Bush v. Kerry: The Power Elite’s Dream Ballot

[AmericanErrorist]

02/13/04: If you hear gleeful giggling from behind the curtain shielding the political elites from the mere masses, you’re not alone. There’s a party going on and we haven’t been invited. It’s a presidential election party, where the puppeteers of our democracy are celebrating an upcoming election that they can’t lose. It’s a contest between two of their own.

George Bush versus John Kerry is a dream ballot for those whom C. Wright Mills called the “power elite,” that tight little club of economic, political and military leaders who truly rule the nation. The power elite doesn’t care about political party affiliations. That’s child’s play. In their view, fools line up to vote while the real players decide who’s on the ballot. And for some reason we still refer to the whole charade as democracy. The joke’s on you.

Bush v. Kerry is simply nirvana for the bluebloods. As they say in the business world: it’s a win-win situation. From their perspective, whomever places his hand upon the Bible (yes, the Bible) on January 20, 2005 doesn’t matter because with a Bush/Kerry contest they’re already assured there will be no meaningful change in America for the next four years. None. Zero. Zippo.

Before the delusional Democrats out there start peppering me with hostile emails about the absolute necessity of getting “anybody but Bush” in the White House, just stop yourselves long enough to consider these facts: Kerry supported Bush’s war on Iraq; Kerry supported Bush’s tax cuts; Kerry hasn’t proposed one major social or environmental initiative in over 20 years in the U.S. Senate; Kerry hasn’t put forward any meaningful policy initiatives in his campaign for the presidency regarding jobs or healthcare. Kerry’s campaign seems to be all about proving that he qualifies as “anybody but Bush.” And all that takes is a pulse.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5651.htm

[eileen_d]

1. This guy must read DU!

Also, I misread the title - thought it said "Power BALLET" - lol

[unblock]

2. sheesh

if kerry were an absolute moran, or had zero presidential ambition, he might have done some of the things he is faulted for not doing in this article.

then, he would be very easily painted as way too liberal for the nation as a whole. he would be a non-starter as a presidential candidate.

odds are real good that, once in office, kerry would at least return us to clintonian times. in the current environment, that would be victory enough, for now.

what he's being faulted for here, e.g., voting for bush's tax cuts, is known as neturalizing an opponent's argument. had he voted against the cuts, that would have been the only thing people would have thought he ever did.

[KC21304]

3. Same trash, different trasher.

[Cocoa]

4. there is a sameness to it, isn't there

not much different than the trite stuff from Nader in the last election.

[Egnever]

7. Funny how that works

We are given a false choice over and over by our "party leaders" and when things dont change people wonder why.

[Cocoa]

8. things do change

the world is radically different -- worse -- since Bush took office.

How can you say things don't change? Where have you been?

[KC21304]

9. Oh I think things changed in 2001 when Bush took over, don't you ?

And I have no doubt why.

[Egnever]

11. No I dont

I think the pace acclerated but nothing really changed.

[Egnever]

5. And yet the american public is willing to go for it.

At least I got to vote against him. Many wont even be given that chance.

[Eric J in MN]

6. Good. I'm glad if the Democrats have a candidate the power elites won't

Good. I'm glad if the Democrats have a candidate which the power elites won't keep out of the White House.

Does Michael Colby think that a Kerry adminsistration would prosecute GreenPeace for hanging a banner on a boat?

Or would appoint rightwingers to the federal courts?

[kenny blankenship]

10. It's the Matrix versus the Matrix

and, in a stunning upset, the winner is... The Matrix!

[bread_and_roses]

12. If the puppeteers

would be so happy with Kerry, I have to ask why they didn't make sure he had, oh, 60 million or so for his primary campaign? Especially when Dean was forging ahead, it seems to me that if Kerry were their "dream candidate" they would have put up some $$. They are going to donate some money to the Dem nominee anyway, to hedge their bets, so why not put some up front to assure the candidacy they wanted?

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect miracles of progressiveness from Kerry should he get the nomination and win the General. But I think that whatever his ties to "special interests" (and until we have genuine campaign finance reform, we are not going to have ANY winning candidate without "special interest" money) they pale beside Bush's. I don't see how he could have a 94% rating from the League of Conservation Voters if he were as deep in the pockets of the corporations as Bush.

I have never followed primaries before this year, so if this an ignorant question, educate me. I'll listen.

[markses]

13. Oh, stop it

Just fucking stop it.

[AmericanErrorist]

14. May I remind you...

Fresh from his latest win in Maine, the favourite to challenge George Bush for the US presidency has secured the financial support of some of the most powerful media moguls in the world.
As John Kerry's campaign to secure the Democrat nomination - and with it a crack at the White House - continues to gather pace, it has emerged that it is being bankrolled by key executives from News Corporation, MTV-owner Viacom and Sony.

The victory in Maine, Mr Kerry's 10th out of the 12 primaries in the opening weeks of the Democrat selection campaign, confirmed his position as overwhelming favourite to take on President Bush in November's presidential election.

Unsurprisingly, the donation from News Corp's boardroom came not from chairman Rupert Murdoch, a committed Republican, but from the company's chief operating officer, Peter Chernin.

Mr Chernin, one of Mr Murdoch's most trusted lieutenants, is among several media chiefs who have pledged to raise between $50,000 and $100,000 to support the Vietnam war veteran's campaign for the White House.

Others who have pledged to raise more than $50,000 include the Viacom chief executive, Sumner Redstone, and Sony chairman Howard Stringer...

http://media.guardian.co.uk/city/story/0,7497,1144464,00.html