||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ANNOUNCEMENTS and ARTICLES: http://pnews.org/art/art.shtml
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What is there left to spoil?
John Zogby, the pollster, has already predicted a Kerry win in November,
but Horace Cooper, a commentator for UPI says that is wrong because Kerry
is "both too far to the left and not left
enough to win."
Cooper thinks Kerry will suffer a "massive" loss in November because he is
positioned between two poles and neither "left" enough or "unleft" enough
to capture enough votes.
"Zogby likened this year's election to the watershed election of 1800,
which saw President John Adams lose to his vice president, Thomas
Jefferson. That election was so divisive - Adams was demonized as a
"royalist," while Jefferson was reviled as "an atheist and a
whoremaster" - that Americans would call the presidency of James
Madison, who succeeded Jefferson, the "Era of Good Feelings.""
[Stan Tiner, June 4, 2004 - AP, Pollster says: Prepare for Armageddon"
There is still time for a lot of surprises between now and November. No
one can predict what the outcome will be if another major catastrope
should occur between now and the election. The country has perhaps not
been this divisive since the election of 1800 -- although even many
Republicans are now questioning George Bush's decisions in Iraq and some
are defecting over the war altogether.
John Kerry is not offering an alternative enough vision for progressive
voters. There doesn't seem to be real choices between Bush and Kerry. Only
Nader provides an alternative.
"Nader said he asked Kerry why more progress hadn't been made on those
issues, although the Massachusetts lawmaker and other Democrats have
pushed for changes for years. "How are you going to break the
opposition of the fossil fuel industry and the nuclear industry" to
the conversion of the country to renewable energy, Nader said he
asked. "To which he said: 'Wait and see when I become president.' "
[Will Lester, Associated Press | June 4, 2004]
Nader, who even some who voted for him in 2000 now accuse him of tipping
the election toward Bush, -- says the two political parties are so much
the same that voters "do not have a choice of two parties." When asked
about his energy policy ("energy efficiency and energy renewability") and
how it differs from the Bush policy, Kerry's answer, "Wait and see when I
become president." is unacceptable says Nader.
"Nader said Kerry supporters like the Sierra Club's political action
committee should demand more in return for their support or Kerry
could be elected without a mandate. Kerry could then succumb to
corporate influence, Nader said, with "nobody pulling him in the area
of environment and the area of consumer protection."" (Lester)
Meanwhile Nader is being encouraged to drop out.
"We believe the only way to fight the right wing and its policies is
through unity amongst Democrats, progressives and Nader supporters,"
said a letter from the group, TheNaderFactor.com. "Without that unity,
we fear that these extremist policies will continue unabated."
[John McCormick (June 04, 2004) - "Nader ignores pleas to quit race,
criticizes Kerry" - Chicago Tribune]
Nader responds with a question to those who call him a spoiler, why
"Democrats complain about his 2000 presidential
bid when millions more Democrats voted for Bush than for him. "I don't
understand how deeply, arithmetically challenged these people are," he
said. (McCormick)
(It is estimated that 12% of Democrats will vote for Bush.)
Those on the Left of the Democratic Party are not excited over Kerry.
"We'd rather [Kerry] were bolder, we'd rather he be stronger in many
different ways," said Robert Borosage, codirector of the Campaign for
America's Future (progressive groups with strong ties to labor). "But
Kerry is going to decide how he is going to run his campaign, and we're
going to focus on the real threat, which is an administration that
waged a preemptive war and brought preemptive tax cuts. [Mary Leonard,
"Liberal activists lukewarm on Kerry - Need to beat Bush is meeting's
theme" - Boston Globe (June 4, 2004)]
(Nader was not invited to speak at the meeting.)
KERRY INDICATES HE COULD NOMINATE ANTI-ABORTION JUDGES
"In seeking the support of independent voters, Kerry has played down
his own record as a liberal Massachusetts senator, expressing support
for civil unions but not gay marriage and suggesting he could nominate
antiabortion judges. His focus on reining in the federal deficit, and
the musings of campaign aides that, as president, he might bring
Republicans into his cabinet, also make liberal activists uneasy.
Kerry also supports continuing the military occupation of Iraq at
least until the country has a stable government." (Leonard)
There are not enough differences between Democrats and Republicans. We
have a Democratic candidate who was once a "war hero" who turned anti-war,
but he does not support gay marriage and might nominate anti-abortion
judges. He supports the war and wants to increase U.S. involvement by
adding 40,000 more troops. He supported adding more cops to America's
streets -- even as crime rates dropped. He distances himself from
progressive organizations and is not as outraged as he should be about
prisoner abuse. He is trying to court the mainstream, only the mainstream
in America turned more to the right. A vote for Kerry is a vote for the
right wing of the Democratic Party. A vote for Kerry is a vote for
Bush-Lite.
Ralph Nader says both parties are co-conspirators to turn America into a
corporate state and he says that is fascism.
"When government is controlled by private economic power, that is
fascism," Mr. Nader said, quoting President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Who was saying "no" to health care for all Americans, a national
living-wage standard, equal distribution of taxation, campaign-finance
and election reforms, and environmental protection and energy
advances, Mr. Nader asked rhetorically.
"The corporations, that's who," he answered." (DeBose)
Talking about the Iraq war, Mr. Nader reiterated that an
impeachment process should begin against President Bush for "faulty"
intelligence, "misleading" Congress and taking the country to war
under pretenses. ... Mr. Nader also accused Democrats of being soft in
their criticism of defense spending, which he said encompasses 50
percent of the nation's budget and has the most corrupt spending
mechanism for contracts of any agency.... Quoting another former
president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mr. Nader said the continual costs of
new fighter planes, tactical weapons and bombs could be invested into
advancements for schools and hospitals.
"Because [Mr. Bush] knew the cost of war, sometimes it's more
important to have a president who knows what war is, instead of a
clutch of chicken hawks who think they know," he said.
(DeBose)
"A vote for either Kerry or Bush is a vote for war," said Tony
Affigne, co-chair of the International Committee of the Green Party of
the United States. "The debate over Iraq in the 2004 election is not
Democrat versus Republican. It's Green versus the war parties."
[Green Party of the United States - from a Press Release - June 2,
2004]
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE (between Nader and the TWO Ruling Class Parties)
Here is what the Green Party of the United States says both Bush and Kerry
generally agree on: [Green Party of the United States - from a Press
Release - June 2, 2004]
(quote)
-- Sen. Kerry and most of his Democratic colleagues voted yea on the
USA Patriot Act, which Greens call a serious assault on constitutional
rights. (Greens also note that the October 2002 vote by Congress,
including Sen. Kerry, to surrender war powers to the White House
violated the U.S. Constitution.)
-- Sen. Kerry has endorsed the Bush Administration's support of Sharon
policies in Israel; Greens have condemned Israel's recent grab of West
Bank lands and murders of Palestinian civilians, called for Israel to
adhere to international law and U.N. directives, and supported
initiatives from Israeli and Palestinian peace groups.
-- Neither Bush nor Kerry offers strong initiatives to stem
catastrophic global climate change; Greens have called for a
renegotiated Kyoto Accord with more comprehensive measures, especially
for reversing the global addiction to fossil fuels, and with the U.S.
as signatory.
-- Both Bush and Kerry support international trade authorities which
frequently overrule local and national environmental, labor, and human
rights protections; Greens have called for international trade
agreements that strengthen local democracy and economic autonomy,
environmental protections, and workers' rights.
-- Both Bush and Kerry would continue to permit control by HMOs,
insurance firms, drug manufactureres, and other corporate lobbies over
U.S. health care, including prescription drugs; Greens propose a
single-payer national health insurance program.
(end quote)
Should Nader run in 2004? Will he be a spoiler? I ask you, what is there
left to spoil?
Hank Roth
---
/ o o \ PNEWS Topic Specific Portals (Vortals)
===OO=====OO=================================================
http://pnews.org/vortal/ New World disOrder and Myth Busters
http://g0lem.net/vortal/ Insane Planet and Wacko World
http://g0lem.net/portal/ Bad-Ass Truth and TheGolemsPortal
http://pnews.org/portal/ Naked Truth and PNEWS Portal
=============================================================
\_/ \_/
