A warning - Remember the great betrayal of the Kerry "campaign" in 2004?

[ConsAreLiars]

Just for context, I caucused for Clark and then, being under the quota, for Kerry.

I went with Kerry because I knew he knew as much as anyone about the utterly evil nature of the enemy we faced. He had his VVAW experience and, even though he was a "moderate" in that context, he was as demonized as much the most insightful/rabid critics of that murderous slaughter. And he continued to expose the criminality of that same gang of psychopaths through his investigations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Committee_report and knew as much as anyone about the nature of the BFEE. So I thought he would expose these criminals for what they were.

Why Gore refused to do this in his campaign remains a mystery to me (naiveté, ignorance, handlers?), but that failure was another reason why the Supreme Court was able to pick the next president. He must have known about Cheney and PNAC and all that. So why the silence? But back to Kerry.

So, as the campaign progressed, I wondered why Kerry had not yet told the truth. Maybe some timing thing. Maybe he was keeping his powder dry. Maybe he was just laying the groundwork for speaking the truth. But the only time we heard even a hint of what I knew he knew was a whisper caught on tape when he said in reply to a supporter something to the effect that "these guys are the worst gang of criminals." Some such words, I don't recall exactly. And I kept waiting. Yet he kept treating this gang of monsters as peers - legitimately elected politicians with which he had some disagreements in strategy if not goals.

Kerry never told the truth. And of course, once again the choice between tweedledee and tweedledumfuck went to the greater and more ruthless evil.

I just wish, for once, our candidates would tell the truth.

[grasswire]

1. none of ours belong to Skull and Bones now

So why can't they tell the truth? (Aside from the fact that the press would rip the teller to shreds.)

[orleans]

48. here's one explaination

Turley: I’m willing to bet you that the democratic senate will not allow any effort, for example, to prosecute people who tortured for the american government. I mean, there are people out there who have been trained to torture people and have tortured people in the name of the u.s. government. And I can promise you this: the democrats will never allow those people to be identified and prosecuted and they will not pursue the president even once he’s out of office.

That’s part of the whole beltway mystique--is that they protect their own and parties mean very, very little. They’re all denizens in the same city and it’s about power. And principle has very little role in the city and I hate to say that and it may seem cynical but these are not principled people in this city and many of them are really bad people. Not all of them, but many of them are bad people. They don’t really believe in principle. They believe in power and once they get power I don’t think they’re going to be pursuing principle.

Randi: … power must be so cool…’cause nobody wants to let go of it

Turley: it’s intoxicating. The other fascinating thing is that all of these self-inflicted wounds of the bush administration, and of the democrats, are really due to this intoxicating effect of power. They get so detached they can’t even remember why they went into politics. When you sit down and talk to these people they can vaguely remember what motivated them and they can certainly speak of principle but they really are something different than as they started. I think the problem is that it’s a gradual bleeding that happens in this city.

http://www.whiterosesociety.org/Rhodes.htm...
november 28, 2007
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2382566

[MonkeyFunk]

2. Kerry never told YOUR truth

which is differnt from telling THE truth.

[ConsAreLiars]

4. What part of "MY" truth was a lie or should have been withheld from the voters?

You may support imperialism, as Kerry sold himself by supporting only "better" tactics rather than challenging the strategy, and you may ally yourself with the interests of the trans-national corporations, as did Kerry, but I don't see those loyalties as truth telling, whether mine or yours. The truth about what is happening is just that, not subjective. At least the neocons admit their desire to turn the US into a hegemonic power. If you, and Kerry, apparently, agree with that goal, say so. At least tell the truth.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. ooh!

"imperialism" and "hegemonic power"!

Yeah, that's Kerry. Screw it. Why are you on a Democratic Board?

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Why are you on a Democratic Board?

That's what puzzles me. We here on DU who are aware enough to have at least bothered to read their game plan: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf understand that if we do not speak about imperialism and hegemony out of fear of being perceived by idiots as too leftwing what we have done with our silence is to help enable the vile imperialist corporatist hegemony so clearly outlined before the advent of the Bush-Cheney adminstration.

[earth mom]

42. Thank you. That needed to be said. nt

[stillrockin]

31. Wake up. Open your eyes.

:boring:

[sandnsea]

3. It's too complicated

My understanding is that talking about BCCI, Bush, Iran/Contra, banking, global money laundering, etc., was too complicated for people to understand.

The people couldn't even understand that Kerry's crew mates were backing him and most of the people attacking him weren't there. One of the people who was there, had won a silver star that day and would have had to have taken it under false pretenses if his claims were true. How do you expect them to understand the entanglements of PNAC and all the rest?

Obama mentioned them though. He didn't mention PNAC specifically, but he sure pointed in their direction.

"What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

[ConsAreLiars]

5. I don't think the basics are particularly complicated.

It is just "us versus them" and the particular details are just there and well documented in as much depth as any may wish to follow them. No need to put out every date and name, just the nature of the crime.

And good for Obama. There may be more there than is fist apparent with his inspiring (truly) but vague rhetoric. But Kerry never did anything similar.

The specific details are unimportant, and even distracting as you suggest. But defining which side one is on is essential and not particularly hard, unless you and your opponent are both on the same side. MLK and RFK were brilliant at doing this. Right versus wrong, peace versus war, justice versus injustice, and all that, without getting bogged down in some encyclopedia-reading exercise.

The problem with Kerry is that he presented himself as being on the same side, but being a better tactician, rather than being on the side of the people against corporate world hegemony. And maybe in that sense we did get the truth about his loyalties, rather than the truth about what was in our interests as commoners.

[sandnsea]

6. I didn't hear that

I guess the way Republicans stick code words in their speeches, I look for code words in Democratic speeches. When I saw that quote I just posted on Obama, spoken in Oct 2002 when Congress was voting on the IWR, my esteem went way up. It matters that he said that. He said a lot more in that speech by the way, google it.

I'm not going to go back over every word Kerry has ever said, but when I looked at the substance of the bills he personally introduced, I got a sense of his values. When he said we had to stop being the world's oil cops, that we were spending billions protecting oil tanker lanes, etc., I knew he got it. I don't have to have these politicians scream and rant from the roof tops to learn their heart. I can put together the pieces, ferret out the political necesseties, and get a gist of where they're going to go.

A campaign on conspiracy theories is not the way to win an election. If it was as simple as you say, there are plenty of skilled orators who would have done it by now.

Did you watch Maher tonight. Telling moment. Mark Cuban was on and insisted that the reason Edwards' message isn't resonating is because people are afraid to do anything to hurt the corporation. Employees believe that any tax increase or attack on corporations means job cuts. He said corporations will never cut dividends or the money at the top. Not one person challenged that, not one. Nobody said, "well gee, that's why there's unions". So something so obvious, even the most elite aren't prepared to challenge something so simple. And you think "commoners" should be?

[ConsAreLiars]

7. It's not "conspiracy theory" as you put it. It is simply recognizing the fact of class war.

And taking our side. Don't have HBO, but it is no surprise that even "the elite" would never bring up unions or class struggle or the common interests of the ordinary people of the US and Iraq and Vietnam and Nicaragua and Afghanistan and Iran as opposed to those for whom exploitation, murder, pillaging and are just bottom line profit calculations. If they would do so, tell the truth, they would relinquish their membership privileges. The fact that the "elite" like Kerry value their membership cards more than greater good is indeed the problem.

As for us "commoners" not understanding the class struggle, well, maybe the best test in politics would be a candidate who took our side instead of presenting him/herself as a savior of imperialism. That would be an interesting campaign, at least.

[sandnsea]

8. Bush, BCCI, Class, Oil, Imperialism

Yes to most people that would be conspiracy theory wackiness.

Is Kerry not the one who fought to end Vietnam? Did he not risk his personal career over Nicaragua? Has he not led the fight to set timelines and get out of Iraq? He made a point of mentioning Barack being against the war from the start, even though it made clear that he was admitting he was wrong on that vote.

You don't know the man and I'd bet you never bothered to truly find out who he is or how much he fights for us every single day.

[ConsAreLiars]

9. It is just his record in such fights that makes his betrayal such a tragedy.

As you may have forgotten, I pointed these out in my post, that he had been a fighter on those fronts. And that is the shame of his candidacy. He threw all of that away and pretended he was (or actually had become) just another good old boy, instead of continuing to expose those monsters. And he lost, and he deserved to lose, because he failed to continue to stand for those things that made him worth supporting in the first place.

(edit to add the parenthetic phrase)

[sandnsea]

10. Then you just didn't listen

Perhaps you are so far in your own world that you can't hear what other people are saying anymore. Anybody running on your imperialist oil bcci conspiracy theory would be laughed right off the stage. The best you can do is make reference to the Saudi Royal Family and having no more kids die for oil. Promise open government. A man like John Kerry ought to be able to stand on his record with people like you. But that isn't even good enough for you. Then he goes right back to work, fighting for ever single thing he promised he'd fight for, and that still isn't good enough for you. Then he steps into the middle of what is going to be the ugliest battle in the Democratic Party in decades, and all you can do is post more claptrap. This country deserves the stupidity it gets, it really does.

[ConsAreLiars]

12. Sorry, you seemed to have wandered off to somewhere in strangeland

Where did I mention the Saudi Royal Family and all that other stuff? Nowhere. But since you bring it up, it might have been a good campaign ad to show the Chimp and his Saudi partner holding hands, but that was off the table, Kerry, for whatever reason, chose to proclaim his affiliation with Saudi fascism and his determination to maintain the oil flow rather than tell the truth. Such a shame, and a shame that the very little he has done since will erase.

And, back to my main point, since you have lost track, this loser strategy of allying with transnational imperialism, win or lose, is not going to be worth spit when it comes to serving the greater good.

[H2O Man]

14. Part of it

has to do with age. Young "leaders" (for lack of better word) tend to focus on changing systems, often by overturning the staus quo. Older leaders tend to attempt to stabilize society. There are, of course, plenty of exceptions, but let's look at a few examples.

In the 1960s, a young man changed his name from Cassius Clay to Cassius X to Muhammad Ali. The Olympic hero who had become popular for his response to a Russiab reporter's question on racism in the USA began to question the status quo. He refused to be drafted, and a lot of young black men began to ask the same questions Ali asked. He was illegally stripped of his title and his right to make a living, and faced a prison sentence. Today, the Champ is a quiet and humble representative of Islam, who works to create unity among human beings.

John Lennon was a wonderful example of a young man who questioned society. The rigid structure of English/ US society didn't fit him well. He helped influence young people to question the rules. When he was cut down at age 40, he was returning from the studio, where he and his wife had recorded songs for a second album about family life issues such as baking bread.

If we look at two good democrats -- Senator John Kerry and Rep. John Conyers -- we find that as Young Lions, both challenged the system .... but they have aged and today are Old Lions. They are no longer agents of change, willing to overturn the tables in the temples of the congress. The chances of either of them doing that are the exact same as that of Ali competing in the Olympic boxing tournament.

[vssmith]

33. There is merit in what you say but there are important exceptions:

Ralph Nader
George McGovern
Jimmy Carter
Dennis Kucinich
Ron Paul
Mike Gravel

One could probably argue with some of my examples. Just food for thought.

[ConsAreLiars]

47. I think it has more to do with basic loyalties than age.

Both are, in their ways, trying more to "improve" the system than to challenge it. I'm not as familiar with Conyers, but in VVAW Kerry was already being criticized for seeing the atrocities of Vietnam more as poor policy decisions rather than as symptomatic of a deeper disorder. No real change since then when it comes to Iraq, other than his first throwing his support for this particular "poor policy" by signing a bill rather than enlistment papers.

The contrasting case is indeed exemplified by young Cassius Clay. A young man with no inherited wealth and a social status about as far from Kerry's Boston Brahmim life among the privileged classes as one can get. I grew up nearby when he was first mentioned on the local news as a possible contender for the Golden Gloves. Not a fan of boxing, but he stood out immediately as a "wow!" - admirable for his force of character and honesty and determination and intelligence. And although he matured, then grew older, that same integrity has never left him. I was awed by from day one when he violated the conventions of the day and and a fan ever since, but I was amazed when he took a clear moral stand against Vietnam, in contrast to Kerry who objected primarily to the bad consequences.

Muhammad Ali is a truly principled person. Kerry, well, not so much.

[karynnj]

45. You ignore that Kerry spoke out more than any established politician

and still does. He was alone in criticizing the use of the Afghan warlords in 2002.

You are also not considering where the country was in 2004. I know people still angry because they thought he hit Bush to hard on both "misleading the country to war ...." and on his criticism of various Bush wrongs - such as Abu Ghraib, the unguarded ammo dumps, and the need to fire Rumsfeld. Remember Kerry and Dean called for Rumsfeld to be fired - Edwards, Clinton and most of the other Democrats didn't. Kerry morphing into Michael Moore would have led to a landslide - for Bush.

Where on the spectrum do you think he had to win people? There were very few votes cast for the left wing third parties and he got 9 million more votes than Gore did - it's very hard to argue that people stayed home. Remember how traumatized the country was. Do you really think that the Presidential candidate telling people that the US has been an outlaw nation for most of the last several decades - which is what you are saying when you say Bush I, Bush II and Reagan were criminals. It takes time and a very clear cut case to get people to believe unpleasant truths. This is not the view most people in the country have of our role in the world.

Kerry used BCCI in the way it could be used. He spoke at University of Pennsylvania about how he would deal with terrorism. He spoke of an international sharing of intelligence and law enforcement, with an occasional military component. He spoke of how he knew that you could shut down criminal networks - because he had done it with BCCI, OBL's bank. He spoke of it in teh NYT Matt Bai article as well. In a shorter form, it was often in his stump speech. Just as the media ignored all his environmental events and speeches, these were poorly covered.

Kerry was one of the few to speak of the Downing Street Memos - including in the letter demanding that the intelligence committee do part 2 of the WMD report, that is still not done even with the Democrats in charge. Kerry even mentioned the DSM on various talk shows. As a test of how common knowledge this is - try at the next family gathering or at work asking people if they knew about the Downing Street Memos. This is in spite of having some NYT coverage. Kerry also has mentioned PNAC, especially after Bush's second inaugural address. That speech, widely praised at the time in the NYT, WP and elsewhere, changed why we went to war, but no one seemed to notice.

I know that a group that I belonged to of liberal Jewish woman had a meeting where we discussed F911. The result most found it unfair and hated what they termed the guilt by association linking of the Bushes to OBL. These were all people who had voted for Gore and were intending to vote for Kerry. Imagine a less Democratic group.

[bvar22]

43. Mark Cuban also said,

"Management does NOT give a shit about the workers".
He used this line in the context that if Corporation were taxed, they would simply close down and lay off their workers (because they don't give a shit about their workers)

Someone should have pointed out that when Corporations are untaxed (like now) they STILL don't give a shit about their workers. The increase in productivity and profits have gone to the CEOs and "shareholders"...NOT the Workers.

The ONLY voice The Workers have is through UNIONS and OUR government who should be protecting Human (Worker) Rights. If Our Government would make it a little more difficult for Corporations to move to countries with Slave Labor, they would be forced to negotiate with LABOR and reach a fair working relationship.

ANYONE who Works for a Living, AND supports Hillary or Obama is voting AGAINST their own economic interests.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[sandnsea]

44. They were dupes

I was so upset that they all just sat there like he was preaching irreversible dogma.

However, Obama has a record in Illinois of supporting workers. He spearheaded the legislation to circumvent the affects of Bush's overtime legislation. He increased EIC for the working poor. He was the sole sponsor of a Health Care As A Right amendment to the Illinois Constitution. Corporations aren't going to be made illegal. Tackling the problems they create is going to take a lot more than screaming at them.

[Swamp Rat]

11. Kucinich tells the truth, but he has been blacklisted by the media.

"It is clear that senior administrative officials signed off on aggressive and illegal techniques and are potentially liable under the War Crimes Act of 1996 ... This bill sends the wrong message about the true values of Americans. Let's stand up for the principles that this country was founded upon. Let's stand up for the Constitution, for the land of the free, for the home of the brave."
http://www.dennis4president.com/go/resources/let%27s-stand-up-for-the-constitution

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/securing-constitutional-democracy

[ConsAreLiars]

13. Yeah, Dennis gets it, as do most of the Black Caucus and my Rep McDermott

From your first link:

"For instance ... church clergy, who provided support to the armed and unarmed opposition to the deposed dictatorships of El Salvador and Nicaragua, could have been designated as unlawful enemy combatants ... it would only take a determination by the President or Secretary of Defense that the opposition to a US-favored dictator was engaged in hostilities against the US ... This is very dangerous."

And raped and murdered, as has been done before in the service of transnational capitalism. A long history which too few know or will admit. Kerry refused to repudiate or even acknowledge this legacy, and he lost. He presented himself as just a minor variant on the same pro-imperialist tune, and he lost. I hope whoever becomes our candidate might have the insight and integrity to take a stand against such inhumanity. Dennis is out, McDermott, Waters and other worthies never wee in the picture, so I am not optimistic.

Seems like we will witness yet one more episode of the Tweedledee/dum contests ("I can serve corporatism better than you - No you can't - Yes I can"). Sad, maybe I am just too badly battered, but that is what I see so far. Lesser evilism, but more or less, more of the same.

(edit ,, back to ,)

[MagickMuffin]

16. Kerry would have had a really hard time campaigning on past government scandals

Do you think Kerry was a free agent? Of course not.

He was forced by Rep. Lee Hamilton to stop the investigations of Iran Contra and BCCI at Rep. Dick Cheney's request. Poppy Bush then rewarded Cheney to be his Sec. of Defense.

What I find interesting about Kerry and Obama is this: Kerry asked Obama to give the keynote speech at the Democratic convention in 04. Kerry loses/has the election stolen from him. Kerry screws up a joke in 07 is out for 08, now Kerry endorses Obama.

I started wondering if Obama wins the nomination, and if he wins the GE, if Obama would nominate Kerry as AG. I think if Kerry was AG he would have a lot of power to investigate the Bush Cheney cabal. He has a moral obligation to investigate what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, OHIO, Katrina, US Attoneys, Election fraud, civil rights abuse, Blackwater, Halliburton, Enron..........................

You get the idea. I might could live with this vision. A girl can dream, can't she:evilgrin:

[dailykoff]

17. Yeah I kind of think the same thing.

First, I think Kerry threw in the towel to early, but maybe he just figured that Obama would have a better chance and decided to stop the bleeding as soon as possible. That's what his endorsement speech in Charleston sounded like.

Second, his national campaign was basically aimed at swing states like Ohio and Missouri and too much truth in those post-911 years would open the floodgates to shitstorms of propaganda that would make the swiftboaters pale in comparison.

[MagickMuffin]

23. No kidding about the shitstorms

Kerry faced an incredible challenge during his presidential run. The MSM or manufactured news were Pro Bush and you could tell they were going to ((( pardon the pun ))) Gore him. Kinda what's happening to JE and DK.

Back in the 80's I called MSM stations asking why they weren't covering Libertarian candidates, as an American I thought it was important for our democracy to hear all views from every party, especially parties that had been around for a while. I was told the networks didn't have the reporters to cover them. Sheesh, you would think during an election year they could hire some interns who would love the opportunity to cover a presidential campaign.
Oh well. It never occurred to me that 20 years later the MSM would actually treat a sitting Vice President with so much vile propaganda, disrespect, lies, half truths, and viciousness that they showed Al Gore. It was an eye opener, that's for sure.

I watched every Kerry rally that C-SPAN covered and he always gave inspiring speeches. And THE CROWDS, THEY WERE HUGE......

And the Youth did turn out to VOTE. The lie and propaganda perpetuated by the MSM that the Youth didn't turn out to vote is Horseshit. In Ohio, SOS Ken Blackwell made damn sure there weren't enough voting machines for the large turnout. I witnessed young voters who were denied the right to vote. C-SPAN covered the election fraud as it unfolded. IIRC, one of the polls was located at a college and there were only a couple machines. People had been standing in the lines for hours, before becoming frustrated and leaving without casting a ballot.
This also applies to the African American communities. I watched as my heart broke to see extremely long lines of people standing out in the cold rain waiting for a chance to vote, then leaving, again without casting a ballot. How fortunate that the SOS Blackwell, who is the chairman for the re-(S)election of Bush/Cheney, is in CHARGE of how many machines get to what locations. Ahhhh, memories of Florida.:grr:

I knew right then and there, that there would be no way Kerry could challenge the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of voters. After all this WAS before the US Attorney scandal happened. But I already was aware that something was fishy within the Civil Rights Div. of the DOJ. Because once again I watched the NAACP proceedings during the 1st stolen (S)election. I listened to people who had been disfranchised. I thought at the time that there would be more congressional hearings on the matter. But then I remembered "the people in charge" would never allow anything like that to happen. After the Attorney scandal broke it became apparent what was going on. US Attorneys told to charge Democrats with voter fraud, or other racked up charges. Look what they did and are doing to AL Gov.Don Siegelman Disgraceful.

How could Kerry have challenged Diebold machines?

How could he prove the machines had been hacked?

I think he would have had an incredible task at hand to prove the election was stolen. One thing for sure he does know the BFEE, he knows how calculating and deceptive they are. I would think there would be nothing better than for Kerry to bring these guys down. Perhaps if he did become AG he would do just that. Of course, as long as no one gets in his way.

It would truly be amazing if Kerry was the AG. I think he would Stand Heads and Shoulders over the last 3 AG's our nation has suffered under. I think Kerry truly believes in Justice and since he was a prosecutor he knows how to hold investigations.

[ginnyinWI]

29. AG Kerry would be great, but he'd have to leave the Senate.

After eight years he'd be out of a job--but I'm sure he'd be a great AG.

[MH1]

21. Yep.

I could live with that, too.

I'd rather Kerry had won in 2004, but he wasn't going to win by talking openly about the BFEE. Americans can't handle the truth.

[vssmith]

34. My hope is that if Obama becomes president that he appoints

Edwards as either AG or as a member of the Supreme Court.

[L. Coyote]

18. Oh yeah, let's stir up old divisiveness. Not enough of the new divisiveness

around this place. :rofl:

[Echo In Light]

19. It was so obvious! He could've easily trounced Bushites on several counts yet DIDN'T

[MH1]

20. He would have lost the election in a LANDSLIDE.

Once he was elected he could have started the complex tasks needed to bring this stuff to light in a way that would be effective.

Whether he would have or not is up to each person's opinion of the man. But he couldn't ever do it without being elected first.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. John Kerry Has And Has Had More Integrity And Honesty Than 99% Of The People Here Ever Will.

Just sayin...

[MagickMuffin]

25. Hear Hear, well said

:toast:

I was just rereading his acceptance speech from the Convention. What an inspiring speech!

I never understood why people had a problem with Kerry speaking in full paragraphs, from Corporate Media to Jon Stewart, I was bewildered that talking in complete paragraphs was such a bad thing:shrug:

I guess the MTV generation made us have to catch up. Ah, the birth of sound bites.

Kerry IS NOT a sound bite kind of guy. He likes to discuss ideas and debate their merits.

[sandnsea]

39. Thank you for that n/t

[rockymountaindem]

41. Spot on n/t

[leftchick]

24. just for clarity....

here is the exact quote....



Kerry responded, informally and off camera: "Let me tell you, we've just begun to fight. We're going to keep pounding. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen."


I remember it well and agree with you. Sadly any honesty from a politician is completely ripped apart by the corrupt politicians and the complicit corporate owned media. It will take a brave and powerful person to be immune to that. If he/she exists.

:(

[mnhtnbb]

35. Yes, liars is what he called them I was astonished to hear it.

I was hopeful it would cause others to speak up.

[robbedvoter]

26. So, the other guy on the ticket told the truth about the theft? "he wanted to"

but shut up. Today, most people still think Bush won. That's betrayal that burns my guts every time I read "we lost in 2004"

[Echo In Light]

27. Bingo. It only lends credence to America's unreality

[Pachamama]

30. I find the questions you pose intrigueing because I've wondered much the same - however let me pose

a question back to you further on what you feel is happening now? Do you think this betrayal of sorts is continuing, and if so, how and who?

I sense it, but I'm wondering if perhaps you have thought it out further than I have....

[Swamp Rat]

32. Oi Pachamama

:hi: :hug:

Unless the next president somehow undoes the damage done by Bushler AND the Congress, we are screwed. The fact that the Dems in the House let H. Res. 1955 pass is a sign the republic is almost dead (H. Res. 888 will turn the USA into a theocracy). This year is a pivotal year - be prepared for some serious events to come down the pike. I will be taking a break from DU after talking to you here, as I am starting classes next week (and Mardi Gras comes early this year - I have to prepare my samba band to play in a parade and for some private parties).



:patriot: GEAUX KUCINICH!!! :patriot:

[Didereaux]

36. wish I could be there this year, but can't...btw I saved that one...great job

[ConsAreLiars]

46. I think the best way to understand what happened is to read Chomsky.

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/chomsky03.htm

Noam Chomsky Massachusetts Institute of Technology, March 17, 1991 Excerpted from the Alternative Press Review, Fall 1993

... Let me begin by counter-posing two different conceptions of democracy. One conception of democracy has it that a democratic society is one in which the public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the management of their own affairs and the means of information are open and free....

An alternative conception of democracy is that the public must be barred from managing of their own affairs and the means of information must be kept narrowly and rigidly controlled. That may sound like an odd conception of democracy, but it's important to understand that it is the prevailing conception....


... So we need something to tame the bewildered herd, and that something is this new revolution in the art of democracy: the "manufacture of consent." The media, the schools, and popular culture have to be divided. For the political class and the decision makers have to give them some tolerable sense of reality, although they also have to instill the proper beliefs. Just remember, there is an unstated premise here. The unstated premise -- and even the responsible men have to disguise this from themselves -- has to do with the question of how they get into the position where they have the authority to make decisions. The way they do that, of course, is by serving people with real power. The people with real power are the ones who own the society, which is a pretty narrow group. If the specialized class can come along and say, I can serve your interests, then they'll be part of the executive group. You've got to keep that quiet. That means they have to have instilled in them the beliefs and doctrines that will serve the interests of private power. Unless they can master that skill, they're not part of the specialized class. They have to be deeply indoctrinated in the values and interests of private power and the state-corporate nexus that represents it. If they can get through that, then they can be part of the specialized class. The rest of the bewildered herd just have to be basically distracted. Turn their attention to something else....

... In what is nowadays called a totalitarian state, then a military state, it's easy. You just hold a bludgeon over their heads, and if they get out of line you smash them over the head. But as society has become more free and democratic, you lose that capacity. Therefore you have to turn to the techniques of propaganda. The logic is clear. Propaganda is to democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state....

So in every election we are filled with the hope that one outcome or another will somehow bring about a change in government and it will become a bit more "for the people." And, well, if that doesn't happen, well maybe next time. That is the way things have been run for centuries in what are called democracies.

What was so disappointing about the Kerry campaign is that he, by refusing to call the criminals out, not only failed to lead, but betrayed the fact that his first priority was to play the game according to the establish(ment)ed rules, rather than use the truth to expose the criminals. None of that class stuff, at a time when telling the truth would have made a difference in the lives and deaths of so many. He chose the other side.

(edit to add link)

[brazos121200]

37. I remember how shocked I was during the campaign when

I realized he wasn't going to just come out for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. It was quite an epiphany for me when I realized he was going to play it safe and take the middle ground, and knew he probably wouldn't win. I had thought his motto in the campaign would be his famous words: "How do you ask a man to be the last person to die for a mistake?" As for Gore, he never should have conceded defeat. If he had simply maintained that he had won and was being denied the office, it would have removed some legitimacy from Bush's administration. He did it to open the way for a future run for the Presidency, but as it turned out he isn't going to run anyway, it seems. I think refusing to concede would also have increased his standing in the party.

[ProSense]

38. What hogwash!

Kerry Kerry spoke about it in 2004. Why wasn't everyone in the blogosphere screaming murderers? There were articles written by some on the left, why didn't this information create as much of a buzz as the BS bashing in this OP?

What the hell has Gore and Kucinich actually done to stop them: Gore endorsed Dean? Give me a fucking break!

Looks like: The establishment supporters are out in full force... trying to smear Kerry. He is the only person in Congress to ever actually do anything about these asshole, from 1970 to now. Period!

[ProSense]

40. This is for

your information