Log in

View Full Version : Dissecting the Electable John Kerry



Andrei Kuznetsov
10th March 2004, 22:47
Dissecting the Electable Mr. Kerry
Revolutionary Worker #1232, March 14, 2004, posted at rwor.org (http://rwor.org/)

It is hard to pin down John Kerry. You can slice and dice all his positions. You can lay them down on the table and compare them (inch by inch) with the notorious and hated wartime president.

But that approach doesn't get to the heart of the matter--which is that people are told to think that only two things really (supposedly) matter:

First, John Kerry is not George W. Bush.

And, second, John Kerry is electable, meaning he can (potentially, conceivably) beat George W. Bush.

And for some people, those two points settle everything. They have convinced themselves that it doesn't really matter if Kerry even agrees with them on important matters. They want the policies of Bush gone, gone, gone--and believe this can only mean getting themselves (and everyone else) to want Kerry in, in, in.

Let's get into why this logic is so dangerous and what this John Kerry campaign really represents-- starting with why he is considered "electable."

Who Decides Who Is "Electable"?

Millions of people just hate George W. Bush--his war, his Bush doctrine, his exposed WMD lies, his "homeland security" alerts, his crude catering to zillionaires, his rightwing religious madness, his strutting swagger and arrogant smirk.

And by last December, this gave rise to an "angry" candidacy within the Democratic Party. Howard Dean never proposed actually pulling out of Iraq--but he tapped into the mood and wowed the "Democratic base" by ripping into Bush and the lies that launched the Iraq war. And right before the primaries, the conventional wisdom was "this guy may have a lock on the nomination."

A prominent conservative columnist, Fred Barnes, spoke for a determination in the larger political establishment (of both political parties!) not to let this go down ( Weekly Standard , Dec. 18, 2003):

"The antiwar, Bush-loathing, culturally liberal left now has the upper hand. Its dominance will likely culminate in Dean's nomination. This is an event to be feared. Why? Because it will harm the Democratic party and lead to a general election campaign brimming with bitter assaults on the very idea of an assertive, morality-based American role in the world. And all this will play out as the war on terrorism, and the outcome in Iraq, hang in the balance. Gore's lurch to the left and Dean's likely nomination mean trouble.. For themselves and their party, and because others haven't the moxie to step forward, it's time for the Clintons to take on Dean."

Similar messages were suddenly heard everywhere--including within the Democratic Party. The gatekeepers of this political system simply decided that this was not the year to ALLOW such "bitter assaults" to have a voice within highly funded, TV powered, official discussions of this presidential election.

And, while all those who had put their hopes in a Dean candidacy watched, overnight, suddenly, it was over. Someone pulled the plug--and Dean was history. The Democratic Party apparatus "took him out" before the primaries even got started. The media climbed fully on board--and ran Dean's "I have a Scream" speech until he became a national joke.

Dean was simply not allowed to make it into the primaries.

How was this explained to the people? Everyone was told that Dean was just not "electable"--unlike the lumbering Senator John Kerry. And, equally overnight, the electable Mr. Kerry became the assumed nominee.

All this happened at the end of the Iowa caucuses, before a single vote had been cast. The primary votes of the Democratic base did not choose the Democratic nominee. Those primaries were used to confirm the pick of the party establishment and media... to read the rest of this article see http://rwor.org/a/1232/kerry.htm


For More On John Kerry: http://rwor.org/a/1232/kerryside.htm
For More Election News and Analysis: http://rwor.org/s/elect.htm

Lefty
20th March 2004, 02:07
Yeah, what happened to Howard Dean sucked. He really deserve much more support than he got. However, I'm down with Kerry being elected, simply because he isn't Bush and chances are things will get better if he is elected. Or, to put it another way: things will change more if Kerry is elected than if Bush is. Therefore, I put my support behind Kerrry while fighting for change in other avenues in my life.

Cooler Reds Will Prevail
20th March 2004, 09:20
the problem w/ american politics is that our country is too moderate. Bush claims to be a 'moderate' republican, and so the democrats have to put forward a moderate democrat in order to compete. the independents decide every election, and they sure as hell aren't gonna vote for the far left/far right candidate. neither party is willing to risk its electibility to put forth who they really want, and so every president ends up being moderate.... Dean would've made the most difference in the country probably, with Edwards and Gephardt following, but we know that Dean couldn't win the swing voters that Kerry can.....

Valkyrie
20th March 2004, 15:56
You'll need a large fractal microscope to detect the differences between Bush and Kerry. Kerry's domestic policy is just as reactionary as Bush's, and his foreign policy equally imperalist. He talks about being the anti-war man, while he makes plans to build up a stronger military & homeland security.

You gotta read through the fine print...when he says things such as enlightened SELF-INTEREST, UNDOUBTED military MIGHT,.... insidious DANGERS... NATIONAL SECURITY.

The guy's a paranoid war-mongering maniac.


Kerry's quote, Foreign Policy Platform:

“Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are not just issues of international order, but vital issues of our own national security.”

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/100days/

Cooler Reds Will Prevail
20th March 2004, 23:53
the only reason that kerry is talking like that is because he is forced to by the moderate electorate who bought into bush's fear factor and are obsessed with national security... i really don't think that he is as war hungry as you think but rather playing to the moderate crowd that he needs desperately to win over......... Dean wasn't elected for this reason exactly. he is anti-war, and bush did exactly what he wanted to in making americans afraid of their own shadow that everybody feels now that our military should be total world dominance......... kerry i don't think will fulfill such harsh military action. maybe i'm being naive, but thats my intuition......

Lefty
20th March 2004, 23:56
Enh. He says that he'd make efforts to decriminalize marijuana, and would enforce tougher environmental policies. Both of those are pretty cool, I'd say.

RebeldePorLaPAZ
21st March 2004, 01:01
Two words...

Vote Socialist

;)

The reason is people need to vote for them so they get more support. Why vote for a Democrate if you call yourself a Socialist?

Kerry will win even if you dont vote him. Look at the facts, Gore won. The 2000 election was rigged. Hopefully it won't happen again.

--Paz

Lefty
21st March 2004, 01:16
In a year where the Republicans don't pose such a huge threat, I'd advocate a third party candidate. However, it'll be real close this year, just like 2000. I don't want to waste my vote. Besides, I can't vote anyway. (I'm 15.)

Cooler Reds Will Prevail
21st March 2004, 01:55
^^^ exactly my thinking

El Che
21st March 2004, 12:47
Nice article and very true. The extent to which mainstream US politics are so far to the right never ceases to amaze me.