Why the media has suddenly become so enamored with Kerry --

[RichM]

Kerry offers a type of "opposition" that's thoroughly acceptable to the Establishment. He isn't threatening to their interests, & the style of his opposition is implicitly flattering to the US political system as a whole. (It makes it appear to be "working.") He criticizes Bush, but strictly within limits deemed permissible by the system. He is offering to take the reins of power, but without saying anything damaging to the system (which is too bad, because the system is deeply rotten).

Kerry won't raise any questions that strike directly at Establishment interests. For one example among many: Kerry won't say that the war was basically a scheme by US corporations to seize control of Iraq's oil; to convert Iraq into a huge US military base; & to gain the added bonus of the reconstruction-contract ripoffs. He can't say that -- because he voted for the thing himself, & because he's an Establishment politician who wouldn't dare blow the whistle on how corporate desires dictate US foreign policy.

Rather, Kerry will obediently keep the criticism SAFE and NARROW. He'll say the war was ill-conceived, the president didn't "keep his promises" to Kerry, the president "misled" us about the war. He'll make feisty critical-sounding comments about the "special interests" -- without ever naming them. This way, he'll SOUND like an "opponent" & critic of Bush, but the essential criminality of the whole scheme will be safely excluded from the discussion. Bush will come off as guilty of "errors in judgement" but not of criminality, and the military-corporate role will escape scrutiny altogether.

This is the crux of the matter: whichever party wins, it is essential (from the viewpoint of the media, who are part of the ruling elite) that:
1) the US corporate elite not be portrayed as profoundly & thoroughly corrupt
2) the US political system be portrayed as functioning legitimately, honorably, and fairly; and
3) the domestic credibility of the US government must not be shattered. (If this happens, it invites "social unrest" -- aka angry uprisings by mobs who finally see clearly how they've been robbed).

Right now, the system sees the need for someone who appears to oppose Bush, but whose opposition is limited enough that it won't threaten the underlying workings of the system. That's Kerry. // The system can afford to throw Bush to the wolves, if it needs to. It can't afford to have the underlying truth about itself exposed.

[LuminousX]

1. Kerry is simply who they expected from the start

They had all sorts of worries with the Dean insurgence and the Clark upheaval, but all is right in the world now so they can return to their previously prepared scripts.

[Mairead]

19. No, the rulers would be/have been fine with Dean, too

Every one of his policy statements makes it clear that he wasn't and isn't threatening anything--his 'opposition' is entirely theater. Shakespearian 'sound and fury'.

[RichM]

22. This is the first time I've ever disagreed with something you wrote!

And I don't disagree that much, either. But: you're quite right in terms of Dean's POLICY statements. He had little to offer there that wasn't entirely conventional. Where I disagree, however, is at the level of public pronouncements. Sometimes Dean blurted out remarks that contained a dangerous amount of truth in them.

For example, his famous "We're no safer with Saddam captured" remark. This was dangerous to the rulers, because it cut against an important central theme of US propaganda: that our state enemies must be publicly portrayed as limitlessly evil. Dean's comment implicitly challenged that principle. He was saying Saddam was evil, but not LIMITLESSLY so. Our rulers didn't like that. They want to be able to always justify anything they do, on grounds that our enemies are so evil that our acting against them can only be viewed as "moral."

[wabeewoman]

24. I have to disagree

I think Dean had them scared. He could have read DU for a lot of the statements he made. He talked about media ownership and breaking it up(probably not smart as they really set out to get him then). I think the poster hit it exactly. Kerry is status quo, he is an insider and he isn't going to rock the boat. Hence the huge, hysterical reaction to Dean-he really did intent to take back the country for us. I doubt he could have succeeded even if he is elected. The fix is in. And I've come to the conclusion 'they' just let us think we have any power but 'they' take who we really wanted and give us someone safe and 'electable' and controllable. I am disillusioned and disenfranchised.

[Eloriel]

81. He also scared them massively -- and probably most imptly

because he brought newly awakened and empowered people who wanted their country and their party back into the mix. This was seen as his greatest sin and greatest threat.

[mlawson]

69. You are correct, LuminousX. A year ago

I predicted just this situation, almost to the letter. Apparently the media whores did the same thing. And they seem to be the types who do not like surprises... (Reporters do, but that is diferent.)

[K-W]

2. Radicals dont win elections.

The large majority of Americans arent going to vote for someone who radically challenges the establishment. Welcome to reality. That is why the only candidates offering such challenges have never been in contention.

Kerry offers exactly what he should offer. A moderate opposition. If he offered what you want him to offer, he would get his ass handed to him in november. Please be realisitc, we are not going to change the way the world works in one presidential campaign. In this kind of battle, we need to support moderate liberals.

[CWebster]

9. Then you get what you get, the status quo

Because of Right-wing action to dominate the agenda and national identity- and Democratic complicity to it through triangulation policy and corporate deregulation, while abandoning a counter-objective, the status quo has drifted increasingly towards the Right. The Democrats are left mouthing platitudes while mostly catering to the global corporate power elite. Meanwhile cheap Walmart trinkets, affordable on meager salaries, will be the bones thrown to keep the pack quiet while the US global policies continue to destabilize, creating retribution in the form of terrorism--or the poor mans' means of fighting back.

[cosmicdot]

73. *-Cheney are radical in my book

and, they were selected

or does 'radical' only have a "left" connotation?

[Cheswick2.0]

80. Kerry is going to get his ass handed to him if he is a nominee in Nov

because he offers nothing. He can't fight bush, because he agree with him on almost everything for the last two years.

PS.. since when is Dean a radical? There is nothing radical about the idea that government should serve and be responsive to the people rather than the "special interests". It's a very American idea.

[Snivi Yllom]

91. it's not so much he agrees with Bush

it's that there is so little difference between them. Kerry can't criticize Bush for things he has done or voted for himself.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. OK but guess what. When the Democrats took the mantra

of civil rights back in the 60's they then ALSO offered an opposition that was acceptable to the ESTABLISHMENT. Prior to that time, it was the communist and socialist party carrying water for these issues. It actually served to accomplish much of the goal with AA arising out of it and the Voting Rights Act.

(see The Cultural Cold Wars by Stoner-Saunder)

The ESTABLISHMENT is afraid of anything too far right or too far left. I am sure the establishment is a BIT concerned about the HARD right turn as well. Why? Violent revolution does not make them money or buy them security.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. No bites on this post, eh?

[oasis]

25. The "establishment" is alarmed at what has become of the Constitution.

It's their country too.

Furthermore, Rummy, Ashcroft, Cheney, and Perle have not only become the rogues gallery of the Bush Administration, but a national embarrassment as well.

[Armstead]

31. Nibble, nibble

Okay here's my bite. I'm not quite as radical as Rich M. but I usually agree with him most of the way.

Civil Rights happened because there was no choice in the matter. There was growing civil disobedience and even riots. It was obvious that it had to be dealt with, just to keep the lid from blowing off the kettle.

The problem we have today is that "moderate" is really reactionary conservative, and "radical" is what once was mainstream liberalism. So the "establishment" that settles for the status quo -- including Democratic Centrism -- is actually radical conservatism. "My God, We should actually start to enforce anti-trust laws again? That's shocking. What are you a Communist?" and "Expand Medicare to deal with a rotting and corrupt healthcare system? What are you some kind of utopian flake?"

Therefore, regardless of whether one ultimately envisions a socialist workers' paradise, or simply a more moderate liberal democracy again, the trees need to be shaken.

That includes a shift in the public/political dialogue, so that the 'conventional wisdom" is not merely parroting the corporate agenda.

I don't see Kerry doing that. He is simply espousing safe "corporate populism" with market tested, but empty, phrases and proposals.

As Rich M noted, Dean is not a radical reformer either, but he is opening the door to more honesty and information, and saying things that need to be said. By doing that he IS shaking the trees, while so far Kerry has just stood from a safe distance from those same trees.

[KoKo]

33. Well said, Armstead.....n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

40. You're a bit all over the place on this one for me to respond on point

Civil rights was fought over a long spread of time. The far left was running with it and feeding the violence, the US was locked in a cold war and Russia was using the treatment of our minorities to persuade Western Europe that Democracy was not all it was cracked up to be. While Hoover's FBI was antagonizing the marchers and enabling the opression, the CIA was actually working the other side to pull the movement to traditional politcal boundaries. This is documented and the info is in FOIA documents that were first revealed in the late 70's IIRC. So there was more involved than not having a choice and the establishment got involved BEFORE the violence ratcheted up to the degree that it did.

I don't think we're that far removed from anti-trust laws given that the Microsoft case was just dropped by the Bush admin in the past few years. We simply have a very deep disadvantage in AMerican and International courts right now on the issue.

I think Kerry and Dean's records are quite comparable on the corporatist matter so the choice is between a guy who claims he has had an epiphany and trusting him at that (Dean) versus a guy who tacked back to the center a bit but not as far as some would accuse but has a bit better past (Kerry)

[Armstead]

45. It's about cultivating the political will for change

I only brought up Civil Rights in response to your post. I know it was more complicated, but despite the trappings, the movement for civil rights was something that could not be avoided any longer. The core issues were how that would be achieved.

As for regulation like anti-trust laws, the Democrats should have been standing against these mega mergers long before the late 1990's. From the 1970's onward, this process has been the overwhelmiong force driving the US into its present mess.

At any given point over the last two decades, the question was how long we would allow this concentration of wealth and power to continue unabated. Well the Democrats, who should have been the counterbalancing force, allowed it to continuwe to the point where today the monolithic monsters that have been created threaten the very core of democracy.

If i sound pissed about that, I am. I have been worried about it and pissed that the Democrats have been AWOL for 20 years. Progressives have long been warning about it all that time. And one didnt have to be a rocket scientist to see where it would lead. But the Democrats let the Corporate Elite push forward unchallenged....They are STILL on the sidelines.

The ONLY way that will ever start to change is if leaders of the so-called Democrats and liberals start to be honest and level with the American people about this, and all of its implications.

Kucinich has been doing that. Dean has at least opened up that conversation. Kerry still ducks it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

48. But that seems to be ignoring the legislative history in the matter

as well as the other economic ramifications.

I agree on mega mergers but we BOTH know it was more complex than laying down. We BOTH know think tanks were working around the clock to REMAKE the economic paradigm to their liking...we also need to take a bit of responsibility for the OPPOSING interests of the groups statistically supporting Dems..a great example would be the interests of environmentalists, clean air advocates versus labor unions (CAFE standards anyone?)

The mergers in the 80's WERE challenged by the Dems, but they were NOT simply bowing to the wishes of the corporations..

Maybe you forgot all Reagan did to WEAKEN labor unions and weaken the ability to fight these mergers...I didn't. (PATCO?)

I think my biggest issue is that the Dems have been victims of competing interests and had to play a delicate balance that the Repubs didn't since their interest has been one..THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR.

[Armstead]

50. I see it very simply

You are absolutely correct. Trying to get a handle on these things is a complex m,atter, and the deck is often stacked against opponents of the Corporate Oligarchy.

But I say it's simple because on a political level it is. Democrats could have started the ball rolling at any point since the 1970's by saying "No, it is wrong for 50 regional banks to be allowed to morph into one super bank."

And calling out the corporations on the lies they feed the American people. Crap like "We need less competition to preserve competition" is the kind of blatant nonsense that anyone with half a brain could figure out is a basic impossible paradox.

But when no one in the political scene (except a few brave souls like Wellstone, Kucinich at al) was saying the truth that many people can sense. Which leads to a feeling of futility. And mass brainwashing in the the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome. ("I see the emporer is naked, but everyone else says he has a beautiful coat. So he must be wearing a beautiful coat.")

If the Democrats had taken a stand on this and fought back years ago, it would not have been stopped or corrected overnight. But it would have started the forces that would have started to take us in a different directionn. If so, the nation might look much better today, and democracy would be in a lot better shape.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

53. Again that ignores the history of the matter

The solvency of banks became a very big issue in the late 80's if you recall. The S and L's collapsed along with the FSLIC and the Dems were blamed by libertarian types for being nannies that wanted similar protections for S and L's as for banks. Some S and L's were bailed out by banks, others simply folded.

During all this time, I seem to recall hearings and challenges to many issues set forth by Republicans.

The other KEY issue that was making this occur was that the corporations were using the 80's and 90's to play STATES one against the other...something congress as the federal branch has NOTHING to do with...jockeying jobs from state to state, passing Right to Work legislation and the like...funneling think tank money from national orgs to state orgs to undermine longstanding state protections via various institutes...even if the Dems SAW that coming how does one stem the flow of cash to organizations that alter the political landscape while still funding the ACLU and the PFAW?

Howard Dean has capitalized very well by attaching himself for people looking for a scapegoat for their own sin of having rested on their laurels.

[Armstead]

62. It is very basic

Sorry if I am dwelling on the basics here, and laying it on Kerry. But to me he does epitomize everything that is wrong with the role of the Democrats and so called centrists and tepid liberals in the system today and since the 1970's.

I pulled banks out of the hat but the same trends of consolidation, deregulation and abuse of corproate power were occurring in every sector of the economy. Media is anotehr obvious example, but it has happened in retailing, widget making, health care and financial services.

Life is complicated I realize. But one of the classic ways to bury issues is to overcomplicate them in the public mind, rather than enmcouraging people to see the clear bigger picture.

It is a basic technique. To get what you want, you either create a crisis that works to your advantage, or you use an existing crisis to CONvince people to give you the keys to the store...And you bury the basic reality of what is happening behind a wall of gibberish and buzzwords, and complications that make the average person scratch their heads. "this seems wrong, but they make it sound so complicated I guess it's me who is wrong."

The corporate sector and GOP use that technique to obscure the core of what they were doing repeatedly. The fact that the Democrats eitehr bought into it, or were afraid to challenge it is why we need more than just an ABB cosmetic change.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

64. No you simplify them in order to blame elsewhere

Deregulation started with the airlines and when people saw prices drop for consumers it became the be all and end all. All Reagan had to do was fly a family of four from Peoria to Honolulu and it then became vogue to see where else we could get rid of that "government monopoly" and make others happy with price shifting. Small businesses got on board as well since regulations tended to hurt them more.

It's WAY too long to get into it but frankly I trace the MAJOR problems to the GIngrich revolution brought about by a group of people called REFORMERS..not just reformers mind you..but WASHINGTON outsiders cloaked as reformers with NO history on which to rely or a history much like Deans'.


BTW..in the case of the media...the biggest problem was not consolidation but the USSC decision overturning the fairness doctrine..you could have ONE company own the media and if you had a fairess doctrine in effect, it would not be that way.


So I guess I will resist the urge to simplify it since it isn't simple...it would take hard work to overcome all that has transpired and I don't notice us all out working hard.


I'd mush rather go with the guy who KNOWS the complications associated with this than the populist who doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell even if he is accidentally sincere about it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. I think you're both missing an important point

Reagan was able to wreak his havoc while Congress was in Democratic hands, due to a high level of DINOism in that august body. And it goes on. This month's issue of The American Prospect also tells how some key Dems have been complicit in the Republican's parliamentary fancydancing to prevent debate or Dem votes on various bills.

I'd rather write in Lieberman than vote Green in this election, but win or lose, after this year, all bets are off.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

67. DO you have the article name?

are we talking major blue state safe Dems or the Dems from places like Louisiana?

[Armstead]

77. She may mean this one

http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/2/kuttner-r.html

I don't know, but this seems to cover what she is talking about.

There's also an article there by Kevin Philips that's interesting.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RichM]

57. I agree with this, 99%.

My only reservation is the part about liberals "starting to be honest & levelling with the American people." I just don't believe any more that that is possible. The system can't really tolerate the truth; it would threaten too many powerful interests. So we can either have the truth accompanied by MAJOR (perhaps tumultuous) change - or we can go on living with lies. I don't think the country can hear the truth & react to it calmly, because it involves telling the people that their own government has been complicit in robbing them blind.

This inability of the system to hear the truth accounts for their stylizing Dean as "angry," almost mentally unstable. He told some truth -- so he had to be punished. Kucinich told so much truth they had to make him invisible.

What is the truth? The truth, for starters, is that the US lives high off the world hog by crushing the aspirations of weaker peoples everywhere, with an insanely huge military machine that is NOT involved in "defending Americans," but simply in enforcing our rule. The truth is that the needs of the oil-MIC determine every move we make in the world, while we pretend that we do these things for "moral" reasons. And of course, that the burden of paying for the military machine is pushed mostly onto the weaker members of our own society.... // If many people suddenly came to understand all this, there'd be an uprising tomorrow -- and rightly so.

[tom_paine]

63. Isn't it funny that one of the things the Soviets stigmatized their enemys

with was mental illness?

What I find genuinely frightening is how many parallels Imperial Amerika has to Totalitarianism, both Left and Right.

But hey, at least the Imperial Bushevik Stooges didn't lock Dean away in a mental hospital in the middle of the Arizona Desert.

They just used the Soviet-style smear to deatroy him by doing the only thing can make an impression on the Imperial Subjects of Amerika anymore, which is to have their allies on TV (not to mention the Corporate Pravda which floats in the oily wake of the Party-Loyal Bushevik Sub-Media...there they go again, emulating the Soviet Commies they profess to hate) tell them 12 times that Dean is insane and unelectable
tell them 12 times that Dean is insane and unelectable
tell them 12 times that Dean is insane and unelectable
tell them 12 times that Dean is insane and unelectable
tell them 12 times that Dean is insane and unelectable
tell them 12 times that Dean is insane and unelectable.

Mission accomplished.

[not systems]

4. Kerry will not expose the man behind the curtain or...

say the emperor has no clothes.

He will probably win in the fall and slow but not stop
the decent into rabid militarism.

I think many of the elites want to change horses and
Kerry is acceptable to the elites. He is from the right
class and has enough connection to them to make him a
known and non-threating next president.

[redqueen]

12. What ezmojason said

I'd love to believe that he'll be a better president than Clinton, but I fear the continuation of the slide towards militarism.

What does Kerry say about the drug war? About innocent high school kids being held at gunpoint by swat teams?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. Clinton armed the whole world so it wouldn't be hard to be better

Kerry investigated the drug war and got slammed back by his own party. I highly recommend reading up on this aspect of his career.

When he was investigating Iran Contra, the Gary Webb story broke in the San Jose Mercury news. The story ended up being discredited largely due to the edits caused by the paper's management. Kerry was working on this aspect and continued to investigate, including a plane crash that later occurred in the area that Kerry suspected was CIA involved.

Frankly, he has been banged back from BOTH sides on his investigative work in the past since people close to Jimmy Carter were implicated in BCCI.

I believe with John Kerry we will see a better relationship with LAtin America.

[paulk]

29. Kerry's position of Drug War

This is something I've been interested in, and done some research on.

Seems like a mixed bag, really -


from the drug policy election alliance

http://www.lindesmith.org/statebystate/elect_2004/profiles/kerry/

"Kerry’s voting record on drug policy issues is mixed, and he has been vague about his position on medical marijuana. According to Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana, at two separate campaign events Kerry described himself as “open to” and “in favor of” medical marijuana. Kerry recently pledged to end DEA raids on medical marijuana users in states that have legalized the drug for medical purposes. As a senator Kerry praised a 1996 law to establish a medical marijuana theraputic research program in his home state of Massachusetts. Recently he co-wrote a letter to the DEA in support of a UMass Amherst proposal to produce marijuana for FDA approved medical marijuana research. When asked whether he had ever smoked marijuana during the live CNN debate in November 2003, Kerry said that he had.

Kerry is mildly in support of reforming the Higher Education Amendment and told Students for Sensible Drug Policy that he would advocate repeal of the reform for drug felons "if the offense is use" but not "if the offense is selling". Sen. Kerry's website states that, if elected, he would end the federal ban on syringe exchange and harm reduction programs designed to prevent the spread of HIV.

Senator Kerry voted favorably on these bills:
• Voted against an amendment to HR 3540, to provide an additional $53 million to international narcotics control programs (1996).
• Voted against an amendment to S 625 that proposed stiffer penalties for amphetamines or methamphetamine manufacturing or trafficking, and possession of powder cocaine (1999).

Senator Kerry voted unfavorably on this bill:
• Voted to pass S 254: Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act, allowing U.S. attorneys to prosecute juveniles 14 or older charged with some drug crimes as adults and to authorize more than $5 billion in new spending that could be used for increased enforcement, additional detention facilities, and anti-drug programs (1999)."

From what I can gather, Kerry wants to increase federal funding for both enforcement and treatment. He's been very concerned about international drug cartels and their connection to the funding of terrorist organizations. He accused the CIA of drug running to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. One of his advisor's, Rand Beers, has been accused of being a "drug war zealot".

He'd probably be better than Clinton on drugs, but overall - pretty moderate.

[George_Bonanza]

70. Better than Dean though

[RichM]

14. Yes, this is exactly right.

[Cocoa]

5. the media still hates him

Typical spin away from Kerry's big win was Fineman last night "Kerry won more states, but Edwards won the terms of the debate." Whatever.

[rucky]

6. Fine. Now will the media "let" us beat Bush?

[zoeyfong]

76. Probably not.. You're kidding yourself if you don't think the sheeple are

heavily controlled by the "popular wisdom" as offered to them by the major media outlets. I wish it were not true, but it is. Pretty soon, when kerry becomes the nominee, the media will tell us that since kerry is *at best* only as strong as (not any stronger than) bush on national security, there is no reason to take a chance changing horses to a Massechusettes liberal in the middle of a "war." They will cloyingly report to us that the "smart, safe" choice is to stay the course with our dear, strong leader. Kerry of course will be poweless to fight back, because he is identical to bush on war policy, and no one is voting for him based on his social/economic policy.

[paulk]

7. this is nonsense

Since when has the media become enamored of Kerry? You've based your entire thesis on a false, or at least highly subjective assumption.

[RichM]

13. The media assassinated Dean, but are comfy with Kerry. Today's NYT

lead editorial -- just look at the tone of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/04/opinion/04WED1.html

It basically says Kerry is solid and strong, Edwards should be given some more consideration, and everyone else should just shut up and drop out.

OnEdit: and PS - I didn't even much care for Dean. I'm not saying the media killed him because I harbored any particular love for him. He was, however, unacceptable to the ruling elite because he told some of the truth, and his remarks sometimes threatened to lead public thought in directions that would be uncomfortable from the Establishment's viewpoint.

[paulk]

32. Dean committed suicide.

He ran a terrible campaign. He had a solid, loyal core of support, but he couldn't expand it. Instead, he alienated potential voters. He fucked up. That's all.

He had the money, the organization, the endorsements, his face on every magazine - and he got crushed. How is the media supposed to react? When people, especially in politics, take the kind of fall Howard Dean did, they go for the throat. There's no bias - look at the obits Kerry was getting up to Iowa.


If the media are "comfy with Kerry" it's because he's won seven of the nine primary/caucuses held so far. It's pretty hard to spin that as other than "overwhelming front runner". I just don't see it.

ps - for the record, I don't agree with the NYT ed. that the debates should be narrowed to "two or three" candidates. Yet.

[Eloriel]

85. He got crushed BY the media

That's just objectively the truth. There were also dirty tricks and dirty politics aplenty in both IA (esp.) and NH.

Here's an on-the-groun report re Iowa press which was posted to the blog:

For what it's worth, I wanted to give my view of what I saw from the ground in Iowa. First, a few weeks ago the major newspapers started endorsing Kerry and Edwards. Endorsements are fine, but here's what they did. They started writing articles saying that Dean was unelectable and folks were moving to the other candidates. This was clever. We actually hadn't seen that at the time but once they started saying it... over and over and over, it started to happen. They also started running tons of positive Kerry/Edwards letters to the editor and almost exclusively negative Dean letters. This was the most dishonest thing that they did since I know from a fact (my friend works at one of the papers as a clerk) that they had sack-fulls of positive Dean letters.

Even here in Iowa, the average citizen doesn't pay attention until the last minute... like writing your term paper the night before it's due. So that's the message they heard.

I was the Dean Precinct Captain for B12 in Bettendorf Iowa. I can't tell you how many people said "I was originally for Dean but I heard he can't win. We need to beat Bush". The press had created a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Secondly, Kerry and Edwards stole Dean's stump speech as folks started paying attention.

Third, Gephardt knew he was done ahead of time. His folks showed up with the poorest, most home-made posters I've ever seen. They didn't even try. So the message had gone out to them ahead of time to go to "anybody but Dean". Kucinich, who ironically is closest to Dean on policy, made a pact with the devil and told his folks to go to Edwards. I found that ironic since Edwards supported the war.

There you go. The press hammered Dean. Kerry and Edwards took his message so they could win, and most folks were truly "anybody but Bush". After being told in the Iowa press repeatedly for weeks that Dean couldn't win but Kerry could, Kerry roared out of nowhere.

I tell you these things to try to help the other states. Learn from this setback and let's take NH, SC and beyond!


Posted by Scott from Iowa at January 20, 2004 10:22 AM

[blm]

44. Get real. Look at WHY media declared Kerry's candidacy dead for months.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 2, 2003


Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"
Commission decision may violate laws protecting small businesses; Kerry to file Resolution of Disapproval

Washington, DC - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.

Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KFC]

8. All the candidates are "Establishment", except perhaps Sharpton

By definition. They were elected to office.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. You forgot La Rouche

The voters have a clear choice this year ;-)

[Mairead]

37. You're right on one level, but 'Establishment' also has a special meaning.

namely someone who is thoroughly committed to not rocking any boats, to keeping the status quo, going along to get along, etc. Not completely unlike 'careerist', iow.

[NashVegas]

42. Who's Financial & Organization Backing Comes from the GOP

fun world, ain't it?

[Anwen]

11. Yeah.

Pretty depressing stuff.

[Eloriel]

15. So true -- read this

Including the linked article:

BeHereNow (1000+ posts) Tue Feb-03-04 01:28 PM
Original message
How Bush, Kerry, Skull & Bones Work for N.W.O.-Hegelian Logic
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1081420

Edited on Tue Feb-03-04 01:31 PM by BeHereNow
"Anthony Sutton on "Left" versus
"Right" and the Hegelian dialectic
in American politics

Anthony Sutton July 9 2003

How can there exist a common objective when
members are
apparently acting in opposition to one another?

Probably the most difficult task in this work will be
to get across to the reader what is really an
elementary observation: that the objective of The
Order is neither "left" nor "right." "Left" and "right"
are artificial devicces to bring about change,
and the extremes of political left and political
right are vital elements in a process of controlled
change."
On edit: Link to Sutton essay:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_sutton.html

My feeling about the madness we are witnessing:

Until the American people understand the REAL
power which has taken over our country, we are doomed.
The real power is neither left not right, democratic or
republican. It is far more evolved. Evolved to the point
that it manipulates and controls both "left" and "right"
by the deceptive appearance of events that suggest
there is a separation to be defined, when in fact they are
in control of both. Don't believe it? Check the voting
of our representatives in government. Ultimately, when it
comes down to what matters to the global elite, we, the people,
lose. The actors are skilled, they debate fiercely and then
follow the agenda of the NWO at the last minute.
How can we survive the battle if we do can not identify
the real enemy? The enemy is firmly entrenched in
both the Democratic and Republican parties who
convince us that there is adversity between them
and that is very deliberate.
That is the song of Hegelian Logic
and we are dancing to the tune over the edge of the cliff.
BHN

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. If you'd ever seen Sutton's conspiracy site you wouldn't place a

great deal of weight in him.

[Eloriel]

86. I'm sorry, NMSA

One thing I've learned over the last several years is that someone's opposing ideology doesn't necessarily mean that they're wrong about everything or that they have NO credibility.

I used to despise Pat Buchanan. He's still probably a bigot, but he says other things quite often that are right on target. Ron Paul, R-TX (Libertarian, actually) is one of the most eloquent defenders of certain things I too believe in that I know of. And so it goes. Hell, Lyndon LaRouche's organization puts out some dynamite research and analysis pieces. And there are other examples. Hey, I'd love it to be neatly polarized, all black and white with no shades of gray -- it would be so much simpler. But around the fringes at least, it isn't.

[Mairead]

16. Wonderfully well said, Rich.

That's my major problem even with Kucinich. Set against that is the fact that Kucinich is at least willing to commit to specific incursions on the system (taking the profit out of healthcare and cutting the war-industry allocation, for example).

[NewYorkerfromMass]

34. I was wondering if someone would mention Dennis K

because noone can be pure. If Dennis is compromised then surely Kerry is too.
Despite all the progressive handwringing about John, he is still our best bet to achieve the greatest good, and I am proudly and optimistically supporting him.

[Mairead]

39. If he were the Kerry of 10 years ago, I might accept your view even if

not share it, but the DLC Kerry of today gives me the direst forebodings. I feel as though I'm reduced to hoping he's only fooling about the hard-right turn he made. But that hope is rather like the one I have of an afterlife: a hopeless hope.

[Beaker]

20. He's the DLC guy -

they know that he'll play ball.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. I thought Clark was the DLC guy...then Edwards..then...

[Mairead]

26. They're all DLC guys, or at least indistinguishable from DLC guys

There's one way in which this election IS like the horse race it's muddyingly portrayed as, and that's that one 'stable' has multiple 'horses' entered. Thus in some sense they don't care which we choose, because as long as any one of their horses wins, the stable wins, which is the only true goal of the exercise. Oh, sure, some stockholders in the stable prefer that horse A win, and others prefer that horse B do, generally for reasons of side bets, but as long as We the People feel we've had our say and don't feel so upset that we make trouble afterwards, they're cool with a win by any of their 'horses'.

[RichM]

28. So exactly right!

Damn, you're good! :-)

[Mairead]

36. *blush*

Thank you. I'd curtsy, only it's my knees.

[waldenx]

27. They are DLC

http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir.cfm

It isnt a conspiracy theory, it is a fact.

[wyldwolf]

30. Good

After all, it is the political process, right?

The people had their chance to choose someone who was further left (Kucinich), a former DLC guy who was only imagined by many to be a liberal saviour, and a few Clinton-Democrats.

[Eloriel]

88. Uh, I wouldn't exactly say The People had a chance to choose

That "chance to choose" has been horribly circumscribed in this election (as it has in different ways and some of the same ways in the past).

I'm not a Kucnich supporter -- but it's objectively true that he was marginalized greatly from the start. Hell, Sharpton got more respect -- and air time -- than Kucinich.

And what happened to Dean (quite aside from his own and his campaign's mistakes which alone could NOT have accounted for his plummet) is nothing short of outrageous.

Let's not fool ourselves about the reality of the APPEARANCE of The People getting to choose their candidate. Between the media, the Dem Party Establishment, and the GOP, we're left to choose among those THEY say we can choose among.

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. It seems that Democratic voters are the ones that want him badly

As they have handed him vitory after victory.

[The Magistrate]

38. Well, Mr. Stubbs

We certainly cannot have nominated as the Presidential candidate of the Democrat Party someone who is widely acceptable to the rank and file of the Democratic Party, can we? That would clearly be wrong, and nothing but a surrender to the monied elite of the New World Order....

[D G]

71. And it's shocking - shocking! - that the media sees fit to cover

Democrats who happen to win and/or place well primary elections. How unbalanced to place all of this focus on the winner of a contest.

(I almost hate to inject sarcasm in this thread, with all of its thoughtful and intelligent responses - but hell, it's all I've got today.)

[DemBones DemBones]

41. Agreed. They have to report on the winner

of the primaries . And they're doing a pretty good job of covering all the campaigns on primary nights. Larry King did brief interviews with Kucinich and Sharpton last night. Then Larry asked David Gergen, Bob Dole, Bill Schneider, and Wolf Blitzer why candidates like Kucinich and Sharpton stay in the race. Schneider was chuckling as he pointed out that they'd just gotten on Larry King's show and had a bit of time to discuss their messages. He's right because that's how the game is played.

I keep thinking that if more people heard Kucinich's message, more would vote for him, but I'm coming to the conclusion that most people are more conservative than I am. Before you say "Duh!" what I'm saying is that I think many more people agree with Kucinich than vote for him. (This may be true of Dean, too.) One reason that has been discussed in relation to all the candidates is electability.

But beyond that, I think that some people who agree with DK but don't vote for him make that choice because they think it would be too much of a shock to put him in power and have so many changes accomplished in a short time. Even if they feel that they themselves can handle rapid change, they're unsure that the rest of society can handle it. Perhaps they're right, perhaps people are dizzy from the sudden sprint to the right we've seen since 2000 and can't take a huge swing to the left this year.

Thus the voters are looking at all the horses in the stable Mairead spoke of and asking themselves which horse can win the race and, upon taking power, restore the country to a sort of normalcy. Someone last night described John Kerry as a professional and a "plodder" who knows how to get things done. Maybe that's what we need in the immediate future, someone who'll methodically undo the damage done to our Constitution, federal budget, and foreign policy, and begin implementing some of the changes that are needed. When the country is stabilized, we can start making progress again. Sounds slow and boring, I know, but it may be necessary.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. What I hear from people about Kerry is

that he has a lot of high-level experience, has good connections, and is smart and sophisticated enough not to screw up international situations.

I have to say that his long years in the Senate seem to be a good point. He knows how things are done and which egos have to be massaged and who is good on what issues. The last president we had with this kind of knowledge was LBJ, and he accomplished a lot, both good and bad.

[lifelong_Dem]

61. No, don't you get it?!?!?! It's a CONSPIRACY!!!!!!

It wasn't the VOTERS that picked Kerry, man. It was the ESTABLISHMENT! Never mind that DEAN had the most establishment support.... They all SECRETLY wanted KERRY! All those high-profile Dems who lined up to endorse Dean - they were just doing it to screw with you! The whole time they were thinking how much they wanted KERRY to win! And them giving Kerry so little money that he had to MORTAGE his HOUSE to stay solvent? That was just a dirty TRICK! Kerry is ESTABLISHMENT all the way! You need to wake up, man! They're EVERYWHERE!

[Eloriel]

89. Don't call Dean's support "Establishment" support - it's not

There's NO one more outside than Al Gore. Bradley? (Bradley WHO?) Carter (tho not an endorsement)? These people aren't Dem Party Establishment Insiders, not by a long shot. Harkin-the-populist?

All the others recognize and SUPPORT Dean's anti-Establishment, anti-special interests crusade, bring in new blood and return the party and the country back to the people campaign and genuinely want to see America better (instead of protecting their own turf). These are NOT The Establishment's protectors and defenders. Not even close.

[mountebank]

43. Is Kerry's media support the only factor? Why do people support him?

I am wondering how this topic can be expanded to speak about why so many people, so many Democrats, buy into Kerry. I understand why the media and corporate elite don't mind snuggling up with him - I agree with the original thread 100%. But how does this media annointment of Kerry translate into his popular success among Democratic voters. Can straight mind-numbing repetition in the media be the only factor? Was their pre-existing conditioning?

Why, we've got quite a few (one would assume) reasonably intelligent Kerry supporters right here on DU. Why do they support him?

This question goes right to the heart of "electability" and our national psychosis - but I'd like to hear some opinions.....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

46. Honest answer to your question from this apologist pnac enabler

( I probably forgot a FEW of the ad hominem attacks that have been lobbed but fill in the blanks where you please)

I support John Kerry for the following reasons and I did NOT make my decision until fairly recently (but I think you categorized this support as psychosis if I am not mistaken so I don't know if it will matter)

After looking at all the candidates and looking at MY goals in this election I arrived at it by the following means. First I considered what my primary goal was and my primary goal was to get Bush out of the Whitehouse...not to free the world of the corporate agenda, no expectation of radical reforms (the last radical reform was the Gingrich revolution..I am now soured on radical reforms by Washington outsiders)and NOT to elect a president that was JUST LIKE ME...(odds are a lesbian lawyer who likes surfing, animals and latte isn't feasible... I'm a pragmatist)

After evaluating the candidates and realizing they MAY not have a congress to work with I limited MY GOALS to the executive office:



First why I don't support the OTHER candidates in the top slot in order of my favorites:

Edwards..only one reason....he has limited exeperience, votes FAR too much to the center than I on many issues and is not someone I see as being a wonk on foreign policies although domestically, he isn't bad.

Dean (believe it or NOT he was third in line in my choices) - He is largely riding on his past accomplishments in Vermont - a state with 650,000 people, smaller than the city I lived in, most of his policies were FAR more centrist than I would prefer, he is too highly rated by the NRA, he wants to leave gun issues to the states when guns don't know state lines, and while he has some great advisors on foreign policies such as Anthony Lake (a Clinton holdover) and Professor Benjamin Bratt (?) author of over a dozen books, I just do NOT see him as the DIPLOMAT/ STATESPERSON we need to CURE our image in the world and I am NOT comfortable given the world situation with a guy THAT NEEDS advisors to make policy prior to speaking..I want the guy that can pull up the facts and the history with EASE.

Clark...no political record...no vote from me...simple as that. I have read his policies, like them but they will be framed by the press like any other liberal..he WON'T get a free pass from the press on his lack of governing experience and people HAVE domestic concerns.

Kucinich...I doubt even Dennis thought he could win..

Lieberman...too many reasons to name but why change horses when the same unilateral policy towards Arab and muslim nations is going to be proffered and NOTHING done to improve relations with Latin America.


That then led me to Kerry:

I chose Kerry because I view him as having the temperament, and statesmanship to repair our relationships internationally.

He understands the REAL roots of terrorism which is the illegal arms trade and money laundering as well as upside down trade issues.

He is the one that can keep his cool when debating Bush without huffing and puffing, and can toss a ZINGER from a mile away.

His experience on senate intelligence.

His experience on the foreign relations committee.

His PAST plan to reduce intelligence spending in areas where intelligence has been used to UNDERMINE other gov't's such as Latin America and his acute awareness that the Republican hard line towards China is NOT the manner in which to lead them to human rights given the size of their military and their unique role on their continent.

Sorry I have real reasons for supporting him, but this is also due to being 45 years old and realizing that on the issues closest to my heart, he has ALMOST ALWAYS been on the right side and visible in the fight regardless of how his opposition is NOW reframing him

[mountebank]

52. I appreciate your post. My thoughts....

First of all, I was unclear in my post. I DO think there is a national psychosis, which I think can be summed up with the word "alienation" better than any other, and is most clearly put forth in the writings of Erich Fromm. And I do think it has something to do with Kerry's support. But I don't think all Kerry supporters are psychotic.

People who support Kerry based on issues, I have no qualms with. But I think the mass of people rely on this nebulous idea of "electability." A pragmatist may say: if you don't know what electability is, then you are not living in the real world. I beg to differ. When I see "electability," I read "I am afraid."

The biggest split now on the left is between those that don't mind a more authoritarian control (like Kerry: and here I don't mean authoritarian in the jack-booted thug sense, merely that people would not really be in control of their own lives) and those that think more power should go to average citizens (this is libertarianism: note lower-case L). Dean truly represented a shift to more libertarian ideals. Kerry does not. He is probably only slightly less authoritarian than George W. Bush, as much as I feel you might spit out your coffee while reading that sentence. Kerry of course is WAY more LIBERAL. But there are two major axes on the political spectrum.

I believe that fear of George W. Bush is pushing people toward more authoritarian control. I don't believe political decisions should be based on fear.

So I see a lot of "electability" in your reasons for supporting Kerry. And I see it in your rejection of candidates like Dean and Kucinich - who are probably the only ones advocating more power for the citizenry.

That troubles me.

But I agree it is pragmatic - and the world will be better without Bush in power, even if replaced with someone who will maintain the same status quo, only with a moderate liberal ideology.

War will continue. Corporations will still rule. The human being will suffer. But it will all be slightly less extreme in the short term.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

55. See my exchange with Armstead above.

Corporate rule was cemented first by targetting states against one another in the late 80's...

Second, while I believe in LIBERALISM and libertarianism in some matters, I think the California wildfires and the ability (or shall I say inability) of San Diego to help themselves promptly underscores why assessing everything locally does NOT always work via centralized resources. The city and the county were duelling over who should pay for their single firefighting helicopter and let the lease lapse on their only means of air assault one month prior to the fire.

[mountebank]

75. Not a particularly good example of why centralized control is necessary.

While I think centralized authority is good in some cases - and probably necessary, it should always be questioned and dismantled when not necessary.

Your wildfire example could be alleviated with better communication and less bureaucracy. I don't think it necessarily calls out for centralized control.

There is much of interest in your exchange from above, but I - like Armstead, RichM, and tom_paine - prefer to see the forest for the trees. While acknowledging that the trees are not unimportant.

[tom_paine]

60. That would be concurrent with the lessons of history

For Instance...in the Old Roman Republic in the 100 years before the First Emperors, the Roman Constitution of checks and balances was fading and Rule of the Republic kept repeatedly devolving to Dicators, such as Marius, Sulla, and Crassus. Even when a "bad dictator" was hurled back, retired, or died, the cycle kept spiralling towards, you guessed it, greater authoritarian rule.

Under which eventually, most of the masks came off when everyone finally accepted that Rome was an Empire, not a Republic.

But even then, with the purposeful retention of toothless republican institutions like the Imperial Senate (for the purposes of illusion, like Amerika, the Romans had as their Central National Myth their birth by throwing off the tyranny of Tarquin Kings), the illusion was still profitable to maintain on a visceral level, so that an Imperial Subject of Rome could always say "Romans have never bowed to a King!" even though that is exactly what they were doing every day of their lives.

If Amerika is following closer to the Roman model than the Nazi or Soviet models, then a gradual downward spiral into Imperial Rule (under still yet another name, for the exact same reasons that Caeser dared not call himself King, we now recognize that the title Emperor is synonymous with "King", so that wouldn't work again) would certainly be in keeping.

Actually I would thrilled if a gradual downward spiral was all we faced. I'm not sure that Imperial Amerika won't be fully Sovietized (in a Free Market sort of way) and locked down by 2020.

[dfgrbac]

54. Who would run if they felt they had no chance?

Kucinich...I doubt even Dennis thought he could win..

Well, I guess you could say Sharpton. But in general nobody would try to do this grinding process unless they thought they had a chance.

I think Dennis Kucinich's chances go higher everyday as things get worse in the country. The news media plays that down, but people are starting to catch on. I live in a very conservative district that's mostly Republican. Our voting place never has Democratic candidates represented on election day. But one friend has told me they are extremely sorry they voted for Bush. And although I never said who I was for in the primary (and they know I am a Democrat), he said he wished Kucinich would get in. And he said the media is giving Kucinich a terrible time.

I think this guy is the tip of the iceberg.

[zoeyfong]

78. You're worried about Dean on guns? What about Kerry on bombs?

Hey, I agree with kerry on a lot of issues, but how can anybody who cares about gun violence and improving america's relationship with the world vote for a candidate who supported america in needlessly killing thousands of people half way around the world in a war that has done more damage to america's credibility and international standing than anything else since Vietnam (another war that kerry didn't figure out was wrong until it was politically convenient for him)? There is such a thing as being penny-wise and pound-foolish. It is time to stop enabling the democratic party's continued enabling of the republican party.

[Southsideirish]

47. Two types of voters - "cognoscenti" and "non-cognoscenti" .

I know some may condemn this as an elitist point of view but anyone who cares to nowadays can be well informed about politics and what's going on in the world -its basically free to do so or very cheap to say the least.
Then there are those (many more than the previous group) who don't care or bother about politics but still when elections come around -esp. if they are hotly contested - also, want to participate even though they are not well informed on the issues, the candidates, their backgrounds, etc. These are the "undecideds" - the "last minute voters" and these folks are oft times smitten with trivial issues, i.e. "He's for the little guy. How do they know he's for him - have they checked his record, followed his votes? Another situation is the uninformed voter will often follow the polls we all love a winner, don't we? Just my opinion.

[RichM]

49. The Dem rank & file motivations are a different matter, certainly.

Dem voters are influenced mainly by 1) an overwhelming desire to remove Bush & 2) the media buzz itself. Seeing Kerry standing tall & proud in the media, seeing him portrayed prominently & respectfully -- all this contributes to a hop-on-the-bandwagon phenomenon. It's hard to see all this stuff, without feeling intoxicated by the taste of Kerry's coming (November) victory. The adrenaline runs.

Many Dem voters, including quite intelligent ones on this board, simply assume (as though it's wholly self-evident) that a Dem victory equates to "Mission Accomplished." They think the matter requires no further examination. This is the attitude that underlies "ABB," which most DUers accept.

To a rank & file Democrat, "good" is synonomous with a Democrat winning. To someone who's studied the history more carefully, the 2 party system itself is an ingenious double-layered means of social control, which sometimes finds it advantageous to ease back on Republican plundering, & hand off temporarily to Democratic cosmetic improvements (until the time is right for more plundering; then the cycle repeats). This is something most Democrats do not understand about their own party -- ie, that it's merely part of a device to keep them permanently controlled within narrow limits.

[mountebank]

58. Absolutely. And more....

As I've posted elsewhere and here, I think the major split now on the left is between authoritarians and libertarians, if I can borrow the convenient descriptives from the axes of the "political spectrum."

Dean represented a shift to more libertarian values: people power. This had to be stopped.

What causes people to give up their power? Why WOULD they?

Fear. Always been a useful tool in convincing the public they need to cede control to a person or group.

And in this case, I think it is the fear of George W. Bush convincing Democratic voters to choose Kerry.

Hence, the power elite always wins, always maintains control. And the cycle you mentioned continues unabated.

[Eloriel]

90. That is so well said

and it's one of the things that absolutely makes me despise both Kerry and Clark: they couldn't run this race without fearmongering themselves. They had NOTHING to offer beyond that.

You've put it in its proper context:

What causes people to give up their power? Why WOULD they?

Fear. Always been a useful tool in convincing the public they need to cede control to a person or group.

And in this case, I think it is the fear of George W. Bush convincing Democratic voters to choose Kerry.

Hence, the power elite always wins, always maintains control. And the cycle you mentioned continues unabated.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

72. I don't equate it to Mission Accomplished, I equate it to eating salami

small bites at a time rather than attempting to slam the whole log down everyone's throat all at once.

First get rid of the maniacs in the White House...use the progressive movement Kucinich intends to create and then look at how to form coalitions to create the reality many desire (whatever that is..since I am not clear as to what it is)

Anyone who thinks ANYONE is going to cause a revolution in 4 years singlehandedly is as seduced as some were with Clinton.

[Mairead]

59. Not the only factor, but a major factor.

It's not for nothing that Dean's status shot skyward after the corpomedia bruted him about in late spring while savaging Kerry, or that he dropped badly when that same corpomedia disparaged him and switched to touting Kerry & Edwards just before Iowa.

Hundreds of billions of dollars testify that advertising works. Consent is manufactured.

People desperately want to believe that owning a HumVee means everyone will think them Really Cool, all the women will clamor to have their babies, and nobody will know that they live on tinned sardines and soda crackers because the @#$%! HumVee takes every spare dollar they earn as assistent bookkeeper at the chicken abbatoir, or that despite the camo trousers they wear they were actually rejected 4F. They believe what they're told because the alternative is to Take A Risk. And Risk means the possibility of Failure and being forevermore laughed at in the street as a Loser. Who could bear that?

[tom_paine]

51. Long time, no see, Rich M

How ya' doin', my Commie chum?

:evilgrin:

You have annunciated my deeper fears about Kerry. I didn't word it quite like you nor do I feel quite so disgusted with "the system", were it strong, healthy and functioning properly.

If it wasn't, then how did the Civil Rights and Environmental Movements succeed for the time that they did, and to such a point that Imperial Busheviks are forced to hide their racism and hatred of the environment except as moneymaker?

I suppose the way I put it is that I wanted Clark or Dean, (Clark is my preferred candidate) because those men challenged the Republican Matrix...what I like to call Goebbels v2.0 but is actually the Greatest Propaganda Machine and Lie Laundry the Human Race has ever seen.

To that end, I would add a point 4 to your intial list:

4) That the Amerikan Media is NOT a laughingstock and still retains the trappings of freedom (yes, Rich, even if it wasn't perfect, during that short post WWII period it was still the freeest, strongest, most independant and investigative in the world, IMHO) and independence that it had during the post WWII days of the Old American Republic. That it is trustworthy and unslanted. Not to mention unparasitized-into-abject-weakness-and-fear by the Party-Loyal Bushevik Sub-Media, whch of course is a characteristsic of Totalitarian Nations, not Free Ones.

[RichM]

65. Hi tom -- nice to see you. Hope you've been well.

How did the system achieve the substantial gains of the Civil Rights, Women's and Environmental Movements? (I think that's what you're asking?) Well, those movements came from below. People organized and struggled to gain those things, and the system had to acquiesce. A successful system, over the long run, is one that "knows when to hold 'em, & when to fold 'em." It has to be somewhat flexible -- able to give up a little to retain a lot, when circumstances demand it. For example, if FDR had not seen the need for major concessions to working people in the '30's, there might well have been a real revolution.

Dean or Clark "challenging the Matrix?" I think there's something to that. It's easier to see it in the case of Dean. Somewhere else on this thread I wrote that Dean didn't challenge the system in terms of policy positions, but did so at the level of public pronouncements (ie, "Saddam's capture doesn't make us safer"). // Clark is a pretty decent guy, I think, but it's harder for me to see where he "challenged the Matrix." Possibly, when he refused to condemn Michael Moore on the "deserter" comment, this may have ticked off the powers that be.

On your point 4), the 55 years after WWII, especially the first half of that time, were a sort of Golden Age for America. But there were always terrible things going on beneath the surface. During Truman's terms, the decision was made to create a huge national security apparatus and to keep the US economy permanently on a war footing ("military Keynesianism"). From that time on, the MIC was a cancer that couldn't be controlled. The media seemed to be of better quality, but a lot of this was because the cold war propaganda paradigm was so overwhelmingly convincing.

I know this is something you won't agree with, & that is OK! ;-) But the way I see it, a big problem with today's media is simply that the bogeymen (Islamic terrorists) are just not that scary, compared to what the USSR once seemed to be. So when the media falls all over itself trying to terrify us about Osama, it seems like ridiculous transparent bullshit. When they did the same about the Russkies, it seemed believable, because that was a big country with nukes and missiles & millions of soldiers. Thus, the alarm about the Russkies was credible; this made the media more believable. It's as if the US media were more skillful with the lying, back then -- today, it's become Goebbels 2.0.

The part you won't agree with is that I don't think the USSR was anything remotely like what the US media painted it as. It had great shortcomings, but the media exaggerated them in comic-book fashion, & made them out to be crazed aggressors, which I don't believe they really were. That's a whole 'nuther story, though. :hi:

[tom_paine]

79. I agree in part with what you said, Rich

I think you are selling Clark short. He hasn't gotten a big amount of press, but I have seen him constantly hammering away at things Kerry wouldn't dream of touching (like saying the Busheviks are "the greatest threat to democracy ths country has ever seen").

You for awhile posted many fine threads on the New Politikal Korrectness, as I like to call it, and what cannot be spoken of on Imperial Pravda. Well, even that single statement by Clark violates it at it's heart (thou shalt not criticize the Emperor and thou shalt certainly not mention the moves towards Imperial Totalitarianism, which, and I know we agree to disagree here, I'd much rather live under than Communist Totalitarianism, if forced to choose exclsuively between the two).

And he has violated the New Politikal Korrectness many times in that fashion or on other topics. He has brought up the role of media concentration, another Taboo Subject for Imperial Pravda, among others.

You are right in that it was people who forced the system to yield gains in the Civil Rights and Environmental movements. But it was the system that created the framework and allowed it to happen with (relatively speaking, of course) little pain, suffering and murder.

What you say about FDR is true, but I am not sure it's some sort of grand Machiavellian scheme but rather the natural wokrings of a system of checks and balances. FDR realized that if he didn't do something, America might fall to a dictatorship from the left or right (I assume you know of the "Smedley Butler Coup" attempt against FDR in 1934).

And I think you sell the post WWII media short. Of course they had shortcomings, but the defeat of Totalitarianism left many Americans of that day, including the Press, feeling like they should actually start behaving like the Leaders of the Free World (yes, I know our foreign policy was horrid, but I am speaking domestically, here).

And even that little bit extra, even considering all it's shortcomings, made the Press ten times better than what it is today, imperfect though it was. They actually knew how to investigate then (a dying skill). I don't think they were more skillful at lying, there wasn't as much information around by some orders of magnitude, making it easier for them to lie (wittingly or unwittingly) or be lied to.

Which is why true investigative reporting was such a boon and why, even in the Age of Internet, it's downfall has had profound repercussions for our society.

As to the Soviet Boogeyman, you are correct that the threat was exaggerated by the Busheviks for their own purposes, but I think to go wholly in the other direction and say they were actually ok is stretching it a bit.

I mean, they did enslave their people, run a massive system of Gulags for political prisoners, misused the mental health system in conjunction with harassment oand imprisonment of undesireables (a terrifying echo of which can be seen in attacks on Dean and "Bush-haters"), had a legislative body which was even more pathetic and spineless (they had more direct reasons to fear) than our own Imperial Congess is today. Individuals had no right to even speak out and had good reason to fear for themselves and their families if they did. I have spoken to Russian emigres and they have related confirmations of some of these things to me.

They did practice something of a mirror-image of US foreign policy at the time and so while I would agree with you on much of US foreign policy at the time, I don't think it could be considered in a vacuum.

To sum it up, imperfect though it was (and given that you are correct about all the slime beneath the surface), I continue to believe post WWII was a Golden Age of sorts. Not for everyone, but for the first time we tried to move in that direction, to allow everyone to enjoy equally the Constitution and Bill of Rights as protector of all people through civil law. Did we make it there Of course not, be we were moving strongly in that direction, and there's a lot to be said for that.

I am well, Rich, and hope you and your family are also.

:hi:

[zoeyfong]

74. True, Kerry is the non-opponent opponent.

The established power structure knows that kerry can be counted on to play by the rules and not rock anybody's boat.

[WI_DEM]

83. I totally agree with your assessment

Kerry is no threat to the special interests.

[edzontar]

84. The beloved voters seem to have bough the KERRY IS SAFEST line

And have fallen in to line behind this most mediocre and disappointing man on the single argument that he is the most "electable."

Implicit in that thesis is the presumption that he is the msot establishment, the least threatening, and the most unlikely to say anything that could make the media and the ignorant swing-voter class nervous.

This, by the same token, helps explain why Kerry attracts so little ACTIVIST support.

Among those in the know, and those who actually care about what the "conspiracy" is doing to our country, Kerry is recognized as the ultimate specimen of the Dem-Lite movement---Clinton without the charisma.

I despise Kerry and the establishment Dems for all the things that you pint out in your most admirable post, and more.


I should also be angry with Dean for giving me hope, for a few months at least, that actual change was possible in this nation.

But I am not.


After decades of Dem-Lite disappointment, to finally have a candidate who dared to speak to the HIDEOUS TRUTH of our present situation, was like expereincing a rebirth of hope and love for this country.

Kerry can supply none of that.

[Forkboy]

87. Kerry is like new Punk music

safe acceptable rebellion even your parents can like!

[stickdog]

92. Yes. (nt)

[JNelson6563]

93. Quite a post!

Quite a thread too!

Julie