democratic Party will take is that it has to move further to the right, not further to the left. Analyse any election in Europe and/or the US and you will see that when the left loses to the right in what are seen as landmark elections the 'left-wing' party inevitably moves to the right. So this is also important.

As for systemic - again I see your point. But unless you want a revolution, both the problems and solutions are going to be systemic. Activism is incredibly important but its no good to shout into an empty room - the government having its hearing aid switched to 1 instead of 'off' is a help even if not much.

Finally, I ain't gonna read Chomsky's mind. From everything I have read of him, I think he has been one of the few willing to honestly and consistently fight for the interests of the third world and by implication working classes everywhere. He has also consistently blamed individuals where they deserve it, for example in:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/voices/story/0,12820,1168160,00.html

but its also true that to blame individuals too much is to neglect the system. This is precisely why I have always argued that while getting Bush out is important, that is only the beginning. One needs to adress both the individual and the systemic, to leave either out is to fail. You cannot separate form and content like that.

V
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #36
77. Just more thoughts...
The Democrats are smart enough to know that there are enough alienated left-voters out there who are on the left...they chose to ignore these voters, though, because they have corporate friends who are more near and dear to them. It's not because they are analyzing the elections all wrong. EGADS! They never even got around to taking care of the purged voters in Florida by 2002. That tells what sort of priorities the Dems have.

Revolution? Yeah -- I hope that there is a revolution, at the ballot box! I'm not promoting anything too radical, really. Bush? Well, if he sneaks in, he's got to be impeached. If enough folks (dems, greens, indepedents, other like-minded folks) get enough momentum, than Bush WILL be out, but if not enough Dems will be in office to eventually kick that guy out with a good old fat impeachement.

Of course I think changing systems is essential, I just don't think its smart to get lost in the analysis and forget that changing systems involves challenging individuals and their ethics.

As I said, I just think that the Left could use some good honest debate about Chomsky, because I think he misses alot of things. I think that there needs to be some out of the box, creative, expansive thinking and strategy.

Momentum is a very powerful thing, and is a fine thing to have as political repetoire. That is something that used to work, and should work now. The Repubs use it all the time on talk Radio -- Now, I don't want THAT kind of momentum based in soundbites and faulty logic and hate filled, narrowmindedness, of course -- but what I WOULD like to see a "thoughtful, lively, engaging political discourse and serious discussion and activism" kind of momentum build in this country. This is why I think 3rd parties are absolutely essential. It creates dynamic discussion/education/activism/interest/urgency, and that's a big part of my chosen tactic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vladimir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. Fair enough
Edited on Fri Mar-26-04 01:39 PM by Vladimir
Just two things:

1) If Bush gets reelected... a republican congress will never impeach him. And I really doubt that the Dems would recover for 2006, or even have the guts to impeach him themselves. If * returns after the last 4 years, the left may never psychologically recover.

2) I agree entirely about the importance of 3rd parties - I am a socialist after all. But timing is everything - there are times to fight and times to compromise.

V
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #78
80. Fair Enough
I'd just like to add, that I think that 2006, the Dems can recover(with or w/o Bush). What is needed is some brilliant, long-range strategies based in respect. The right strategy/education/outrage could make all the difference in the world.

One thing I think is VERY important is media education (which includes DIY media production as well as media analysis and propaganda awareness...especially education on following money trails and boards of organizations) -- this is something I think young people nowadays are already alot smarter at then GenXers like myself, but I really feel this is crucial. Media monopolies and saavy propaganda are really the greatest obstacle.

I have faith that there really are alot of people out there who just don't have good access to know how to vote/register/gather information/follow the money. This could be remedied. I think the internet is important, but so are things like literacy, breaking down the digital divide, creating independent media, and real-life outreach. It's all quite possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #12
34. Best. Post. Ever.
Activist movements, if at all serious, pay virtually no attention to which faction of the business party is in office, but continue with their daily work, from which elections are a diversion -- which we cannot ignore, any more than we can ignore the sun rising; they exist.

This should be required reading, at least ten times per day, for the overwhelming majority of people on these boards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #34
108. Interesting how some will quote Chomsky on the need to vote...
...yet ignore him when he accurately describes the fact that corporations control both parties.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Wish I'd said that! I'm a DK Democrat who is befuddled by
the worshipful masses of Chomskyites on this side of the political fence.

We pick upon Kerry for being "elitist" yet worship Chomsky, who has done NOTHING demonstrable for the lower classes and seems to have no intention of ever doing so.

Chomsky is really just bought into the mainstream media and should get a grasp on how they manipulate language in order to determine public opinion and imagination for their own corporate/imperialist ends.

You are so damn right, WW. The man is a brilliant linguist, but there is a world beyond acadamia of which he is completely unaware.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. You're the one being unaware -- see my post #17, below. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. Unawareness?
Please see my post #23, below.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KC21304 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #9
31. I guess we learn something every day.
I didn't know there was any room to the left of Chomsky.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #31
81. : ) Politics is at least 3D
Its so easy to think of politics in a line, but politics is at least 3D.

In actuality, it's more complex...but that's too complex to think about now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #81
101. Thought is 3 dimensional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 06:43 AM
Response to Original message
11. Yikes! Check out
the comments section before they closed it -- start from the bottom if you want to get right into the thick of the LGF monkey invasion:

http://blog.zmag.org/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=17
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #11
104. I had to WADE through the thread to get to this..YIKES is right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
17. Those railing against Kerry are betraying the "margins of society"
There was a letter written to The Nation recently after the passing of Sen. Paul Simon of IL, by a former aide of his. In the letter, the aide describes driving through Washington late one evening with the Senator, when they passed a homeless man sleeping on the street.

Sen. Simon's face turned into a frown, and he pointed at the homeless man and said angrily, "THAT will always be the legacy of the Reagan administration."

I can think of no other story that better demonstrates the very REAL and MEANINGFUL differences for those dwelling on the "margins of society" between two candidates like Bush and Kerry this year. Chomsky obviously recognizes this in this instance too -- even though those differences will be seen as slight for those of us lucky enough to NOT be on the margins.

The thing that completely blows me away are those who simultaneously chide Chomsky for being a bourgoise academic, completely out of touch with the REAL needs of the least in society -- while they go about advocating the same kind of political miscalculations that will actually bring this plague down upon those on whose behalf they claim to advocate. I mean, it's almost Orwellian!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. "I mean, it's almost Orwellian!"
It is, isn't it? You couldn't write stuff this good, though. Not even Orwell.

"Those railing against Kerry are betraying the "margins of society"" -- I agree completely. I just hope that pointing out differences between Kucinich and Kerry isn't considered 'railing' against Kerry.

Is it just me? Or is all this anti-leftist rhetoric lately a solution with no problem?

There are hardly any Naderites on this board. Judging by empirical evidence there aren't many in the country! I don't see any more "KERRY IS IN A SECRET CLUB AND IS CONSPIRING TO HELP BLAH BLAH BLAH" rants anymore.

What is it that all these nefarious anti-war lefties (or whatever other kind of lefty it is that's on the barbie today) are doing, exactly, that so many are so upset about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. redqueen, I think you're missing a vital piece of Chomsky's argument
I just hope that pointing out differences between Kucinich and Kerry isn't considered 'railing' against Kerry.

I would direct you to Vladmir's post #12, above. I'll repeat the quote from Chomsky here in order to emphasize its importance.

Activist movements, if at all serious, pay virtually no attention to which faction of the business party is in office, but continue with their daily work, from which elections are a diversion -- which we cannot ignore, any more than we can ignore the sun rising; they exist.

Read it a few times over until it fully sinks in.

The problem is, and I touched on this on another thread with my "cult of personality" comment, that you are ending up focusing more on this one political campaign than you are actually focusing on the issues. It's a very easy trap to fall into, what I commonly refer to as the "savior complex". It happens when a person with some kind of stature, leadership potential or visibility shows up and takes up the issue(s) you care passionately about.

The danger in this occurring is that you can end up working more to advance that PERSON as a spokesperson than the energy you actually devote to advancing the ISSUE. In the result, the entire argument becomes more about that one person than the issues at hand -- and can, ultimately, end up HURTING your efforts for the original issue-oriented advocacy.

Sadly, from my perspective as someone who supported and voted for DK, I see this happening too much WRT his campaign. I am not suggesting that I regret my vote, or that people who want to vote for him in remaining primaries should not do so. What I am saying is that we all need to keep perspective on what attracted us to his campaign in the first place, and it was those ISSUES that he was talking about.

Now it's up to all of us to keep talking about those ISSUES. I don't give a shit about the media. Where this quest will be realized is through the grassroots. If you can talk up the issues he champions WITHOUT mentioning him by name to a "regular Democrat" while at the same time enthusastically stating your intention of supporting Kerry in the GE, you probably have a GREATER chance of getting them to support your issues than if you continue to make it about "Dennis, Dennis, Dennis".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #26
40. Grassroots
That's my whole problem IC -- this isn't about "Dennis Dennis Dennis" -- this is about his grassroots supporters -- some of whom are possibly insulted about the way this uninvitation was handled. Maybe enough to turn them back toward third parties or whatever in the GE. How smart is that?

Not only is there this glaring disconnect as to what 'support' means to the DNC (lieberman there, not Kooch - um, ok?)... but we have this other disconnect re: what actually took place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #40
46. In the words of Ronnie Raygun, "There you go again..."
That's my whole problem IC -- this isn't about "Dennis Dennis Dennis" -- this is about his grassroots supporters -- some of whom are possibly insulted about the way this uninvitation was handled.

So, now his grassroots supporters are more concerned with the stroking of Dennis's ego than the very important issues he raised? Thanks for making my point re: cult of personality.

Maybe enough to turn them back toward third parties or whatever in the GE. How smart is that?

If those supporters are willing to bolt 3rd party over something as trivial as this, in comparison to the bigger issues at play, then they are the ones rendering themselves irrelevant.

Not only is there this glaring disconnect as to what 'support' means to the DNC (lieberman there, not Kooch - um, ok?)... but we have this other disconnect re: what actually took place.

The DNC is free to do what they wish. Did you ever expect them to be an asset toward getting these issues raised? Once again, I ask you where the real emphasis should be -- on the DNC/Dennis/elections, or on the issues?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #46
52. Issues, of course
However, as long as we have party politicos ensuring that the issues are never mentioned, and the candidates (and their supporters) who mention the issues badmouthed or worse, then we should just be prepared for another squeaker I guess.

Did Kerry mention BBV at the unity dinner, btw? Did anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. Party politicos at fundraisers have nothing to do with issues!
If you're truly concerned about issues, who the f*** cares about what some party politicos do at a fundraiser? I don't EXPECT them to speak out, so I'm not disappointed with they DON'T.

I also realize that no change has eventually occurred in society without endless agitation from "below" -- and that this state of affairs has not changed one iota over time. By expecting politicians, who are by-and-large agents of the status quo, to pick up the slack for the rest of us is an exercise in futility. I'm not going to waste my time nor energy in doing so.

If you want to continue to do so, that's your choice. Just don't expect me to go along with it, or to endorse it to others. Rather, I will oppose it at every opportunity, because it is a waste of valuable energy and resources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #54
59. *sigh*
I'm not concerned with what the politicos can do for us on the issues.

I'm concerned with how many leftist votes they can chase away between now and November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #59
62. sigh, yourself
I'm concerned with how many leftist votes they can chase away between now and November.

Even many of the most committed leftists can at least see the need to evict the current band of squatters from the WH. Any that cannot are simply rendering themselves irrelevant, for they actually only serve to REDUCE any sort of support for their causes.

Even Noam Chomsky and Michael Parenti recognize this. Surely you aren't going to tell me that they are anywhere close to the "mainstream" or are somehow "misinformed"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. I'm not saying *I* dont' see the need to evict the usurper
I'm saying we should be concerned about *others* who may not see this. Who *are not* seeing this.

As I told sangh0 above, maybe this is just because I'm in Texas. Maybe the swing state Dems will stay onboard and there won't be a problem.

Hell of a gamble, though, if you ask me. Especially over something so trivial. This will be an interesting seven months, no doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. But what you are doing right now is *gambling*, redqueen
I'm saying we should be concerned about *others* who may not see this. Who *are not* seeing this.

Each and every time you dip into the realm of "Kerry isn't honest," or "Kerry won't make any kind of significant change," in making your case for DK, you ARE gambling on driving away people who are *not* seeing the need to evict the usurper.

You're simply reinforcing the notion among certain segments on the left that, since there's no difference between the parties, then they should just vote third party.

When you say things on DU, you are potentially saying them to a wide audience. As such, it is important to realize the possible EFFECTS of what you say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #67
71. Am I?
I don't recall saying any of those things. At least not recently, since Kerry's had it locked up.

I understand your point, though. Which is why I didn't bring up the militarisation thing. :think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #71
103. Yes you are, and that denial was very disingenous
Edited on Fri Mar-26-04 05:33 PM by sangh0
I don't recall saying any of those things. At least not recently, since Kerry's had it locked up.

Now read your post at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1291867#1294710

and tell us again about how you haven't said those things Kerry locked up the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vladimir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #26
42. Yes, yes and yes again
the issues are what matters. The personalities are there to win the votes because that is how things work. But when we as activists start focusing more on the personalities than on the issues, we've lost the plot.

V
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #42
53. "We as activists"
I'm not an activist on this board. Nobody here needs converting. AFAIK everyone is voting dem, so ... ?

On this board, I'm just another Dem. As a Dem, I'm *extremely concerned* about this election being close enough to steal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. Then get out there and do something for the nominee!!!
If you think it will be a squeaker, then do what you can to ensure that it WON'T be. That means actually volunteering your efforts for John Kerry at this point in the game, NOT Dennis Kucinich. If you're worried about it being "close enough to steal", then do what you can to make the margin in your area large enough that it CAN'T be stolen!

Just because you are then working for John Kerry also does not mean that you cannot advocate for the issues of Dennis Kucinich at the same time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. I'm in Texas, IC
Do you really think I should go out there and shake the trees for Kerry votes? Do you think that would be anything more than an exercise in futility?

A margin in my area that can't be stolen. heh. Thanks for the laugh!

Make no mistake, the issues are the forefront. But after Kucinich is out, it becomes local. State elections will be my focus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #60
69. Do you at least find openings on issues down there?
I know that Texas is a crazy place, but aren't there ways to help advance some of the issues in which you believe -- OUTSIDE of anything about a particular party or candidate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #69
72. Yes, and I do that
It only seems to result in more third-party voters, tho. I did this in '96 and ended up getting a lot of people on the Perot bandwagon.

Ironic, eh? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vladimir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #53
68. I'm not trying to convert
I was responding to IC's wider point about personalities. I've no beef with you or anyone else - especially if you are in Texas (in fact I am on record as saying that in solid Repuke states its a perfectly fair choice to vote 3rd party). Similarly on the activist thing - wasn't directed at you personally.

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

V
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #21
27. What anti-leftist rhetoric?
Does it exist? Could you point it out please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Edited on Fri Mar-26-04 10:51 AM by blondeatlast
Badly misread the post.

My VERY, VERY bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #17
23. The Margins of Society?
Edited on Fri Mar-26-04 11:01 AM by WitchWay
I'll tell you about the "margins of society" because I come from there. I grew up with a poor, single, mentally ill mother. So, I know full well about marginalization. I grew up marginal and marginalized. In school, I was bullied, abused, and had teacher sit me in the back of the classroom and treat me like I was garbage. Some acted as if I had a low IQ. I was put into terrible school programs that further marginalized me. I have even suffered rather directly from Democratic policies and politicians at local levels. I know what it is like to be marginal and on the fringe very well, thank you. Chomsky can't tell me about the margins of society, and he is ignorant from my perspective. Plus, I have also suffered homelessness, so I don't need any anecdotes. I have been marginalized enough to know that this "slightly" better that Chomsky talks about is a bunch of bullshit.

Clinton was behind welfare reform, NAFTA, the WTO, bombings in Iraq and Serbia. Clinton oppresed all the people who were the victim of these actions. Simon needed to point fingers at Clinton, too. Now, I like Simon. I voted for Simon, but the problems this country faces are two-party problems, not simply Republicans. Democrats are complicit in the Republican agenda, so to speak.

Yep. I think Chomsky is a bourgeous academic. His miscalculation is that he promotes early unity behind Kerry, without demands for justice. Why is that? Shouldn't Chomsky be opposed to imperialism, Plan Columbia (Rand Beers), NAFTA, WTO, FastTrack, the Patriot Act, the War in Iraq?

Okay, so if he is -- then, why the hell isn't he supporting Kucinich? That is very strange. THAT is very strange and telling.

Hell, the primaries aren't over. Why in the hell isn't Chomsky telling folks to support Kucinich? Why not? There is still time for Kucinich to get support to express his anti-imperialist, anti-war views -- but Chomsky is not advocating that. Why? This is what I call ORWELLIAN.

Chomsky is working at MIT, right? Isn't MIT into making technology, for instance, that benefits the military? If Chomsky were some radical leftists, would he really be allowed to teach there and publish so much at an institution that is involved in R&D for the military industrial complex? I don't think so. Chomsky is supporting Kerry, the multimillionaire bonesman. Why?

So, Yep -- I don't trust the guy one bit. Not at all. yep, I've read him, too. I suspect that Chomsky basically, in effect if not consciously, creates disinformation. He can describe the imperialist nature of the U.S. all he wants, he can provide some information, but at the end of the day -- he is doing nothing to stop what is happening, and he is not really advocating any radical change. It's all description, no solution.

Chomsky is not to be trusted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zomby Woof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #23
28. he DID support DK
In fact, had DK gotten the nomination, Chomsky would have made the unprecedented step of endorsing a candidate for the first time in his career.

He does not endorse Kerry, and I doubt if he trusts him. But Chomsky, contrary to the myth that academics lack common sense, learned early in life that half a loaf...

I have never seen Chomsky defend Kerry or Clinton in his works. In fact, he is as damning of Clinton as anyone on the right, minus the blowjobs.

Sorry about your painful childhood, but I now understand your hositility to academia a bit better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #28
65. What I am concerned about is Unity without Representation
I am glad that Chomsky supported DK, but I think DK really does need support all the way until the actual convention. It's important to give him and his mission legitmacy and urgency. There are states that still haven't voted, and whatever delegates that Kucinich can get can be significant in a symbolic way, in the very least. Strength, not backing down, courage, tough times, obstinance, insistance, idealism -- these are ways that people show strength, self-respect and that they are damn serious. This is how unions got going, and how old time unions fought. It's not about giving in before you've got what you need and demand.

My main problem with premature unity is that once there really is unity, it is difficult to make demands and to get respect -- and I don't think Kerry has been cooperative enough with where the rest of rank and file of the party really stands. I think he needs to be more generous to the people in his policies so to speak. Also, the one major thing that I want to see happen is FIRM opposition to this egregious war. I want to see an exit strategy that is immediate. Nothing can matter to me, when I know there are kids (American and Iraqi) who are dying directly from this war, from war pollution, depleted uranium, suicides, etc. We don't even hear about all those people who are maimed, or scarred for life physically or mentally. The economic hardships, deaths, environmental destruction, uranium poisoning, birth defects, mental illness, devastation caused by this war is all about making fat cats fater off the suffering of the least fortunate. Sick stuff, so -- yeah, I need to see Kerry commit to getting out of there and starting no new imperialist wars.

Yes, I am hostile to academia, but not for entirely personal reasons either. I made a whole list of some of my rationale. It's just a start. I think there are alot of deep problems in many mainstream institutions, besides the government/media -- the medical establishment and educational establishment are two big institutions that I have great distrust in. But, that's a whole other ballgame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. Your background on this subject is duly noted
While I am not attempting to diminish anything you have gone through in your life, I still think you are missing the point. See my response to redqueen below.

Whether or not you choose to "trust" Chomsky is your own matter. However, I am one who believes that it is important to recognized cognizant analysis when it is given, regardless of the messenger.

When Pat Buchanan was making good arguments against the Iraq invasion, I didn't discount them simply because I think Buchanan can't be trusted. I took the arguments themselves for what they were -- good arguments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #29
73. About tactics

the best tactic is to motivate all dems/independents/greens to get registered and to vote. To wage a simultaneous attack on Bush (or let him self destruct, whichever occurs first)...and to not worry about the presidency as much as worry about process and getting local and state seats. Bush can then be impeached, if need be.

I can't trust Chomsky, disagree with him on many matters, linguistics too. I think power issues/structures/classism,sexism,racism need to be examined and that better political strategy can take down specific wealth/power networks and oppresive policies better than theory on systemic problems or analysis that doesn't delve deep into class issues. I was interested in Chomksy at first, but started to feel a disconnect/contradiction in what he was saying and became suspicous of his true motivations, whatever they might be. He does provide information in an organized way -- just think his analysis is weak and isn't solution-oriented. I think most feminists have a pretty strong/powerful sort of take on power issues, classism, sexism, racism, labor, etc...that are probably far better than Chomksy's analysis. Feminists are very marginalized, though...indicative of why I distrust someone like Chomsky who has a lot of hype around him.
Buchanan? This is complicated, but even though I disagree with him, I think I trust Buchanan more than Chomsky. I think he says what he believes, which I don't feel that Chomsky is doing.

For me, the best tactic will probably be a wait and see approach. But, one thing that I'll say is that I cannot even consider voting Kerry until/unless he opposes the war (and I'm talking about getting out ASAP). I still hope Kucinich can effect some modicum of change. I've got to hope for that. Nader gets all of my support if the Democratic party will not represent me. Period.

but the evil bush will win? Well, great. But why did Kerry vote the evil Bush so much power (IWR, FastTrack, PatriotAct)...that's kind of telling, isn't it? Why does Kerry trust the evil, bad Bush so much...while he struggles to call himself a liberal, and marginalizes the left? Should we trust someone who trusts this evil Bush and votes powers to this "enemy"?

Kerry has been posing as a war president, and I don't like that. Is Kerry going to represent republicans or democrats? Cuz, if its the republicans that he wants to represent, I'm going to someone who does represent me no matter what numbers they poll at. Got to draw the line somewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #17
32. Actually Chris, there are CERTAIN segments on the far left
that are perfectly content to be USED by the far right for the purpose of dividing this vote...to wit...there is a housing complex that is touted as the housing of the future, i.e. GREEN HOUSING...it consists of a shared community....rightfully termed SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE HOUSING...guess where it was built? None other than Jupiter Island Florida...home of...that's right...the wealthiest families in America and some VERY prominent Bushies.

Is this our future? we all live in little cubicles whilst the uber wealthy into whose hands all wealth has been concentrated live wherever they damn well please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. I'm not sure I'm seeing your point on the housing issue, Teena
Last time I checked, as a proponent of "green growth", just getting it STARTED is as much of an issue, if not more, than whether or not it's going on in rich or poor neighborhoods.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #33
37. The point is that THIS form of socialized housing
Edited on Fri Mar-26-04 11:42 AM by nothingshocksmeanymo
is actually BUILT already as a model in Jupiter Island Florida....Jupiter Island Florida is where some of the most monied corporate interests live...I couldn't find the web site on the net..I will continue to search it, but the project itself was featured in a Freespeech TV documentary a few years back...the significance of that is that Jupiter Island Real Estate interests to this day are largely controlled by the Bush's and the CIA...totalitarian socialism anyone?

and while I do support green growth...I find it ominous when the other side already has a plan...is it to keep you in or keep you out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #37
43. OK, now I see your point
and while I do support green growth...I find it ominous when the other side already has a plan...is it to keep you in or keep you out?

Actually, that matters little -- because when push comes to shove, the importance will not be so much about green growth as it will be about those communities who have already established networks of cooperation that will encourage the pooling of resources to see their way through the tough times.

One of the best ways I believe to help set up the framework for these communities right now is COHOUSING.

The rich can have all the "green growth" they want, but it won't matter in the end -- because all those people on Jupiter Island, rather than helping each other out, will instead concern themselves with preventing anyone from taking what's "theirs".

They may THINK that they're working to keep others out -- but their effort is entirely misplaced and therefore doomed to failure. They're not even close to asking the right questions, so their answers matter little even if they might be "close" to the right ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #43
45. NOT quite the point I was making
the MODEL for the housing is in Jupiter Island...where they actually CREATE these boxed communities for others to live is quite different...you, of course, are working on a plan for civic cooperation...I find myself wincing at what the intentions of those associated with the money behind THIS project may have in mind...and I DO admit....it is a bit tinfoilish, but C Boyden Gray's name is associated with some Green groups for a reason..no?

(and don't ask me for links...sorry..I had a thread on it in old DU and it's gone)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. OK, NOW I see where you are going with this
:tinfoilhat:

Personally, the "boxed communities" have little significance to me. We each just need to act within the circles in which we have influence, rather than worry incessantly about the big picture on these matters, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #47
51. It is one area where I do tend to lean tinfoilish
Edited on Fri Mar-26-04 11:58 AM by nothingshocksmeanymo
sorry

I view these long range plans along the same lines as the eventual intent of the war on drugs and the war on crime and the like...doctoring society to keep the undesirables under lock and key.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #51
58. Believe me, Teena -- I can tinfoil with the best of em!
:tinfoilhat:

I just choose not to most of the time because it can be more of a distraction than it is worth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #32
75. Then what do you think about?
Then, what do you think about Theresa Heinz and John Kerry who consider themselves environmentalists, althought they have 5 mansions in which they havent' even gotten around to solar power, for instance. They are totally using environmentalism, even though they are guilty of wealth-concentration and own 5 mansions (there was another in Italy sold just before electinos, too)

Don't you think that these are wealthy people using the environmental language fo agenda in order to use the Left for their own agenda. I mean, Kerry and Theresa have got massive stocks, and money. Kerry has seemed to vote well on the enviornment, but then goes and votes for FastTrack for Bush, which basically demolishes alot of his other votes. I mean, these folks are doing a "greenwashing" job just as bad as the folks you talk about, if not worse. Heinz Ketchup ain't making its money from organic farming -- and agribusiness is one of the worst industries for pollution, not to mention labor practices. Rand Beers (Plan Columbia) is an advisor to Kerry, and you can check up on the environmental impact of the defoliation of the drug war in Columbia to get a taste of what kind of enviornmentally conscious folks are advising Kerry.

I think that the enviornment is very serious. It's my concern of importance right after the war (which I also consider an environmental issue) and American imperialism (which is totally about the environment).

So, it seems to me that Kerry supporters, by your logic, are being used pretty damned badly by Kerry. Now is the best time to make serious demands from Kerry. He needs to make very firm commitments to the environment (and this includes getting out of that war, and against imperialistm or "progressive internationalism", and having demands on fuel efficiency that are much, much more stringent and soon).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #75
105. Oh please...no I have no problem with this...if they got solar power in
Edited on Fri Mar-26-04 07:45 PM by nothingshocksmeanymo
their five mansions and nothing else changed...what would be saved?

Bush has all the latest energy saving gadgets at Crawford..so by your logic, Bush is an environmentalist?

Give me a fucking break.

Is your computer solar powered?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #17
35. I think you're overstating the case, at least in your subject line.
Chomsky is making the basic "lesser evil" argument, adding the idea that "This time, voting against the lesser evil matters a lot more than it usually does."

I have no strong objection to that argument. It leaves plenty of room for remaining aware of Kerry's terrible deficiencies, even while recommending a vote for the lesser evil. However, in your subject line, you are starting to eliminate the room for this awareness.

People who believe Kerry is a shameful candidate have plenty of reason to think so. When expressed, that may well be construed as "railing against Kerry." And you sound as if you're starting to move towards telling people, "OK, no more complaining about Kerry." That amounts to taking Chomsky's balanced position, & chopping off an important part of it.

It's of course tiresome & unwieldy to always be adding qualifiers to everything one says. It's hard to run around saying all the time, "Vote for the lesser evil - but remember, he's only the lesser evil, & not much more." It's much easier to just start saying, "Vote for Kerry." But in making this shift, you're amputating half of the argument.

I disagree with how you stated your subject line. People who "rail against Kerry" may well be simply saying that they are bitterly disappointed that the party lacked the courage & vision to nominate someone who tells the truth, like Dennis Kucinich. They may well be simply exercising their intellectual freedom to criticize a shabby & disgraceful nominee. Some of those who criticize Kerry may well even wind up holding their nose and voting for him. I see no need to demonize Kerry's critics. On the contrary, his critics are emphasizing an important part of Chomsky's "two-part" message -- and it's the part that a place like DU will lose track of, if Kerry critics are marginalized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. No, Rich -- I think it's you who doesn't have a case in this instance
I'll restate the initial post here for you. Please read it a few times until it sinks in.

There are also tactical questions. Those who prefer to ignore the real world are also undermining any hope of reaching any popular constituency. Few are likely to pay attention to someone who approaches them by saying, loud and clear: "I don't care whether you have a slightly better chance to receive health care or to support your elderly mother; or whether there will be a physical environment in which your children might have a decent life; or a world in which children may escape destruction as a result of the violence that is inspired by the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Cheney-etc. crowd, which could become extreme; and on, and on. Repeat: "slightly better." That matters to sensible people, surely the great mass of people who are the potential victims. So those who prefer to ignore the real world are also saying: "please ignore me." And they will achieve that result.

OK, WRT tactical questions, there is no way that Dennis Kucinich was going to get the nomination -- for many reasons OTHER than "media blackouts" and the like. And I say this as a supporter of his. Those who insist on beating people over the head with "Dennis, Dennis, Dennis" 24-7 are only helping to make themselves more irrelevant, in the end analysis.

The reality is that the world is not DU. And while you may find people who agree with many of the ISSUES championed by DK, they STILL are not going to VOTE for DK. Not that this really matters, because it leads me to my second point, which is an excerpt from Chomsky posted by Vladmir above:

Activist movements, if at all serious, pay virtually no attention to which faction of the business party is in office, but continue with their daily work, from which elections are a diversion -- which we cannot ignore, any more than we can ignore the sun rising; they exist.

So, I ask you, what is your real concern? The issues raised and the struggle to get them into the national conscience? Or is it focus on the diversion of elections? Where does the real change come from.

I'm still a believer that it comes from the grassroots. That is why, rather than obsess endlessly on "Why the DNC won't nominate someone as honest as Dennis", I'll readily profess my support for JK in the general election while CONTINUING to work for the issues I believe in, and that DK championed. However, I also will maintain the focus that it always has been and always will be about the ISSUES many times more than it will ever be about one single person. I also am confident that I will be successful in reaching more people on those specific issues than you will by voicing your displeasure with the ineptitude and corruption of the DNC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #38
49. "...the issues I believe in, and that DK championed. "
Maybe this is the whole problem here. :shrug:

The way I see it, he's still championing them, and as long as he does, I'll continue to support him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #49
56. Yeah, he's still championing them -- to the already converted
The trick is winning over those who are not already converted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #56
61. Yer killin' me!
How many votes did he get out of AK? A mostly republican state?

You think he's not reaching any new voters? Really????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. Percentage vs. turnout
Do you think that AK had some sort of record turnout? Or do you think that, given the fact that the nomination is a done deal, his extensive campaigning only turned out those who were predisposed to supporting him?

If 100 people came out for the primaries, and Dennis captured 26% of the vote, would it still be such a resounding statement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. I hate guessing games, so I checked
Haven't found numbers, but here's a comment:

“We’re seeing strong turnout in nearly every district, first-time caucus participation and individuals registering to vote” said Sterling (Alaska Democratic Party Chair). “Clearly, Alaska Democrats understand the significance of this year’s elections and the powerful opportunities we have as a Party.”

What do you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #66
70. The way I see this...
Turnout is going to be high because of the need to evict the usurper, so a lot of Democrats are energized.

DK did well up there because he was the only person campaigning, and in a state without a large population like AK, reaching out and literally pressing the flesh DOES matter -- much like it helped him in ME.

So, I would say that he got more votes for the simple fact that he was the only person campaigning up there, and it was more the kind of climate that is receptive to his face-to-face success as opposed to bigger states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #70
74. But you still think he was just preaching to the choir?
Not bringing any new voices into the tent?

Have you read some of the comments on this page, IC? I think he is getting new voters interested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. Not totally, no. But I still think there's a danger you're ignoring.
That danger being that many of these new voices will equate the ability to elect Dennis Kucinich to the ability to affect change on specific issues. When they see Dennis's campaign go down, will they continue to believe in those issues, will they remain involved in politics, will they go third party, or will they be turned off to the point that they won't want to get involved again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #76
79. Last week I'd have thought they'd follow DK's lead and vote Dem
After the stuff I've heard locally after this dinner fiasco I'm not so sure. Hence my concern. If the party works with him fairly I don't think the majority of non-dems whom he's brought in will bolt. But another crack like that, and who knows? I know here in TX things look ripe for a third party surge, though.

As for whether or not they'll stay involved, who can say. I've learned people can be mighty fickle when it comes to politics. Isn't that a characteristic common to the centrist swing voters as well?

Anyway... did you see the thread about Terry Mac's doormat?

Should someone start keeping a list? (joke!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #35
41. Oh I think he made that point here
Edited on Fri Mar-26-04 11:46 AM by nothingshocksmeanymo
So those who prefer to ignore the real world are also saying: "please ignore me." And they will achieve that result.

And that may be what you are seeing on DU...the REAL world acknowledges a lack of perfection in candidates from the war mongering FDR who also reigned in corporate power...to the Dennis Kucinich's of the world who can vote for DOMA then claim to support gay marriage...perfection is FAR out of reach.

In fact, Dennis change of heart on his vote and on his position with women's choice was tantamount to saying, "VOte for me, I am now less evil."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ACK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #41
44. Good post
It seems like both sides love to run around with blinders on in this crowded house and then complain about the fact that they keep running into people while they do it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #44
50. Thanks it isn't so much running into as running over
Too oftem my posts in the matter are interpreted as telling others to SHUT UP...I am not against criticism, but I AM against criticism which leads to a) depressed turnout b)propaganda that thereby results in a far superior candidate to GWB having to defend himself from EVERY direction....while I have ALWAYS considered Rich's posts to be thought provoking...I find in this ACTUAL election that his posts DO indeed qualify as propaganda which thrives on GENERALIZING as much as possible to support his contention that there is no real difference...when one points out the very REAL differences...he will then take those differences and move away from the subject so he can cling to his NO DIFFERENCE mantra...

If he REALLY wants the things he wants...then at LEAST MOVING the direction is of primary import....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ACK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #50
83. Right! People talk like Kerry is some DLC puppet conservative
Has anyone looked at this man's overall voting record?

Bush has one thing right Kerry is a Northeastern liberal.

He made some bad calls in terms of votes that is for sure. Still, here is his rankings from Project Vote Smart on various issues.

I am going to post this all over the boards. I do not want people to shut up either. I want them to look at Kerry's record instead of assuming he is Bush-lite.

Abortion Issues
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood considered to be the most important from 1995 to 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2002 On the votes that the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association considered to be the most important in 1999-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1996-2003 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood (Senate) considered to be the most important, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Agriculture Issues
(Back to top)

2002 Based on a 2002 survey given to all congressional candidates Vote Hemp chose to rate Senator Kerry as Fence Sitter.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Farmers Union considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 90 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the American Farm Bureau Federation considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 83 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Farmers Union considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 91 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the American Farm Bureau Federation considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 60 percent of the time.

Animal Rights and Wildlife Issues
(Back to top)

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Fund for Animals considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Humane Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Animal Protection Institute considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Doris Day Animal League considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Fund for Animals considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Humane Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Doris Day Animal League considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Animal Protection Institute considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Arts and Humanities
(Back to top)

2000 On the votes that the Americans for the Arts considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Budget, Spending and Taxes
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 10 percent of the time.

2002 According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 2002 Senator Kerry, on ALL votes dealing with spending, voted to reduce or not increase spending 18 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Citizens Against Government Waste considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 13 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2001-2002, the Concord Coalition gave Senator Kerry a rating of 65 percent.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Tax Limitation Committee considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 3 percent of the time.

2001 According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 2001 Senator Kerry, on ALL votes dealing with spending, voted to reduce or not increase spending 7 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 5 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Citizens Against Government Waste considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 5 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Taxpayers for Common Sense considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 27 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the American Shareholders Association considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 15 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2000, the Concord Coalition gave Senator Kerry a rating of 33 percent.

2000 On the votes that the Taxpayers for Common Sense considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 59 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Citizens Against Government Waste considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 28 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Tax Limitation Committee considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 3 percent of the time.

1999 According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 1999 Senator Kerry, on ALL votes dealing with spending, voted to reduce or not increase spending 11 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 1999, the Concord Coalition gave Senator Kerry a rating of 45 percent.

Business and Consumers
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Associated Builders & Contractors considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the American Bankers Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Business-Industry Political Action Committee considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 41 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the National Retail Federation considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 25 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the American Coalition for Ethanol considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 55 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Federation of Independent Business considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 25 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Small Business Survival Committee considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 7 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Business-Industry Political Action Committee considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 5 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Federation of Independent Business considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 17 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 38 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 50 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Small Business Survival Committee considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Business-Industry Political Action Committee considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 7 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Small Business Survival Committee considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Consumer Federation of America considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Associated Builders & Contractors considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 53 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Federation of Independent Business considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 16 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Associated Builders & Contractors considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Consumer Federation of America considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

Civil Liberties
(Back to top)

2001-2002 On the votes that the American Civil Liberties Union considered to be the most important in 2001-2002 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 60 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the American Civil Liberties Union considered to be the most important in 2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 71 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Liberty Lobby considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Republican Liberty Caucus considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 20 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Liberty Lobby considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

Civil Rights
(Back to top)

2003 Bsed on legislative votes, sponsorship of legislation not voted upon, and endorsements of special "dear colleague" letters that the Arab American Institute considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry supported their preferred position 33 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorships the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time..

2001-2002 Bsed on legislative votes, sponsorship of legislation not voted upon, and endorsements of special "dear colleague" letters that the Arab American Institute considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry supported their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 81 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 82 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 93 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 94 percent of the time.

Conservative
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Christian Coalition considered to be the most important in 2003 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Eagle Forum considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Campaign for Working Families considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 7 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the American Conservative Union considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 13 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Eagle Forum considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 18 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the American Conservative Union considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 20 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Conservative Index - The John Birch Society considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 11 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Campaign for Working Families considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 7 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Conservative Index - The John Birch Society considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 5 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the American Conservative Union considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 4 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Christian Coalition considered to be the most important in 2001 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the American Conservative Union considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 12 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Conservative Index - The John Birch Society considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 12 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the Christian Coalition considered to be the most important in 1999-2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 15 percent of the time.

Crime Issues
(Back to top)

1999-2000 On the votes that the Citizens United for Rehabilition of Errants considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 63 percent of the time.

Education
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the National Education Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the National Education Association considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Education Association considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the National Education Association considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Environmental Issues
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 53 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 92 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Comprehensive US Sustainable Population considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 73 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Parks Consevation Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 94 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Parks Conservation Association considered to be the most important in 1999-2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the Comprehensive US Sustainable Population considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 84 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the American Lands Alliance considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Family and Children Issues
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Family Research Council considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the American Family Voices considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 78 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Children's Defense Fund considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 91 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Children's Defense Fund considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 90 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Family Research Council considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

Foreign Aid and Policy Issues
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel (JPPI) considered to be the most important in 2003, a point system was established for both the Senate and the House. In the Senate, total possible points range from a high of +3 and a low of -4. In the House, points range from +9 to -7. The Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel (JPPI) assigned Senator Kerry a score of -1.

2003 On the votes that the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation considered to be the most important in 2003, a point system was established for both the Senate and the House. In the Senate, total possible points range from a high of +3 and a low of -4. In the House, points range from +9 to -7. The U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation assigned Senator Kerry a score of -1.

2002 On the votes that the Peace Action considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 40 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the American Security Council considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel (JPPI) considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, a point system was established for both the Senate and the House. In the Senate, total possible points range from a high of +1 and a low of -5. In the House, points range from +6 to -6. The Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel (JPPI) assigned Senator Kerry a score of -3.

2001-2002 On the votes , introduction of legislation, sponsorship or co-sponsorship of legislation and public speaking on legislation, for legistation, that the American Muslims for Jerusalem considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry, rated -3.

2001-2002 On the votes that the American Foreign Service Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Campaign for U.N. Reform considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 57 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Peace Action considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 43 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Peace Action considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 44 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Council for a Livable World considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the PeacePac considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the Campaign for U.N. Reform considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 63 percent of the time.

1998-2002 On the votes that the Center for Security Policy considered to be the most important in 1998-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 25 percent of the time.

Gender Issues
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Business and Professional Women USA considered to be the most important during the 107th Congress, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 80 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Concerned Women for America considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the American Association of University Women considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the American Association of University Women considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Business and Professional Women/USA considered to be the most important during the 107th Congress, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Concerned Women for America considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 33 percent of the time.

2001-2002

2001 On the votes that the American Association of University Women considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Concerned Women for America considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

1998 On the votes that the National Organization for Women considered to be the most important in 1998, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 85 percent of the time.

Government Reform
(Back to top)

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Association of Counties considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 78 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the co-sponsorship of bills or resolutions that the Radical Middle considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry sponsored their preferred bills or resolutions 45 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Council for Government Reform considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the National Association of Counties considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 66 percent of the time.

Gun Issues
(Back to top)

2003 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

2002 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2002, the National Rifle Association assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

2002 On the votes that the The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

2001-2002 On the votes that the American Bar Association--Special Committee on Gun Violence considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence considered to be the most important in 1999-2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the American Bar Association--Special Committee on Gun Violence considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F- (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

Health Issues
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the American Public Health Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the American Public Health Association considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 86 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on legislative votes, sponsorship of legislation not voted upon, and endorsements of special "dear colleague" letters that the National Breast Cancer Coalition considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry supported their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the American Public Health Association considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the American Medical Association considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 Based on legislative votes, sponsorship of legislation not voted upon, and endorsements of special "dear colleague" letters that the National Breast Cancer Coalition considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry supported their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the American Public Health Association considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Housing and Property Issues
(Back to top)

2001-2002 On the votes that the League of Private Property Voters considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the League of Private Property Voters considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the League of Private Property Voters considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

Immigration
(Back to top)

2002 On the votes that the American Immigration Lawyers Association considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Californians for Population Stabilization considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1989-2003 Based on the votes, committee votes, co-sponsorships and other leadership actions that the Americans for Better Immigration considered to be the most important in 1989-2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 18 percent of the time.

1989-2002 Based on the votes, committee votes, co-sponsorships and other leadership actions that the Americans for Better Immigration considered to be the most important in 1989-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 20 percent of the time.

1989-2001 Based on the votes, committee votes, co-sponsorships and other leadership actions that the Americans for Better Immigration considered to be the most important in 1989-2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 20 percent of the time.

Labor
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Non Commissioned Officers Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Transportation Communications Union considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the United Auto Workers considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 102 percent of the time. Those who supported or provided other assistance in connection with a UAW organizing drive are given an extra 10% bonus.

2003 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 86 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the AFL-CIO considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 80 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 50 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 25 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the American Federation of Government Employees considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Non Commissioned Officers Association considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Transportation Communications Union considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 91 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 43 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the AFL-CIO considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 92 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the United Auto Workers considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 85 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Communications Workers of America considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 86 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Association of Social Workers considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the American Postal Workers Union considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 90 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 87 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the United Food & Commercial Workers considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the United Auto Workers considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 86 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the American Federation of Government Employees considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 93 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the AFL-CIO considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Transportation Communications Union considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers IU. considered to be the most important in 2001 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Non Commissioned Officers Association considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 85 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the AFL-CIO considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Teamsters considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 50 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the American Federation of Government Employees considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 82 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the United Auto Workers considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 92 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Communications Workers of America considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 43 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Association of Social Workers considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 90 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the International Association of Fire Fighters considered to be the most important in 1999-2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 86 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Transportation Communications Union considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Communications Workers of America considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Liberal
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the National Committee for an Effective Congress considered to be the most important in the first quarter of 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the U.S. Public Interest Research Group considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 95 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the State PIRGs Working Together considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 95 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Friends Comm. on Nat'l Leg. considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Public Citizen's Congress Watch considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 27 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Americans for Democratic Action considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 85 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the U.S. Public Interest Research Group considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 95 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Americans for Democratic Action considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 85 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Committee for an Effective Congress considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 95 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Public Citizen's Congress Watch considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 85 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Friends Committee on National Legislation considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 50 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Committee for an Effective Congress considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 96 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the U.S. Public Interest Research Group considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 94 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Americans for Democratic Action considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 95 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Friends Committee on National Legislation considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Friends Committee on National Legislation considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 73 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Americans for Democratic Action considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 90 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the Public Citizen's Congress Watch considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 83 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the U.S. Public Interest Research Group considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 87 percent of the time.

National Journal
(Back to top)

2003 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2003, Senator Kerry voted more conservative on economic policy issues than 0 percent of the Senators.

2003 According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2003, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 97 percent of the Senators.

2003 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2003, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on economic policy issues than 93 percent of the Senators.

2003 According to the National Journal - Composite Conservative Score's calculations, in 2003, Senator Kerry voted more conservative on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 4 percent of the Senators.

2002 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2002, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on economic policy issues than 95 percent of the Senators.

2002 According to the National Journal - Composite Conservative Score's calculations, in 2002, Senator Kerry voted more conservative on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 13 percent of the Senators.

2002 According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2002, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 87 percent of the Senators.

2002 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2002, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on foreign policy issues than 73 percent of the Senators.

2002 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2002, Senator Kerry voted more conservative on economic policy issues than 0 percent of the Senators.

2002 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Social Policy's calculations, in 2002, Senator Kerry voted more conservative on social policy issues than 0 percent of the Senators.

2002 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2002, Senator Kerry voted more conservative on foreign policy issues than 26 percent of the Senators.

2002 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2002, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on social policy issues than 82 percent of the Senators.

2001 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2001, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on social policy issues than 81 percent of the Senators.

2001 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2001, Senator Kerry voted more conservative on foreign policy issues than 14 percent of the Senators.

2001 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2001, Senator Kerry voted more conservative on economic policy issues than 0 percent of the Senators.

2001 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Social Policy's calculations, in 2001, Senator Kerry voted more conservative on social policy issues than 8 percent of the Senators.

2001 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2001, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on foreign policy issues than 74 percent of the Senators.

2001 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2001, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on economic policy issues than 93 percent of the Senators.

Science and Medical Research
(Back to top)

2002 On the votes that the Information Technology Industry Council considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 71 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Information Technology Industry Council considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 83 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Information Technology Industry Council considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 40 percent of the time.

Senior and Social Security Issues
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Alliance for Retired Americans considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the National Association of Retired Federal Employees considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Alliance for Retired Americans considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Alliance for Retired Americans considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Association of Retired Federal Employees considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the United Seniors Association considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 11 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the United Seniors Association considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

Social Issues
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Population Connection considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 80 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Population Connection considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 33 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Bread for the World considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the People for the American Way considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 85 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Zero Population Growth considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Zero Population Growth considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Bread for the World considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 82 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 82 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Bread for the World considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Trade Issues
(Back to top)

2001-2002 On the votes that the CATO Institute--Center for Trade Policy Studies considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 33 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the trade votes that the CATO Trade considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 87 percent of the time.

Veterans Issues
(Back to top)

2000 On the votes that the The Retired Officers Association considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 66 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Disabled American Veterans considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. Well, this struck me...
Okay -- you've got alot of voting records there, but I've always been sort of a Public Citizen Congress Watch type, and this is the one that hit me, cuz its from this year:

2003 On the votes that the Public Citizen's Congress Watch considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 27 percent of the time.

But, besides this -- here are the important votes (recent) that most concern me:
FastTrack
IWR
Patriot ACT

These votes are all votes that gave/give Bush power. So, what's up with that? Why is Kerry voting powers to Bush?

Also, I won't be satisfied unless Kerry can oppose this war. He needs to act quickly to oppose this war, and get an immediate exit strategy. He isn't opposing the war the way that the war MUST be opposed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. You won't be satisfied regardless....
An immediate exit strategy would only HARM the Iraqi people. That would be the most MORONIC thing to do. An exit strategy that is combined with international cooperation and a legitimate democratic government NOT already controlled by Bush family interests that is NOT indebted to the private interests trying to control the nation via Chalabi is the best answer.

Kerry would have really been targetted as a partisan flip flopper to vote for the security measures requested by Clinton post OKC and NOT for similar measures post 9/11.

Same with Fast Track.

As regards IWR, you forget...that is BUSH's war...a war that would have occurred regardless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #86
90. I'll be satisfied if the this Imperialist Crap Stops
War and depleted Uranium HARM the Iraqi people. Our presence in Iraq is harming the Iraqi people, and people all over the world.
Our presence in Iraqi gives organizations liek Al Queada raison d'etre to grow their membership and full American resentment and hatred.
There was no good reason (except oil and military-industrial funding) to go into Iraq, and there's no good reason to stay.
We should not be controlling the Iraqi people -- the only reason that Kerry wants to stay in Iraq is because of oil and military-industrial interests, as well as to gain geo-political strategy. When I say exit strategy, I am talking about the UN involvement, btw.
As to regards for IWR -- that's a lame excuse to vote for it. Same with the FastTrack vote.
Bush wouldn't have a war if Dems were responsible and strongly opposed it. They didn't -- cuz its the same damn oil interests on both sides.
Anyone who "bought" the fake intelligence is just as every bit as guilty as Bush. They should have known that it was faulty intelligence, and called Bush on it.
Don't be naive that there are democrats who are helping republicans, the oil industry, and the military industries.
Clinton did his fair share of bombings and sanctions in iraq, too...for the same damn reason that Bush is doing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. So, basically what you're saying is...
That you want to be President/dictator and set all these things straight, but you don't want to go through the grinder in order to achieve such a position. Therefore, it is up to John Kerry to do all of this for you.

If you think that militarism is a problem that stops at John Kerry, you're quite mistaken. Even if he wanted to, there isn't a damned thing that John Kerry alone would be able to do about militarism. Rather, it is like Chalmers Johnson writes at the end of his book, The Sorrows of Empire, that the only thing that will stop this endless parade of militarism marching us toward our eventual ruin is if the citizenry of the country rises up, kicks out virtually ALL of Congress, re-asserts its authority over the government, and completely dismantles the Pentagon and national security apparatus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #92
95. We should have Authority over the Government
Wow! Chalmer Johnson sure makes it seem hard to get the government back under control. Oh, well, I don't buy that its impossible. Momentum and Strategy can defeat militarism.

Am I being dictorial for wanting the war to end? Am I asking for too much leadership/responsibilty from poor ol' John Kerry? Making harsh demands of him? It's Kerry who should be concerned about opposing the war, after all people are dying. Didn't Kerry once ask how can you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? Well, what the fuck does he think is going on in Iraq? NO. Kerry needs to be responsible, there's no passing the buck on this one. This "systemic" problem of militarism has to do with individuals and responsibility. There is nothing inevitable about these wars.

You think because I oppose war I'm dictatorial? Now, that is a very interesting thought. I would, though, consider myself obstinate and stubborn about opposing war. Kerry is much more in a dictorial sort of position than I am, after all.

It's funny how all of the sudden so many on this board find war normal, acceptable, inevitable (could it be because John Kerry, who supported this war, is running and now we have to unify behind him and be all ABB -- and if a dem supports the war, maybe its not so bad after all? Damn...what happened to war opposition. This is getting twisted!)

Yep -- I think that we must reassert our authority over government, that's how government should be, after all. The constitution never intended a government that has authority over us. Its funny how contorted our expectations of government are. That's the real problem with what is going on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #95
96. I don't think you're dictatorial for opposing war
I oppose war, and I'm not dictatorial. Just so you know I'm not talking out of my ass on this one, I'll let you know that I'm a junior officer in the Army Reserves, and I've been going through the process of applying for a discharge as a conscientious objector for more than a year now, due to my opposition to war.

Why I consider you dictatorial is due to the inflexibility with which you state your case. Nowhere in your rhetoric is the willingness to compromise or listen evident -- it is simply, "This is the way it is, and this is how it has to be, and that's it." You say that momentum and strategy can defeat militarism, but you are offering none of either.

Sorry, but that's not how democracy works. Sadly, as it stands right now, the vast majority of Americans don't mind militarism. In fact, they readily embrace it. And since the system will NOT come down without intervention on the part of the people, then we can either seek ways to undermine that support, OR we can simply wait for it to collapse due to its own weight, hoping we're not buried under the debris. But telling people what they have to believe and demonstrating no willingness to listen to them or consider their points of view is NOT going to accomplish this. Such is the realm of dictators, not "little d" democrats.

BTW -- I much agree with Johnson's assessment regarding militarism. It will NOT be rooted out short of those means, because it has evolved into an institution that arches over all others within our society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #96
99. I apologize for My inflexibility
I apologize if you mistake my anger as being directed towards you, it is anger in general. No, I don't listen well to rationalization of the war, because I can't see the justification. Maybe I am dictatorial about it.

I do realize the sort of monster that militarism and politics are, but I can't see how that justifies Kerry's votes and inaction. My outrage on this matter has to do with setting limits. You say that militiarism is embraced in this country, to start to change that there needs to be limits. (Limits are something that concern me lately, and I also feel that the ABB was a poor way to set limits/goals/expecations).

I find anger and obstinance necessary to fight all kinds of oppression in society. I have been very angry at the war this last week, more than I usually am because I noticed that I had grown very comfortable and enured to it. This is why I am realizing expectations and inflexibility are important.

I think that I agree with you more than you realize -- my suggestions of momentum and gaining back authority over the government have to do with beginning the process...I never meant that this alone would suffice as the entire process. I simply believe that the first step to dismantling the monster of militarism have to do with expectations that our country must not engage in unjust wars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ACK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. single issue voter.
"Also, I won't be satisfied unless Kerry can oppose this war. He needs to act quickly to oppose this war, and get an immediate exit strategy. He isn't opposing the war the way that the war MUST be opposed."

Figured as much from your other posts.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. No, not quite.
This poster is also pissed at Kerry because he and Theresa happen to be rich, own several large homes and travel between them while claiming to be environmentalists.

But I have to agree with NSMA above -- there will be no satisfying WitchWay regarding John Kerry's candidacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #89
93. yeah - there are alot of things I don't like about Kerry
Yep. There are tons of things that piss me off about Kerry. Don't assume that I'm the only one, either.

Filthy rich people who claim to be environmentalists absolutely piss me off (I'm not talking about middle class, I'm talking about huge mansions -- even though I think middle class needs improvement) -- because it's going to really hurt the environmental movement by looking like complete hypocrisy. Just imagined how that will be used against environmentalism, and the democrats! EGADS, this is just the sort of hypocrisy that right-wingers relish.

I think that Kerry needs to work very hard to be a good candidate. Not impossible, but not simple either.

I could be satisfied. The end to the war is of primary concern to me. I also have issues with WTO and NAFTA and imperialism in general.

But, yep - its the war thats the big one. There is no excuse for that war, in my book. NONE. I swore not to vote for anyone who voted for the war, and I meant it -- BUT, I could be persuaded by some last minute change of heart and commitment to this issue since it is so important in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #93
94. OK, so what's your plan then
First, WRT the occupation, what exactly is your plan for an "exit strategy"? Do we just cut and run? Do we turn everything over to the UN? What if the UN doesn't want to assume force protection duties? Do we allow Iraq to degenerate into civil war?

The invasion is something that already took place. We can't undo it. All we can do is to seek to address the CURRENT situation in the best way possible. Now, I may not like Kerry's plan on this completely -- but I KNOW that I don't like Bush's plan.

Second, WRT the environment -- do you think that big mansions should be outlawed? Do you think that Kerry should just sell off all of his mansions prior to the election? Do you think this would increase or lessen his chances of victory? What do you think has more bearing -- what John Kerry does WRT the environment, or what a group of, say, 1000 collective individuals do?

You may live an environmentally sustainable lifestyle, but are you also working on programs to encourage others to do the same? Are you taking action to bring about a change in conscience as to how we, as a society, view the environment? Or are you simply angry with John Kerry because he's not quite as pure, personally, as you are -- in spite of his efforts to upgrade CAFE standards and continuous support of alternative energy sources?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #94
97. To answer some of your inquiries.
Yeah - ain't it convenient that the war takes place and THEN Kerry is kind of opposed to it?

Sort of like how he opposed the Aristide overthrow after the fact, too. Or the WTO. Kerry tends to have this kind of habit, doesn't he?

Kucinich has got a plan -- get the UN in, US out ASAP. Look it up on his website. We allow the Iraqis control over their own destiny, instead of robbing their natural resources.

I do think that big mansions should be very, very, very highly taxed. Big mansions are wasteful of energy, resources and they are luxury items that are not necessary for basic needs. I think that Kerry should not HAVE so many mansions. He should do something with them, maybe sell them and donate the money to environmental organizations to try to repair the harm to the environment that his lifestyle has wrecked.

I think that John Kerry has more bearing on the environmnet. He is greenwashing his lifestyle by claiming to be an environmentalist. This is irresponsible, and sets a bad example. He should not be promoting greed by his example, making it seem that you can be greedy and environmental at the same time. His voting record seems okay, until you realize that FastTrack kind of fucks up the environmnetal policies that hes voted for in the long run.

Kerry isn't changing energy standards quick enough. he needs to change them much quicker. Again, this is lukewarm.

Most individuals are not using what Kerry uses. Everyone should use as little as necessary to live off of, so it would depend on the individuals. Remember everything that is made (wood, food, minerals, factory products) that Kerry owns is also causing pollution/destruction to places outside of Kerry's own abode. Does he have mahogany or hard woods? Well, they burn rainforest down to get to that mahogany, for instance. All sorts of things make big impacts in the long run.

Kerry shouldn't use up as much environment as 1,000 individuals do. That's greedy, wasteful, arrogant and irresponsible. yep -- he doesn't need all these mansions, and a yacht and jet.

I have gone into what I do in other posts. I don't buy new clothes, buy thrift store clothes, organic vegan and bulk foods, wear things out to the very end (clothes and whatnot), am learning about alternative housing/permaculture/wormbins/composting (right now, I'm apartment bound, though), don't drive, etc. I'm by no means perfect, but I think I try.

Am I angry because Kerry is not "pure" you ask? Well, I'll tell you... Kerry is WAY, WAY BEYOND not being "PURE" in the way he lives, he's absolutely destructive and completely unenvironmental. Let's say, I wouldn't complain about Gore's lifestyle, for instance.

As I said, Kerry's Free Trade advocacy (imperialism) tends to wipes out environmental issues (the environment is a global thing, after all), and I believe his hypocrisy and poor role-modeling will create harm to the enviornmental movement.

Also, look into Rand Beers, Kerry's advisor, and Plan Columbia. Drug Wars Defoliation isn't very environmental in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. You're not telling me anything I don't already know
I first got "involved" in issues as a fair trade activist. I lobbied local Congressional reps on behalf of my local Sierra Club. I'm also well aware of Rand Beers' role in Plan Colombia, and it is certainly not something I support.

I'm also well aware of Kucinich's plan vis a vis Iraq. The problem is, the UN has pretty much said that they won't take over force protection. And if you simply pull out, then you will doom Iraq to a civil war.

Whether you or I think that big mansions should be taxed is immaterial. The problem is that such behavior is seen as just fine by society. You earned it, so you get to enjoy it. Do you think that such high taxes would be easy to implement in the current environment? I doubt it. This means then that we need to get around to changing the way in which people view the world around them -- a much more difficult proposition.

Sorry, but much of what I hear in your statements is a frustration that the world isn't what you want it to be -- so all that is required is to impose your will on it and suddenly a great utopia will arise. It would certainly be much easier if this is the way things were, but unfortunately it is not. Therefore, we have to work in the situation in which we find ourselves. As such, your plan becomes entirely unworkable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #98
102. I've heard it all before....
I've heard the "idealist" accusation quite often enough. Funny how this is coming up whenever anyone is not a Kerry supporter. Idealist and purist have become weird catchphrases for anyone who dares to doubt Kerry. It's insane. It seems like there is a mission to get everyone to just expect nothing from Kerry, or the democratic party. Its funny, because no one IS expecting anything.

I don't like the defeatism. I also don't like the "idealist", or "purist" witchhunts going on. What they really are all about is forcing us to accept bad policy, bad candidates, and bad agendas. It's about making use get comfortable about getting screwed over.

It seems that whenever an "idealist" (non Kerry supporter codeword) speaks they are imposing their will somehow. That's just a really weird and paranoid accusation.

So, I oppose the war and suddenly I'm some crazed lunatic who is after some "great utopia" -- give me a fucking break. Expressing political opinion and debating is far from being a zealot for a Utopian society. Damn, my views aren't even terribly radical.

Sorry, but all I hear from your statements is the same defeatist propaganda that came straight out of ABB. Defeatism is only going to make things worse and worse -- no matter which Bonesman gets in office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
48. Wow. He's EXACTLY RIGHT!
"please ignore me"

Unfortunately as Chomsky also points out, the people in question, are not the ONLY ones who will be "ignored."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #48
82. But you have to realize
That Kerry is already ignoring alot of people, all by himself.

Giving into Unity, pledging ABB -- before the needs/demands of so many rank and file dems are met is also a form of "please ignore me."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. But what you're raising is the question of "ignored by whom?"
What Chomsky is proposing is, if you are unable to recognize the immediate need to evict the usurper in this election, then you are basically saying, "Ignore me," to the vast majority of Democratic voters -- and even a lot of non-voters.

What you are saying is that by lining up with Kerry now, you are saying, "Ignore me," to the Democratic establishment. There's a big difference between the two.

While the Party establishment may well be able to ignore you under the first scenario, there exists the real possibility that the grassroots will NOT. What this does, in turn, is raise the potential of elevating those important issues to the level that the party establishment will no longer be able to ignore them.

However, under your scenario, you are raising the possibility of not only being ignored by the majority of voters -- but also by the party establishment as well. There are many more fickle voters to be won over in the center than there are on the left. It's just a pure question of numbers, in their purely electoral calculations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #84
88. The Grassroots of the Party?
If Chomsky was worried about the usurper, he should point fingers at the Democrats who let voters get scrubbed from polls in florida. That's usurption. When a party isn't interested in "winning" (2000, 2002) than that party IS ignoring its constituency.

The alienation of the grassroots began with ABB. The alienation began with a wealthy front loaded candidate. (Nader was right, there is no competition in a wealth primary -- look at Kucinich.) The alienation began with a candidte who enjoys the priveleges of an elitist society of cohorts. The unity pledges are a way to shut people up and out of the process.

The grassroots has already been terribly ignored by the DNC. The DNC should already be listening to the grassroots. It is not. Kucinich is not being heard, cuz it's Kerry who has the big bucks and priveleged connections and corporate ties. That doesn't sit right with me, and it doesn't sound like a the party REALLY EVEN wants the grassroots to have power. If it did, Kucinich would have had much more respect.

Besides, I've got to be honest -- I think this "Center" is basically code for corporate America -- the "Center" is the way both parties argue the same corporate agenda. Gee, its funny how both Republicanss and Democrats go for this same "Center" that in reality ends up serving as a justification for the same imperialist policies, the same wars, the same pro-corporate, anti-human, anti-environmental policies.

I don't buy this argument, that the party is somehow going to start to magically be given new life by the grassroots, one bit. How long, how many years, how often does the "grassroots" need to struggle to be heard? To be powerful? To have a voice? To effect change?
It hasn't been working. It is NOT Working. When is the last time it worked?

The Grassroots are marginalized, as always. The people are ignored, belittled, marginalized, spoonfed dire fear-mongering warnings and pablum about unity at all costs. This isn't working. It's broken. It didn't work under Clinton, and its sure as hell not working now. So, this sort of argument - that success is possible if you just work from inside the party - is tiresome. The party is NOT grassroots, and is not going to let grassroots TAKE root. When the sun is blocked out, its might just be the time to find new ground and take root.

Bush - yeah, he's evil, but we'll just see another one like him in 4 years anyway (Frist, I bet)...so, there is ALWAYS going to be the same, tired excuse that the Republican is just so evil - that this year we MUST unify and defeat the evil Republican. There will be no end to this cycle...and the Democratic party will drift further and further and further right without end until people put their foot down and say "enough".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #88
91. Who are the grassroots you're referring to here?
Edited on Fri Mar-26-04 03:18 PM by IrateCitizen
I thought that Democratic voters who participate in the primary process are the grassroots of the party. I voted in my NY primary for Dennis Kucinich, but he didn't win. The majority of Democratic voters -- most of whom are NOT corporate fat-cats or media moguls -- voted for John Kerry. As a party member, that is the choice I am stuck with. You have said previously that you are a third-party voter, so I hope you're not portraying yourself as the grassroots of the party -- because if that's the case, you are not.

But WRT the power of the grassroots, it is interesting to note that JK did not start doing well until he adopted some of the rhetoric that Dean and DK had been espousing on the campaign trail. He didn't start doing well until he started giving the grassroots of the PARTY what they wanted to hear. Now, we can debate whether or not he'll actually deliver on it at another time -- but it seems to me that the party grassroots actually DID affect the campaign, and very much for the better. More Democratic voters are getting involved than in a long time.

Do you want to know what the biggest problem with Clinton was? It was that we were all so happy to have Reagan/Bush gone, that we forgot to stay on his ass to keep moving in a progressive direction. As a result, when the Republicans started hitting him from the right, our voices weren't there to let him know that he DID have broad support for any sort of progressive policies. Or do you maintain the expectation of politicians that THEY are supposed to do everything for us in a democracy?

Finally, when I was talking about affecting change at the grassroots, I was talking just about regular people -- REGARDLESS of party. That's the way that change has always come, and it never comes cheap. The chips are, and always will be, stacked against us. So, that gives you a simple choice: are you going to suck it up and simply deal with the situation you find yourself in, or are you going to wistfully wish for some perfect utopia in which real reforms will instantly appear and everything will finally be right with the world?

I'll choose the former, because it is the only choice in which we can accomplish anything. That doesn't mean that we necessarily accept the things we've been conditioned to believe (like sources of power within a society, but that's another discussion entirely) -- but we work within the framework of simple reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WitchWay Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #91
100. Grassroots?
I am a Dennis Kucinich Supporter who is going to probably vote third party (unless there is significant change esp. concerning the war). Since I am still supporting Kucinich, I don't consider myself outside of the party. But, if you don't consider me grass roots -- Oh well.

I agree with you about Clinton not staying progressive, and this is why I hope people aren't too cool with Kerry and all the unity stuff. Healthy distrust/cynicism is essential for democracy.

I disagree, though, that Clinton needed to be defended from the Right. I think Clinton sort of did himself in. He needed to be more responsible, and betrayed his voters. Politicians understand their circumstances, and do need to be more cautious than regular people. They have alot more power/responsibility.

I don't maintain the expecation that politicians are supposed to do everythng for us in a democracy. I think that part of the job citizens have is to put pressure on politicians, though.

You accuse me of naive idealism. Well, I've heard that again and again. This is part of the learened helplessness that I discuss in another post. Idealism is an essential ingredient to effect change. Its pragamatic realism that lets the parties keep slipping more and more out of the public's hand into the corporate control. The parties can argue that they can't do anything because of "reality"...but reality DOES have to do with our expectations and desires.

I think that undue dissillusionment is destructive to democracy. So, hell yeah I'm going to be idealistic. Some idealism is very important. That's how there is progress, after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
union_maid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #100
106. Grassroots efforts could empower politicians
The thing is, Kerry is a liberal. He's not a revolutionary and neither is the Democratic party made up of revolutionaries. But why start out by putting pressure on him when he hasn't even had a chance to do anything? Why not help to get popular support for some of the best things he'd most likely want to do? Pressure from the left doesn't work if it's pressure to do things that have no real public support. Empowerment from the left would do much more, but it takes a lot more work. Dean's grassroots movement provided some of that empowerment. We need a lot more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
107. Good for Chomsky!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 03rd 2024, 07:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC