RED DAVE

It will be instructive to see how Dean and Co. seize on the obvious lies of the Administration. My guess is that they are so completely compromised by their connections to corporate America through the Democratic Party, that they will totally miss the current opportunity.

Any anguished or concerned call for merely an investigation will be bullshit. The Republicans control Congress. this is not Watergate. Bush is going to be "tried" outside Congress: in the media (the "Kept Press," as we used to call it) and in activities outside the "norm," such as demonstrations, mass meetings, alternaive media, etc.

The current crop of Democrats has no experience or interest in this, Dean's little meetings notwithstanding. This is precisely the time to build a real oppostion to bush & co. where it belongs: outside of the Democratic Party.

RED DAVE

emphryio

Clark, this might sound surprising to you, but George W. Bush is no more of a "global tyrant" than Bill Clinton was. Recall Clinton's illegal invasion of Yugoslavia? They couldn't get UN support, so they had to use trusty old NATO to promote American economic interests that time.

But where were all the anti-war protesters? Well, the real lefties tried to organize then, but since Clinton was a Democrat it was hard to get mass opposition to that invasion.

And don't forget NAFTA, Welfare Deform, the Anti-Terrorism Act (the "beta" version of the Patriot Act), the Telecommunications Reform Act (which allowed for the rise of Clear Channel Communications), the economic sanctions against Iraq (which killed an estimated one million civilians in the 90s). William Jefferson Clinton supported all of those things, and countless others (he destroyed the largest pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, etc, etc, etc,). Clinton is more than guilty of being a global tyrant!

I mostly agree with Krieger. Bushco has the same completely immoral goals of Clinton/Gore but he is just a lot dumber and transparent.

And although Bushco also wants to make abortion illegal and strengthen the power of christianity, those issues take a back seat to the mass murdering, and continuing enslavement of the third world as insured by both parties, along with the continuing destruction of even the last sliver of democracy here at home.)

dcwolf

Krieger, what is doubtful? You can't even conceive of the notion that Nader considers most of the democrats to be considerably better than Bush environmentally?

So you googled for 'Dean Environment' and came up with only one webpage - the Michael Colby article? Actually I think your search also pulled up the following hits. The first one is a rebuttal to the Colby piece...
Here's his testimony on behalf of the environment...
http://www.state.vt.us/psd/GovDeanTestimony.PDF

After reading Dean's testimony, do you think Nader would rather let Bush oversee the closure of hundreds of beaches due to pollution, or watch Dean kick his ass out of office and protect our watersheds, beaches and air from pollution?

Gay rights is another reason we need to unseat Bush. W recently said in a press conference, "I believe marriage is a sacriment that should be between a man and a woman." I'm sick of the fundamentalist preacher squatting in the white house. If you can propose a way to cojule 60,000,000 voters to vote Green in 2004, I'm all ears. Until then, Dean's the one.

excreationist

Then why not try and get rid of this corruption?
i.e. promote campaign financing reform where campaigns are paid solely by the public - not by private interests. And campaign costs don't need to be so high either. If a party has a certain number of seats it could be forced to have public funding only. Parties without any seats (new parties) could use private funding - within limits - and maybe some public funding as well. I'm not sure what other organisations' ideas about this are though.
ACLU - Campaign Financing Reform
National Voting Rights Institute - Links
The Mother Jones 400 - This lists the top 400 political campaign donators and their background

Then governments would be more concerned with simply getting votes rather than also pleasing the rich who give them the campaign funding they rely on.

fromtheright

Run, Nader, run!

Krieger

Don't put words into Nader's mouth. All I've seen confirmed so far is that Ralph Nader has considered giving more support specifically to Dennis Kucinich, because Kucinich is actually more of a real social democrat like Nader. Howard Dean, on the other hand, is just another corrupt, smiling capitalist politician, a lot like Bill Clinton was.

Also, Ralph Nader is not even a member of the Green Party. He never was. He is actually a member of the much smaller Labor Party, and is registered "independent". I mention this because many Democrats seem to think that Ralph Nader is some kind of "dictator" of the Green Party, who gives all the orders, etc. That is the farthest from the truth. In 2004 a presidential candidate will be picked at the Green Party National Convention, and will be on the ballot in November. It doesn't matter what Ralph Nader has to say about it, although he might decide to run again as well. Only time will tell.



Incorrect, the link I posted earlier is quite well known in progressive circles. I did not have to "google" to find it. Although it would not surprise me if Howard Dean's ultra-moneyed presidential campaign forces put up some kind of weak "rebuttal" to it. Quoting Howard Dean speeches does not change history.


Governor Dean makes a nice sounding speech. Everyone smiles. Governor Bush made nice speeches about the environment too. Do you really think a politician is going to come out say, "Hey, I want to fuck up the environment!" Not even the most crude of Republicans would be so blunt.

However, so far, your post has been an attempt to make me support Howard Dean because you claim that he is environmentally friendly. If you had read my previous posts in this thread, you would know that protecting the environment is only ONE of many issues that are important to the left and to the Green Party. As long as big business controls the political process they will make sure that environmental laws are weak (at best). The Democratic Party is funded by big business. If you want to reduce the power that big business has over politics, you do not vote for one of their parties! You have to start a movement that is free from their control.


Howard Dean was a strong opponent of gay marriage - until the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that homosexual couples are entitled to equal protections under the law. Then he grudgingly came out in support of "Civil Unions", (a "politically correct" phrase that is used because of America's homophobia). As far as I can tell, this is the only remotely progressive thing that Dean has ever supported. Howard Dean is just another corrupt, smiling politician like Bill Clinton was. If Dean is elected there will be no change in America's domestic or foreign policies, there will just less mass opposition to them, because a President Dean would have a nice, safe, protective "D" beside his name. Just like Bill Clinton did when he invaded Yugoslavia, supported Welfare Deform, supported NAFTA, supported devastating economic sanctions against Iraq and the rest of his "legacy".

Nice try, but I'll never support the Democratic Party.

dcwolf

Dean gave an extensive interview in May, exclusively on his environmental policy. Here it is.

http://www.gristmagazine.com/maindish/griscom052103.asp

I was concerned about his suv ownership, but he says the next car they get will be an Escape hybrid. And he's pushing for fuel efficiency of all suvs to be improved to 35mpg.

dcwolf

Not trying to convince you of anything, only trying to shed some light on your spin.
Try doing some research on your own, it will be enriching. Look past presuppositions about the democratic party, and research the candidates running for president. Compare Bush pre-2000 election to the current Bush. Then, compare the current version to the democratic candidates. If you open your eyes, you may be surprised. From an old tune that puts it so eloquantly, "Once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right."
Not putting words in anyone's mouth. Merely posed the possibility to you. If you disagree with the OP, say so, but don't attack me for presenting you with a viable possibility.
Really, Krieger? Can you imagine Bush making that speech? That's right, no way in hell. So I guess you'll assume that Dean will not change Bush's policy on global warming? Recall that Bush recently deleted all scientific research describing the threats of carbon emissions and the threats of global warming from the EPA policy. It's foolhardy to equate Dean with Bush on the environment.

And Dean's protection of the environment is more than just making a speech. Can you imagine Bush volunteering to test water quality in the DC area?
http://dipin.kent.edu/Vermont.htm

Please explain how it's better to have a fundementalist in the white house preaching against homosexual lifestyle, than to have states' rights for Civil Unions.

EDIT:
No kidding. But first let's remove the most environmentally destructive president in our history, in favor of one who has an environmental conscience so that we can discuss these issues IN THE CONTEXT of reason.

As far as big business in Howard Dean's pocket... He's pushing for Detroit to upgrade their suv's to 35mpg. And I believe he wants to reinstate the tax credit for hybrid cars, and eliminate the hummer credit. Doesn't sound like the auto industry has their hands in his pockets to me. And he advocates renewable resources and promoted solar and wind energy as governor.

After ousting Bush in 04, I'm all for the Green movement, as a matter of backing up my beliefs. You can vote for whoever you want, Krieger, but you're using a completely one-sided argument.

Krieger

Well that was clever. I didn't know that opposing capitalist political parties and exposing them for what they truly are is "spin".

That was a lame attempt at condescension. I have been following the 2004 Democratic primary race ever since it first began over two years ago (long before Albert Gore even dropped out). Luckily for me, I don't just believe everything the Democrats say on their campaign websites. I have researched the candidates themselves, and I have found that most of them (besides Kucinich) have the same corrupt background. As I stated in a previous post, Kucinich's purpose for the Democrats is to keep left-wing activists inside of the party.

Nader is encouraging Democrats to vote for Dennis Kucinich in the primary next year. He never said that he would not run again. And he never said anything about endorsing Howard Dean. I actually voted for Kucinich in the MoveOn.org primary, to make sure that the "Clintonist" Howard Dean did not get the 50% needed for endorsement.


Yes, really. In the unlikely event that hell exists and Howard Dean gets elected the environmental policy of this nation will not see any visible changes. The 1990s of Clinton were definitely not "Green", and four years of Dean will not help anything.


It is frankly irrelevant. If Howard Dean is elected Civil Unions will not be magically legalized at the federal level. And I doubt the issue is of much importance to Dean, except when he is campaigning.


Oh please, spare me the Democratic Party's campaign ads. George Bush is a bumbling fool, but he is a NOT the most "environmentally destructive" president in US history. I would give that "honor" to the Democrat Truman, who used two nuclear bombs.


Oh my, Mr. Dean's presidential campaign supports a few minor reforms. I'd be curious to know how much solar and wind power the utopian state of Vermont uses.


Then the 2008 elections will come around, and the left will be expected to "defend" President Dean against the new "incredibly far-right" Republican challenger. It would be 2000 all over again.

And what, are you using a two-sided argument? I oppose capitalism, and voting for the status quo Democrats will not help my cause at all.

Optional

Explain, bitte.

From what I know, it's difficult to believe you're not living in some parallel universe. But I'm willing to hear reason on this one. If Dean had any real money behind him he'd have a hell of a lot better chance. So, tell me.

-me