Anyone but Bush? [Archive]

truthaddict11

17th February 2004, 22:47

j.guevara

17th February 2004, 22:54

THE REAL KERRY
By HOWIE CARR
February 5, 2004 -- BOSTON

ONE of the surest ways to get the phones ringing on any Massachusetts talk-radio show is to ask people to call in and tell their John Kerry stories. The phone lines are soon filled, and most of the stories have a common theme: our junior senator pulling rank on one of his constituents, breaking in line, demanding to pay less (or nothing) or ducking out before the bill arrives.

The tales often have one other common thread. Most end with Sen. Kerry inquiring of the lesser mortal: "Do you know who I am?"

And now he's running for president as a populist. His first wife came from a Philadelphia Main Line family worth $300 million. His second wife is a pickle-and-ketchup heiress.

Kerry lives in a mansion on Beacon Hill on which he has borrowed $6 million to finance his campaign. A fire hydrant that prevented him and his wife from parking their SUV in front of their tony digs was removed by the city of Boston at his behest.

The Kerrys ski at a spa the widow Heinz owns in Aspen, and they summer on Nantucket in a sprawling seaside "cottage" on Hurlbert Avenue, which is so well-appointed that at a recent fund-raiser, they imported porta-toilets onto the front lawn so the donors wouldn't use the inside bathrooms. (They later claimed the decision was made on septic, not social, considerations).

It's a wonderful life these days for John Kerry. He sails Nantucket Sound in "the Scaramouche," a 42-foot Hinckley powerboat. Martha Stewart has a similar boat; the no-frills model reportedly starts at $695,000. Sen. Kerry bought it new, for cash.

Every Tuesday night, the local politicians here that Kerry elbowed out of his way on his march to the top watch, fascinated, as he claims victory in more primaries and denounces the special interests, the "millionaires" and "the overprivileged."

"His initials are JFK," longtime state Senate President William M. Bulger used to muse on St. Patrick's Day, "Just for Kerry. He's only Irish every sixth year." And now it turns out that he's not Irish at all.

But in the parochial world of Bay State politics, he was never really seen as Irish, even when he was claiming to be (although now, of course, he says that any references to his alleged Hibernian heritage were mistakenly put into the Congressional Record by an aide who apparently didn't know that on his paternal side he is, in fact, part-Jewish).

Kerry is, in fact, a Brahmin - his mother was a Forbes, from one of Massachusetts' oldest WASP families. The ancestor who wed Ralph Waldo Emerson's daughter was marrying down.

At the risk of engaging in ethnic stereotyping, Yankees have a reputation for, shall we say, frugality. And Kerry tosses around quarters like they were manhole covers. In 1993, for instance, living on a senator's salary of about $100,000, he managed to give a total of $135 to charity.

Yet that same year, he was somehow able to scrape together $8,600 for a brand-new, imported Italian motorcycle, a Ducati Paso 907 IE. He kept it for years, until he decided to run for president, at which time he traded it in for a Harley-Davidson like the one he rode onto "The Tonight Show" set a couple of months ago as Jay Leno applauded his fellow Bay Stater.

Of course, in 1993 he was between his first and second heiresses - a time he now calls "the wandering years," although an equally apt description might be "the freeloading years."

For some of the time, he was, for all practical purposes, homeless. His friends allowed him into a real-estate deal in which he flipped a condo for quick resale, netting a $21,000 profit on a cash investment of exactly nothing. For months he rode around in a new car supplied by a shady local Buick dealer. When the dealer's ties to a congressman who was later indicted for racketeering were exposed, Kerry quickly explained that the non-payment was a mere oversight, and wrote out a check.

In the Senate, his record of his constituent services has been lackluster, and most of his colleagues, despite their public support, are hard-pressed to list an accomplishment. Just last fall, a Boston TV reporter ambushed three congressmen with the question, name something John Kerry has accomplished in Congress. After a few nervous giggles, two could think of nothing, and a third mentioned a baseball field, and then misidentified Kerry as "Sen. Kennedy."

Many of his constituents see him in person only when he is cutting them in line - at an airport, a clam shack or the Registry of Motor Vehicles. One talk-show caller a few weeks back recalled standing behind a police barricade in 2002 as the Rolling Stones played the Orpheum Theater, a short limousine ride from Kerry's Louisburg Square mansion.
The caller, Jay, said he began heckling Kerry and his wife as they attempted to enter the theater. Finally, he said, the senator turned to him and asked him the eternal question.
"Do you know who I am?"

"Yeah," said Jay. "You're a gold-digger."

John Kerry. First he looks at the purse.
Howie Carr, a Boston Herald columnist and syndicated talk-radio host, has been covering John Kerry for 25 years.

Individual

18th February 2004, 00:20

I am surprised by the number of members on this board throwing support for "democratic" "canidates" because we must get the big bad bush out of office, how the hell is a "democrat" "president going to be any different from a "republican" one? Look at the Clinton administration, read on how much his "presidency" screwed over the working class , had imperialist bombing campaigns, ect. This kind of shit existed LONG before George W "stole" the "election", if that's all you are concerned about how about how the ruling class has always controled the "presidentcy" Do you really think Kerry will be any less of a complete asshole then the other 43 "leaders" of the country? Or Sharpton? Or Dean?
"Democrats" have been proven to be as sneaky. foul and deceiving as "Republicans" have been,no matter how "progressive" or "liberal" they appear, DONT THINK THEY WONT FUCK YOU OVER TOO!

Let's get real, the only way we are ever going to make significant change is to emancipate ourselves through revolution, not by going through bourgeosie "elections" or government to fix the problems temporaly. I hope that there are some people out there who think this too and wont give intop the fools bet of "elections".

Ok. And back here on Earth, lets get real. Great point, however whatever revolution takes place between now and November, will change nothing.

Lets get real on the subject. Lets weigh the options. Who is worse off?

Yes they are both lying, sneaky, deuche bags. But so are all politicians. We can't do anything about that. What we can do is get Hitler and his regime the hell out of office.

You have to think logically about this. While you have a modest idea, nothing will change between now and November. Do you think 6.5 thousand (minus Y2K) can revolt against the US military alone? Think realistically.

Would you rather have a democrat, or a conservative, money hungry, choke-on-a-pretzel idiot in office? Vote Liberal this November. And also remember, the President doesn't call all of the shots. Vote democratic Congressmen/women where you can. This is where it will matter. Do not be discouraged due to the candidates, get Hitler the hell out of there and lets atleast head in a slightly better direction!

Vote!

truthaddict11

18th February 2004, 13:31

why dont you look at some of the bastards that have been "democrats" before, does Strom Thurmond ring a bell? Or how about an asshole like Joe Liberman or some of the other people who are "democrats". I am not saying a revolution is going to happen between now and november, I just cant see people who are "communists" and "socialists" on this board throwing support behind a capitalist, bourgeosie "canidate" of any party. Yes Bush is bad but so have the other 42 "presidents". I dont see how "electing" a new boss is going to change anything for the working class.

Vote!

NO!

RED CHARO

18th February 2004, 14:08

Has the U.S got a socialist party?
Even one seat in Parliment (here in australia) would bee enough to put a foot in the politicans ass!
Scotland is a good example of this........
While Brazil isn't............

SonofRage

18th February 2004, 14:32

Yes, there is the Socialist Party USA in the US which is very weak these days. There is currently a lot of turmoil in the party and there is a movement to recall the SP's presidential candidate.

There is actually one socialist in the US Congress who was elected as an independent, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Iepilei

18th February 2004, 15:05

Hrm. Interesting. While voting for the democratic nominee would probably prove to be more beneficial than dividing our interests and running the risk of a Bush re-election - I would feel more comfortable voting for someone who was actually for the causes I supported (atleast a few). A 3rd-party member is the ideal, but let's face it, we haven't got a chance in hell of actually getting one in.

Unless we get the staunch democrats to realise they've voted for a dud. Heh. Fat chance, right?

Individual

18th February 2004, 17:07

truthaddict... How ignorant can you be?

Whether or not I support another power and money hungry leader. But why in the hell would you not want to get rid of Bush. Thank you Ieppilei, for you are still down here in reality. Yes, either way we are f'cked. However think logically. Who will make our position worse? Bush by a longshot. This is what ignorant teens do. They feel that it doesn't matter, and they don't vote. You must realize, nothing is going to go how we want it. So lets atleast try and make it slightly better.

If you hate this governments politics so damn much. I don't see you making any attempt to get the hell out of here. Make a plan like I. Start working towards freedom. Move somewhere. Don't sit in here and *****. In the meantime, while stuck in this dictatorship. Let's vote to get Hitler out. Think on this planet about this. Don't be so damn ignorant.

Marxist in Nebraska

18th February 2004, 19:37

Kerry and Edwards are Bush-lite... there is really no way around that. As I live in a state which will go to Bush no matter what I do, I will vote for a third party candidate. That said, if I lived in a closely contested state, I would strongly consider voting for the Dem.

Kerry and Edwards are Bush-lite... but they are still a "liter" version. A lesser evil... I will not help George Bush get a second term, when he does not have the slightest bit of respect for civil rights, for the environment, for anything that puts the interests of the people before Corporate America. Kerry and Edwards, and their potential running mates, are not socialists, and they may not support any progressive causes. That said, I do not think either of them have the destructive capability that Bush does.

At very least, Kerry or Edwards would have to worry about re-election. Bush does not have to worry about a third term (whether by full realization of his fascist tendencies--becoming a dictator, or simply allowing himself to sink out of power like Clinton or Reagan is another question). There would be no incentive for Bush, in a second term, for any kind of moderation.

I would also like to stress a point AQ made. Sure, in the presidential race, we are trying to pick a capitalist who will do less damage. If that was all our elections were, that would be depressing to the point where I might not bother. AQ is quite right to point out that Congressional representatives are more responsive.

I would advise everyone of age to vote. If Kerry nauseates you beyond belief, fine, I do not expect you to vote for him. But realize there is a potential for good in picking up more progressive Dems and independents and getting them into the Congress and your state legislatures. At very least, losing a GOP advantage in Congress would put a greater strain on Bush getting his corporate whoring passed.

eyedrop

18th February 2004, 20:38

Haha I always laugh at the stupid voting system you have in US, your biggest party get's all policy is so stupid and makes the two party state. It's incredible that such an advanced country can have a so backwards voting system. Coalition gov. rules Then you can vote someone you support instead.

I'm so glad I live in a scandinavian paradise.

The only thing thats irritates me is that I must vote blank because I support none of the parties. Well it's hard to find a anarchistic party, even if you found it it would violate it's ideology if it's participated in the Parliament. (although it could have been there and refused to vote on any issues). Actually AKP (Anarcho-Communistic party) had a few post in my neighboring town. But their are an undercover Stalinist-party.

Marxist in Nebraska

18th February 2004, 20:58

eyedrop,

I agree that the winner-takes-all American system does not make for proper representation. If a party cannot command a majority in any political district, they have no representation.

The presidential race is similar. The second place candidate, usually only a few million voters short of the winner, is as insignificant as the guy who got three write in votes in his hometown. There was a time early in U.S. history when the runner-up for president became vice president. That concept makes a lot of sense to me.

Comrade Zeke

19th February 2004, 04:59

EDWARDS, EDWARD, EDWARDS! John Edwards represents the working class and the poor so I supoport him because Kerry is fake and George Bush is a Fasiast. Edwards also supports the green party

Marxist in Nebraska

19th February 2004, 17:11

Zeke,

Any source for your claims above? I have never heard about Edwards supporting the Green Party. He represents the working class? His voting record, as I understand, is centrist at best. It seems he is only using populist rhetoric to win the Democratic primary.

Funky Monk

19th February 2004, 19:11

To be honest, you are probably going to want a more right wing Democrat to get through the primaries. Lets face it, the current make-up of the electorate is centre-right and Kerry or Edwards are going to do a lot more to challenge Bush than someone like Gephardt would ever have done.

But back to the idea of re-election. Short term it might lead Bush to become less moderate but lets face it, he is going to end up a lame duck President, i dont think that Congress are going to want to support him during the final years of his Presidency with all the baggage which he is taking with him.

When Bush gets re-elected he'll have two years tops of power before he is challenged by Congress and does a Clinton. What i think you need to be doing in America is preparing for the 2008 Primaries and Nationals and getting ready for challenging the party rather than the President.

Iepilei

19th February 2004, 21:58

Edwards doesn't look to stand much of a chance at this given moment. He was under Dean, and Dean dropped. Kerry most likely will be the democratic nominee, which really, really blows. Our only hope is a high voter turnout who, just to spite everything, vote for a third party.

Hell, does anyone know any 3rd parties running anyone? I haven't heard anything, as of yet.

Marxist in Nebraska

20th February 2004, 20:19

FM,

No, we do not want a conservative Democrat to win the primary. Besides the obvious aspect of not gaining much in changing parties, it is not really a practical or "realistic" tactic either.

The Democrats have a liberal base which is actually much wider than that of the Republicans. The reactionary right has a very high voter turnout, and the left does not. Campaigns by the Democrats that have run to the right have often alienated the party's base, while gaining few centrist and conservative voters in the exchange.

The "centrist" DLC-style Democrat is intended to attract the votes of more Caucasian men, but if I remember correctly only two of the Democratic presidents of the last sixty years, at least, have received a majority of the Caucasian male vote. The Democratic Party does not need the votes of many Caucasian males as long as women and people of color can be mobilized.

Republican-lite is too Republican for many in the Dems' base, and at the same time Conservatives can vote for a real Republican. Who would vote for a fake Republican when they could vote for a real one?

i dont think that Congress are going to want to support [Bush] during the final years of his Presidency with all the baggage which he is taking with him.

Baggage? If you are talking about the war in Iraq and the damage to the livelihoods of millions of working Americans, then I would remind you that it is as much the fault of the Congress as Mr. Bush's. A Congress dominated by Republicans and Republican-lite Democrats has voted all of Bush's horrific initiatives into being.

If the Congress remains Republican dominated, or at least strongly Republican padded with Lieberman Dems, than they will continue to relentlessly plunder and ravage the exploited classes. Clinton was confronted by a rabidly reactionary Congress. That Congress is still there, but now the White House is like-minded.

Iepilei,

Actually, Edwards did much better than Dean throughout the primaries. Dean was a distant third throughout the primaries, finishing ahead of Edwards only on a few primaries in particularly liberal states. Edwards has also took first place in one state, something Dean was never able to do.

The Green Party is likely to run a candidate. That will be decided over the summer. Ralph Nader, it seems, will run for president as an independent. The SPUSA is running Walt Brown for president. Many other socialist and communist parties will also likely run their own candidates, but I do not suspect any of them will do particularly well.

Funky Monk

21st February 2004, 09:19

Ok, lets start with the term baggage. We've got the continuing debate about Bush's national service, we've got a reputation as a bit of an idiot, we've got a very strong protestant leaning. While these are all doing fine now it is a common fact that Presidents rearely get anything done towards the end of their second term. No President will ever have direct control over Congress or are you arguing with the term "Bargainer In Chief"?
As an independant body Bush needs to persuade Congress to do what he wants and you can bet your arse that towards the end of the second term Bush's negatives are going to gain much more significance and start to affect Congressional descisions.

Now lets talk on the compromise candidate or Bush-Lite as you call it. First lets consider the Britsih parrallel. We have a Tory administration which has come through its strongest days. On one hand they have completely alienated the left and on the other they've managed to piss off some of the right. Under Smith the Labour Party was becoming more centrist. You've got a situation where it was sociably acceptable for the right to vote Labour and under a two (some argue three) party system the left had nowhere else to go. The result, a very close election which seriously undermined the next Tory administration.
Practically, in America you have the Bush administration which has completely alienated the left and which has began to worry some Right wingers, especially the more centrist who question some of its motives. Now America is even more of a two party system than we have so where else do the left have to go? As some members of hte body have already stated there is a prevailing "anyone but Bush" atmosphere which if it is going to apply to moderate leftists on this board is going to be even more appealing to the centre left and fairly apolitical of America.

Ive only got the very recent statistics with me at the moment but you are right in saying WASPS are defiantely Republican voters but it is not these who the Democaats need to pull. Bush actually actracted more female voters in 2000 than Gore and a worrying 47% of the Catholic vote. Centrist policies would help to reassure both of these areas and even help to convince some "caring" WASPS. So in essence, what i am trying to say is that a centrist candidate has everything to gain and very little to lose. Dont repeat the mistakes of Labour in the 70s.

Marxist in Nebraska

25th February 2004, 19:35

FM,

Bush's desertion scandal will not stop a Republican Congress from working with him. Bush's personal clumsiness in speech and manner, a prime source of his reputation as an idiot, has been apparent since before he took office. It has not stopped Republicans from cooperating with him to this point, and there is no reason to believe it will become a problem in the future.

You are right that many presidents since the adoption of term limits have been "lame ducks" in their second terms. It was true for Clinton, but there are differences between Clinton and Bush. Bush, first of all, is much more aggressive in his policies. He is an ideologue, a crusader. Clinton did not have a sympathetic Democratic Congress for his second term. Bush currently enjoys Republican majorities in both houses, and this may continue through 2004.

In fact, by some accounts, Bush may become more aggressive in a second term. At times, Bush acts moderately for the sake of "re"-election. He would never be impeached by a Republican Congress, so what in the world would hold him accountable if given a second term?

Strong Protestant leaning? Are you suggesting this is a political weakness of his? Every candidate for president offered by the Big Two Parties since Jimmy Carter has been a Bible-thumping Protestant. Sadly, the "Good Christian" angle has been a very successful angle for politicians here.

No President will ever have direct control over Congress or are you arguing with the term "Bargainer In Chief"?

Direct control? A Republican in the White House and a majority of Republicans padded by Repub-Lite Democrats on Capital Hill are certain to be servants of the very same interests. I am not suggesting Bush would necessarily "control" Congress, but any legislation supporting the ruling class or the religious right will be embraced enthusiastically. This is not because Bush "controls" Congress or vice versa, but rather because both are directly tied to the same puppetmasters. Separation of powers is a joke when the same party controls all three branches of government.

Practically, in America you have the Bush administration which has completely alienated the left and which has began to worry some Right wingers, especially the more centrist who question some of its motives. Now America is even more of a two party system than we have so where else do the left have to go? As some members of hte body have already stated there is a prevailing "anyone but Bush" atmosphere which if it is going to apply to moderate leftists on this board is going to be even more appealing to the centre left and fairly apolitical of America.

If we are really so sick of Bush and what he stands for, then why should we not seek a real alternative to his philosophy and tactics? When the "alternative" is Bush-Lite, I am hardly surprised when people become apathetic and give up on voting. Kerry is an opportunist and Edwards is barely to the left of Lieberman on many issues. I doubt very seriously that I could ever vote for either one. I see a benefit in voting for lesser evils at strategic times, but these two even nauseate me!

These watered-down, "electable" candidates alienate probably millions of would-be moderate and progressive voters. I think surrendering a probable constituency of millions to pick up thousands of frustrated conservatives and reactionaries, and doing this for "practical" reasons is nonsense.

What is your source for the statistics you cited in your last paragraph? Maybe if the Democrats were more directly anti-sexist, then they would enjoy a stronger following among women. A significant number of American Catholics are Latino, and the percentage is climbing. If the Democrats were a real alternative to the racism and right-wing immigration policies of the Republicans, then you would see a stronger backing from Latinos--Catholic or otherwise.

Red Guard

25th February 2004, 19:49

The only democratic candidate who doesn't seem like a jerk off is Kucinich.

http://www.kucinich.us/

He's also the only one who supports ending the embargo on Cuba.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/cuba.php

YDSofLVA

25th February 2004, 21:23

really as far as presidential candidates of the modern era. Or of previous eras.....
American presidential candiates
Its all a question of "Who will screw you the least?"
People who are not Bush or part of his cabinet will screw us over less. therefore we'd rather be screwed over less.
Thoug if Bush gets reelected and then goes much further with his fucking up of the constitution, there will be a pretty good argument to revolt. According to Che anyways.
Whereas if a democrat gets elected and things improve at all
Which would be impossible not to do over bush,
then we kinda have to keep fighting politically in hope that one day Americans will wake up and realize that maybe its not such a bad idea to have free healthcare and education.

But.
Anyways.
Its a question of the lesser evil, because 99% of America is blind.

BOZG

25th February 2004, 21:26

Originally posted by Comandante [email protected] 25 2004, 09:49 PM
The only democratic candidate who doesn't seem like a jerk off is Kucinich.

http://www.kucinich.us/

He's also the only one who supports ending the embargo on Cuba.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/cuba.php
And that therefore is reason enough to vote for him. He remains a democrat nonetheless and is still a supporter of capitalism.

Red Guard

25th February 2004, 21:36

Originally posted by BornOfZapatasGuns+Feb 25 2004, 05:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BornOfZapatasGuns @ Feb 25 2004, 05:26 PM)
Comandante [email protected] 25 2004, 09:49 PM
The only democratic candidate who doesn't seem like a jerk off is Kucinich.

http://www.kucinich.us/

He's also the only one who supports ending the embargo on Cuba.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/cuba.php
And that therefore is reason enough to vote for him. He remains a democrat nonetheless and is still a supporter of capitalism. [/b]
Better him than Bush or those other third-rate versions of Dubya known as Kerry and Edwards. Kucinich is the only with with an actual brain. Imperialist U$ definitely needs a guy like him in office, even if he's a cappie! ;)