Raoul Duke said:
I've heard all the arguments. "This isn't the year; too much is at
stake."
I hope that is not your summary of "all the arguments!"
Yes, this is precisely correct. Too much is at stake for
liberals and progressives to continue to vote for the do nothing
Democrats simply because they're "not the Republicans." Well, I'm not
Satan, should I get a vote for deity? Hot damn! Start sending all
your prayers and tithes my way now, boys. The Democrats have
consistently and willfully abandoned the liberal/progressive base
because to their thinking, where else do we have to turn?
Pointing out the self-perpetuating problem this creates. Progressive refuse to vote democrat, democrats refuse to cater to progressives, etc. There's no reason change can't be made by exerting control within the party. DeLay didn't become majority leader because Christian conservatives began voting for the Constitution party.
I'll tell you- anywhere. Vote for Nader. Vote for Cobb. Hell, vote
for those wacky ass Libertarians. Don't waste your vote on a major
party candidate this year. No matter who is elected, one thing will
remain certain for the next four years: we, the People, will continue
to lose so long as we allow the political duopoly that is owned lock,
stock and barrel by Corporate America to dominate politics.
Voting third party, even winning third party, won't overturn the SUN-PAC decision. If corporate dominated politics is your fear, your anger is misdirected.
1. Kerry-Edwards supports the war in Iraq. The only promise that
John Kerry makes regarding Iraq is that he will "manage" the war
better than Bush. He voted for the war and will send more troops to
Iraq if needed. He recently told The Wall Street Journal that he would
keep the troops in Iraq longer than George Bush.
Any viable candidate should be willing to support continued involvement. They were wrong to vote in favor, of course, but any position that advocates creating more of a power vacuum is a problem. It's flat out wrong that the only promise he has made is that he'd "manage" the war, as he's been very transparent about his desire for internationalization, and the behavior of many foreign governments suggest that he could actually pull it off.
2. Unlike Senator Feingold, Kerry-Edwards undermines the Constitution
and civil liberties in the U.S. They voted for the Patriot Act an
overly aggressive assault on our Constitution. John Kerry, a former
federal prosecutor, has not often distinguished himself as a strong
friend of civil liberties. Kerry supported the Clinton crime bills,
including the expansion of the federal death penalty in 1996
legislation.
Apparently their subsequent criticism of the act following Ashcroft's interpretation and details of civil rights violations is irrelevant?
3. John Kerry represents corporations and the wealthy, not the working
majority. When John Kerry met with major donors he promised them he
was not a redistributionist Democrat despite massive corporate
welfare programs, and the vast rich-poor divide that exists in the
U.S. today. The Washington Post reports that has received more money
from corporations and their lobbyists than any other senator. For
example, the Center for Responsive Politics reports that during this
election cycle, Kerry took in $3,321,382 from the health care
industry. Also, Kerry has received $7,568,630 from the finance,
insurance and real estate industries.
That is a broad label to apply when basing it on comments and donations rather than actual policy proposals. Everyone represents some interests, and much like Moore's retarded bashing of Bush-Saudi relations, I think this is too circumstancial to care about. Moving on to policy....
His anemic plan for the working
poor is to raise the minimum wage to a mere $7 per hour by 2007 when
over $8 would bring the purchasing power up to that of 1968!
The Earned Income Tax Credit didn't exist in 1968. I'm not sure about food stamps, but regardless, it's important to consider all the programs that exist to help the working poor, rather than just dpending on one as a panacea. That's almost a two buck per hour increase, which seems pretty substantial.
He's
called for even more corporate tax cuts as a prime part of his jobs
program, despite record corporate profits and shrinking corporate
responsibility for carrying their fair share of the tax burden.
The current system has several deductions and high rates, which is basically the worst of both worlds - creating heavy burdens on small business/entrepenuers and loopholes that allow profitible large corps to have minimal tax burdens. Lowering rates would allow more local, decentralized employment while removing the various deduction possibilities would geerate more revenue from larger corps.
4. Kerry-Edwards does not promise health care for all. Forty-five
million Americans don't have health insurance and more and more can't
afford to keep it. The U.S. spends more on health care per capita than
any other country 25% of our expenditures go to duplicative overhead
caused by health insurance-based health care. John Kerry does not
replace this system with a universal health care program; he builds on
this faulty system by paying the catastrophic care health insurance
costs of businesses but tens of millions will remain without health
care under his plan.
I agree that single payer is best. But Kerry's plan was pretty expansive (Krugman was sorta lukewarm on it...I wish that article was still up for free, arg.) This is a great example of the tangible costs that the third party idealism can create. You can argue that we shouldn't "sell out" or "settle," but some of these thing aren't very abstract...
I'm looking at Kerry's web page now, and there's a lot of talk about removing waste, but not much specific. And I don't see anything about the important malpractice insurance/peer professional regulation issue, which is disapointing. So I will concede that my preference for Kerry on this issue is a consequence of relativism and pragmaticism.
5. Kerry-Edwards supports the drug war.
Supply-based solutions to drug problems are stupid, as are most criminal drug laws and mandatory minimums. Third parties are better here. No argument.
6. John Kerry continues to support WTO and NAFTA. These trade
agreements that are spurring the sending of jobs overseas to Communist
China, India and other poor countries undermine the sovereignty of
nations by putting profit of corporations before laws enacted by
nations. As a result, environmental, labor, and consumer protection
laws are undermined by trade agreements. But Kerry is not calling for
withdrawal from and renegotiation of these agreements.
Free trade isn't necessarily an anathema to liberals/progressives. It improves ecomonic efficiency, and the labor demand creates price pressure for wages in developing countries that wouldn't necessarily exist otherwise. I'm basically for it, because I think it improves the economy, and I think mutual dependence creates better foreign relations that protectionism that distinctly shuts developing nations out of our growth. A generation from now, I want to be partners with China and India, not antagonists, and trade is an importance piece of that. The employment problems is a consequence of a lack of quality education to accomodate the economic shifts such integration creates, not a problem of free trade itself.
7. John Kerry supports testing instead of teaching
This is just stupid. By far the most absurd comment yet.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.schorr.html
I love the basic idea of Kerry's education plan. More competitive pression and incentives for good teachers!
and does nothing to
make college more affordable.
I've seen tuition tax credits, promies of state aid, and the service/scholarship plan, all of which do. So unless you think he's lying or has reneged on all three....
8. The Democratic Party is undermining U.S. Democracy with John
Kerry's quiet blessing. The Nader/Camejo Campaign is facing an
unprecedented attack to obstruct its ballot access in numerous states
with dirty tricks.
I believe it. Fortunately the republican party is willing to lend a hand, so it balances out!
9. John Kerry does not think for himself on the Israeli-Palestinian
question.
Err...basis? And why do you think "supporting the Iraeli government" equates to "endorsing further millitary action?"
Kerry-Edwards is as distant as can be from
Dennis Kucinich's most cherished proposal, that he campaigned for
around the country: the establishment of a Department of Peace so that
our government can wage peace as it now does to prepare for war.
Did Kucinich actually ever say what his DoP would do, beyond the current State department, btw?
So how the hell can some of you people tell me with a
straight face that Kerry is our "best choice"?
I do not vote for Kerry because he univerally aligns with my interest. But nobody does that. I vote for him because,
A) Nobody is materially closer
B) Pragmaticism matters.
C) Suppoting change withing the structure of the party has proven more effective than external movements. The Howard Dean wing and grassroots groups like moveon are could move the arty in the right directon, rather than just overthrowing it...
So on the whole, I find your argument very unconvincing. Very selective too. I also support Kerry for his ideas on the environment, energy....