Exploited Class
20th February 2004, 23:22
Originally posted by
[email protected] 20 2004, 08:26 AM
Well, I do make a point pay attention to what information comes out of the right wing, christian extremists, etc... Forbes Magazine isn't one I read, but probobly will start to after reading this article.
That is cool. I watch the 700 club with Pat and kids whenever I remember to turn on a TV. I don't get Fox news or I am sure I'd watch that as well. Its nice to see what approach your idealogical enemies are using against you. Oh and it isn't Forbes, it is Fortune that we get delivered, my mistake. Same thing however.
I've heard the argument that George W. Bush is good for the revolution, and that's pretty much my feeling on it. Much more people are pissed off about the system since George W. Bush Became President than William Jefferson Clinton was president.
I don't think it would be going out on a limb but I think more people are politically active since GW took the office. There are actual protests, huge protests. I think that alone should speak a lot to the left. We don't often get the opportunity to be around so many people in a gathering spot like we do with GW in the office. The backlash of the 60s is what gave us Nixon and Reagan and finally Bush. I think another term of Bush, realigious zealots and 2 take overs of other countries will push a backlash back in our favor.
All John Kerry offers is the false hope and false sence of security for liberal americans that things may get better, which they aren't.
I don't think he will even be as left as Clinton and as anybody knows Clinton wasn't very left except on some worker safety issues, family leave act and some enviromental laws. A lot of which got turned over by Bush because Clinton went about them in a half ass way. Clinton was pro-capitalism all the way hardcore.
I saw a speach by John Kerry last night where he was adressing the AFL-CIO and seemed to be toting that same old democratic rhetoric about universal healthcare!
I think it is called "Lip Service". The people that elect him don't care about universal health care and the people paying for his election don't want it. Nevermind he isn't going to get it past a republican controlled house, senate and finally Supreme Court. I have no idea why the general public doesn't see that.
Yet this is only a political stunt for votes, there is no commitment, and he never actually ever said anything about a national healthcare proposal.
he doesn't have to, people don't care about it, if they had they would have pushed for Dean since that was big change item. Even his was just for people in poverty situation and children, modeled after his home state.
In addition, Kerry, unlike Edwards is all for NAFTA and FTAA. So the AFL-CIO is really selling out by supporting Kerry, and all they are hoping is to gain the support of a President who isn't as militantly anti Union as George W. Bush is, and has a better prospect of creating more Jobs.
I think that sums it up pretty well.
Support for Edwards would be taking the "high road" of sticking with their principles... yet they had already been burned by their support of Ghepart and Deen, so want to be on the "winning team"... lol
Americans vote like they are placing bets. They vote for who they think is going to win and not for who they want.
Going back to the very reason you posted this article. kerry has the potential to be the 3rd all time richest President. I understand the point and agree with you that a socialist voting for a potential 3rd richest president is absurbed. To even consider it, doesn't even make sense.
Who do you think designed the slogan, "anybody but Bush". The socialists and green party? No Bourgeoise political arm did. Their slogan generator pushed that one out because of the left's stances voting Nader and effectively killing Gore's run. The democrats actually want to blame us for Iraq and for all the problems because we didn't vote for them. They are playing a guilt trip on all of us. I don't think that is fair. And the democratic party smashed the green party which had a lot of potential.
I think it might be better to say, "imagine your vote is a 100 dollar bill and you have to give it to either A socialist canidate or a Democratic canidate" who would you hand it over to? Would your concious allow you to hand it over to the possible 3rd richest president in history or to the socialist everyday guy making a run at it?
Here is the thing, socialists pay close attention to the Libertarian Party. They are swinging the center of idealogies farther right. Bush is catering to them because they are large, organized and will withhold their votes if instructed to. So instead of going after the centralists' votes the GOP swings over to woo the Libertarian Party, because their vote is hard to get. You don't see any Libertarians saying "Anybody But Kerry"
The Democratic party on the other hand offers up Clinton and Kerry to grab this mythical swing voters, leaving behind the left. Why? They know you will vote for them anyway.they don't have to court you for your vote because you will give it up a like a virgin on prom night.
This is really hurting the left, in my opinion, overall. Although it might sound like I am being a hypocrit because I said the right winning helps speed up the revolutionary dissidence, I am not. The GOP can win all they want, but if the center keeps swinging more and more to the right, Socialistic ideals are going to be sitting next to tin foil hat wearing loonies worried about space aliens.
It matters who wins, because the extreme right wing winning means we win quicker. It is important that we don't go against our ideals and vote for an anybody but. Both democratic and republican are taking you to the same stage coach stop, one just has better horses going there faster while the democratic party just has a more comfortable ride and less bumpy route, but they are going to park at the same place last stop.
We need to get better organized because we need to be courted, I didn't say we need to give up our votes but we need to look competent to vote as 1. The democratic party needs to realize that they had the best support ever when instead of saying "anybody but Hoover" thier president enacted social security and labor laws that were pro union. This is because the socialists in this country were 1 million active strong and they proved they deserved the attention by voting for who they wanted and not the lesser of two evils.