Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- Begin Message ----Caveat Lector- Here's some exchanges on another forum as well as an article on the entire question of Kerry and his bush lite campaign strategy/positions i thought Pacifica people and Pacifica's "JOURNALIST" should incorporate into their current Sunday Morning "analysis" .By the way, anyone other than myself *cringe* listening to DN! yesterday, with Amy Goodman's rebroadcast of her 2000 interview with Clinton? ~Heidi ====================================================== http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php?showtopic=39090&st=0&#entry304812 DefeatBush wrote: A lot of people simply do not understand the psychology of minority political factions. Look at the conservative Republican Party strategists: they do everything they can to mollify and incorporate the Christian Fundamentalist faction. They do not drive them away to form a third party or run an independent candidate---they know that would be suicidal for the national Republican Party. Instead they have built a coalition WITHIN the Republican Party. And every element of that coalition is energized and completely committed to the cause. The Democratic Party, in contrast, appears to be doing everything imaginable to alienate the Progressive AND the Liberal wings of the party. Yes, the strategists are probably right: the progressives/greens/liberals have "no where else to go". But there can be a point when the alienation becomes so great that it suppresses turnout and creates an all-around de-energized party. For the last four years I have held a bitter grudge against Nader. I still blame him for helping elect Bush. I have posted here some very long arguments AGAINST the Nader candidacy and against third party candidates in general (in Presidential elections). My anti-Bush diatribes can leave no doubt about what I think about his administration. And yet, to my own surprise, I find myself more amenable to the Nader candidacy this time than I did in 2000. And I am not alone. Why? You would think it should be the opposite. Now that we know how absolutely horrendous Bush has been, how completely beyond the pale, you would think there would be much LESS allure for a Nader-type spoiler candidacy. But there is a key psychological and political fact that must be considered: The Democratic candidate's blatant but completely predictable "move to the center and screw the Liberals/Progressives" strategy is DOUBLY galling THIS TIME because of the absolute and complete and unprecedented vulnerability of the Right *at this moment*. There is a window of opportunity NOW; an historic opportunity of enormous but fleeting potential. Do you understand? If ever there was a time for a Democratic candidate to NOT waffle and equivocate and scurry to some obsolete concept of a uncontroversial "center", in an attempt to conform to some preconceived notion of what "moderates" will consider safe and acceptable because some unimaginative and uninspired strategists cannot imagine, let alone will, the political *conquest* of the moderate swing voter---it is NOW! If ever there was time for the Democratic candidate NOT to run a campaign based on FEAR of Republican attacks, it is NOW!! if ever there was a time for the Democratic candidate NOT to be afraid to oppose with Rooseveltian like moral clarity the neo-conservative war machine, it is NOW!! If ever there was a time for the Democratic candidate NOT to "soften" his rhetoric, not to adopt Republican-like jingoistic "War on Terror" phraseology , not to reiterate Republican-like mantras of "free trade at all costs" , not to put oneself forward as an "invisible to the last moment then revealed as a minimally acceptable alternative to Bush candidate" -- it is NOW!!! The time is NOW for the explosive resurgence of a proud, vital, fearless Democratic Party! The time is NOW for bold, clear, unequivocal, un-waffling Democratic LEADERSHIP and a visionary new program for change. The time is NOW because the Right-Wing is more vulnerable NOW than it has ever been. The time is NOW because *right now* the disastrous results of the right-wing agenda are as clear as day; because *right now* the news is filled with death and destruction and the collapse of American values and prestige; because *right now* the Bush Administration is under investigation on a thousand fronts and is so wobbly and punch-drunk that one little push would send it to the canvass. And yet, sadly, the Democratic Party seems to be unaware of its POWER to do just that! To knock these guys out cold. It appears more and more likely that the Democratic Party will fail to seize this unique opportunity for a momentous national political re-alignment and will run a dull, backward-looking, fear-of-being-attacked campaign that may, if the other side insists on self-destructing, win the White House temporarily, but which has NO chance of permanently slowing down, let alone halting, the forward rushing right-wing ideological juggernaut. It is this sense of the *lost opportunity* to take advantage of a unique moment of Republican vulnerability that is so deeply frustrating to liberals and progressives and makes their marginalization almost unbearably infuriating this time----and which is even driving some of them to reconsider the Nader candidacy. =========================== Also you might find this interesting: Kerry: a Lighter Shade of Bush By William M. Arkin, SOUTH POMFRET, Vt. - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry got a boost last week when 27 retired U.S. diplomats, admirals and four-star generals, including a number of prominent Republican appointees from former Bush and Reagan administrations, publicly urged Americans to vote President Bush out of office. They did not explicitly endorse Kerry, but the old warriors and insiders find themselves far more comfortable with the Massachusetts senator than with Bush when it comes to their favorite subject. Not only has Kerry firmly surrounded himself with Clinton standard-bearers on foreign policy and defense, but he has espoused his own brand of warmongering. I would love nothing better than to see Bush out of office, but Kerry is a gloomy alternative. Worse yet, in the short term, his "me too, only better" approach to the war on terrorism could actually serve to make the United States less safe. Kerry's defense plans might be a slam-dunk for the atherosclerotic set in the national security community, but here is the alternative that the senator offers to Democrats and people of liberal values in November: .. no plan to withdraw from Iraq, not even the kind of "secret plan" the late President Nixon offered on Vietnam, and no change in Afghanistan; .. continuation of Bush's preemption policy; .. a larger military with many more special operations units, plus accelerated spending on "transformation," which in today's defense jargon means creation of greater capability to intervene around the world on short notice; .. a new domestic intelligence agency and a vastly beefed-up homeland security program. Kerry's defense advisors see much of this as innocuous rhetoric to protect the Democratic candidate's flanks from traditional conservative accusations of being soft on national security. At the same time, it represents a calculated strategy to "keep your head low and win." In his stump speeches, Kerry stresses a spirited dose of alliances, the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and a return to what he calls an "America that listens and leads again." He roundly criticizes the Bush administration on Iraq, Afghanistan and homeland security. He promises as commander in chief that he will never ask the troops "to fight a war without a plan to win the peace." All that is to the good. Yet when Kerry describes the contemporary world, and the challenges that the U.S. faces, he sounds just like the president, the vice president and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Terrorism, he says, "present[s] the central national security challenge of our generation." Preventing terrorists from "gaining weapons of mass murder" is his No. 1 security goal, and Kerry says he would strike first if any attack "appears imminent." The senator promises to "use military force to protect American interests anywhere in the world, whenever necessary." On May 27 in Seattle, he promised to "take the fight to the enemy on every continent" (I guess that probably doesn't include Antarctica). Beyond rhetoric, Kerry proposes to add 40,000 troops to the Army and to double the "Special Forces capability to fight the war on terror," presumably jumping from the current 48,000 to 96,000. On homeland security, there isn't a constituency that Kerry doesn't pander to. National Guard, local government, police, firefighters, public health services, even AmeriCorps - the modest domestic equivalent of the Peace Corps - all should be beefed up, he says, to "protect America." He even proposes a new "community defense service" of homeland security wardens � la civil defense in the Cold War, which would surely be the looniest club that ever existed. Even his serious proposals are problematic. The homeland security plan is defeatist and out of control. On the Army, though it sounds as if adding active-duty troops would solve the current overburden in Iraq and relieve the National Guard and reserves, the reality is that adding 40,000 to the end strength would take two or more years, according to one of Kerry's own advisors. Special Forces are even more difficult and time-consuming to manufacture. But the biggest problem is that the basic premise of military growth is that we will continue to fight at the Bush pace. And relying more on special operations? That's the Rumsfeld doctrine: fast and light, covert and unaccountable. But anyone who is not an administration toady must recognize by now that ninja magicians can do only so much and that the cost of not having enough regular soldiers on the ground is a theme that runs from Tora Bora and the postwar insurgency in Iraq to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Special-ops troops tend to get you involved in, well, special operations. Making them a centerpiece of U.S. military planning and force structures builds a bias into the decision-making process that favors covert action and the unfortunate belief that we can prevail over terrorism by killing terrorists faster than they are recruited. Kerry proposes these buildups because he accepts the central premise of the Bush administration: Terrorists are so threatening that we must sacrifice our liberties, change our government and military and, ultimately, our way of life in order to fight them. In this 60th anniversary year of D-day, I find it astounding that anyone could be so callous and ahistorical as to point to the threat we faced from a Nazi foe that truly had the capacity to destroy our way of life and compare it to a few thousand or even a few tens of thousands of terrorists who, at their worst, can do no more than threaten to panic Western society with random bloodshed. It is equally absurd to compare the war on terrorism to the Cold War, when the United States could literally have been destroyed by thousands of nuclear weapons (a possibility, though not a threat, that persists today from Russian and Chinese nukes). Challenge the Hysteria Intelligent people, and I assume that includes Kerry, must begin to challenge the basic premise behind the post-9/11 hysteria. Terrorists may be a growing threat, and we may be unprepared to deal with the challenges they pose, but they have no hope of destroying our society. Only we can do that. By overstating the threat and overreacting to incidents, we not only give terrorists exactly what they seek, but we seem to create a panicked environment that clouds our judgment when it comes to intelligence, propels us into military adventures abroad and distorts our priorities at home. Americans should demand a certain level of competence and accountability from their government to protect them, but the Bush (and Kerry) approach is not securing a peaceful future. In fact, the entire war on terrorism, based on the false assumption that it is a war for our survival, seems to be feeding hatred and aggravating the fault lines. We need to rethink this problem, pure and simple, and Kerry needs to unburden himself from the conventional wisdom. Otherwise, for many in the Islamic world, Kerry's adoption of the Bush administration's worldview and strategies merely reinforces the idea that the United States is indeed the problem, that there is a clash of civilizations that only might can resolve and that Islam will be an American target no matter who is president. If reducing terrorist attacks is the goal, I can't imagine more dangerous perceptions to foster. The United States would be safer with a Democratic political platform that demonstrated fundamental disagreement about our current course. It's tough in a campaign season to stop worrying about the polling booth and start thinking afresh about national security. So here is one final argument against Kerry's muscle-bound "me-too-ism," an argument rooted in domestic, not foreign, policy concerns: For young people energized by the Howard Dean campaign, for liberals and the silent majority, Kerry's carbon-copy campaign conveys the impression that political involvement doesn't matter. Whether you back Kerry, stay home, vote for Ralph Nader or stick with the Bush team, the result will be the same. If revitalizing American democracy and reinforcing its most precious values are our key objectives, I can't imagine a worse message for a Democratic presidential candidate to be sending. =============== QUOTE (FightTheVulcans @ Jun 22 2004, 08:58 PM) http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php?showtopic=39090&st=0&#entry304812 Bush's 30 second response: "John Kerry voted for the war in Iraq, but now he criticizes President Bush for leading us to war on false premises. John Kerry was given the same information that the President was given when he voted for the war." Cut to clip of John Kerry giving speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate about Saddam's "dangerous arsenal of weapons of mass destruction." "John Kerry: playing politics with the War on Terrorism." ========================================================== DefeatBush responds: Are you afraid to take that on? Afraid of Republican attacks? Afraid of the 30 second ads? Afraid you don''t have the political imagination or will to fight that fight?? Think it is better to just cede the entire issue to Bush.....agree with his policy....offer no counter view, no contrasting vision, no positive alternative....as Kerry has done? Maybe your right. Maybe Kerry has no choice; this is an old game, and the rules are already well established, and Kerry must play by the rules----as was explained in an article pinned by the Kerry team to justify the strategy: "If Kerry had charged ahead with a primary-season message, he would have come out as the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. He would have still been wailing about Benedict Arnold CEOs and Iraq's descent into a new Vietnam. He would have stressed the evils of globalization, and blamed the Bush administration for exaggerating the terror threat to stoke a climate of fear. That's a one-way ticket to McGovernsville. Even liberals know liberalism doesn't win general elections; that's why they decided not to nominate Dean in the first place. So Kerry is absolutely correct to take some time off, retool the message and play the quadrennial game that smart nominees play: Shaft the Left." (David Brooks) So that's it: stereotypical discredited liberalism OR a me-too-Republican-lite-centrism ...that's the only choice Kerry has.... No other options? Can't think of anything? don't have any fresh ideas?....so just go with the conventional wisdom. And why not? Bush is self-destructing. " If a man is committing suicide, you don't need to commit homicide" we are told again and again. Why not just stay out of the fray? Avoid any and all controversy? Try to take no stands or show any LEADERSHIP that might open you to attacks from the invincible Rove attack machine? Why not go for the "invisible man---minimally acceptable alternative" strategy so popular among Kerry true-believers?: "I've figured out what Sen. John Kerry needs to do to win the White House this November: wrap himself in Harry Potter's Invisibility Cloak. If the Massachusetts senator can only stay out of sight for long enough, George W. Bush's presidency may sink into the sands of Iraq. ......Yes, Bush will be underestimated once more. He always is. But if Kerry uncloaks himself as a minimally acceptable alternative, that may be the end of the matter. " (Howard Fineman) Why not indeed?---if that's what you believe it will take to win. Just don't be surprised if some folks find that position NOT to be even minimally acceptable and vote for Nader, or don't vote at all. And don't be surprised if rumors of Bush's suicide turn out to be greatly exaggerated, and Kerry's fear-based-strategy turns out to be greatly overestimated. http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php?showtopic=39090&st=0&#entry304812 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> <FONT COLOR="#000099">Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70 </FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/xYTolB/TM";><B>Click Here!</B></A> --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> New Pacifica Working Group http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica 'Save Our Stations!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewPacifica/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
--- End Message ---
