BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Vote Bush in 2004

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:46 / 29.02.04
From my vantage point over the ocean I'm worried that for those who don't believe that the US political scene isn't just one huge vat of shit, the worst thing that could happen for the long term might be a Democratic win at the end of the year.

Kevin Drum at Calpundit links to the argument for working for a Bush win. It basically comes down to this. Bush has completely fucked up the American economy. However, it's not going to matter much when it collapses in a few years if President Kerry says 'it was all Bush's fault' as he has to do unpleasant and unpopular things to rebuild the finances of the States. It might be better for the Democrats to seek to ride in on a white charger in 2008 to save the country from the Republicans, they'll be making unpopular decisions but will say they're forced to do them because of Bush's mismanagement.

But, can the wider world bear another four years of Bush? Can the world risk having someone like Bush who launches wars when his economy was fairly stable now have a Bush whose country is unstable?
 
 
Baz Auckland
10:25 / 29.02.04
...I think that Bush needs to lose this November. Four more years under him and Cheney would be too damaging.

Also, if the Democrats win, it may get the Republicans to try and clean up their act and kick the scary/Cheney/Project For a New American Century wing out of the party...
 
 
Nobody's girl
12:12 / 29.02.04
I see your point, but I'm going to have to agree with my Baz here. I'm not sure the International community, or the tattered remains of the US constitution can cope with another 4 years of Bush.
 
 
agvvv
13:54 / 29.02.04
I would not like another four years with George "the cowboy" Bush.. Im from Norway though, a country known for licking his ass pretty bad..
 
 
eddie thirteen
16:10 / 29.02.04
Um, at the risk of sounding provincial, Lady, I'm less concerned about the implications of Bush getting elected for the first time (and getting a second term) for the wider world than I am about the repercussions of a second term for those of us unlucky enough to live in a country presided over by this fucking asshole. I don't think we have the luxury of taking the long view on this one. I personally am seriously disappointed by Dean's loss in the primaries, and am about as excited at the prospect of Kerry becoming president as I was the candidacy of Al Gore (though I did still vote for Gore), but I would vote for my cat over Bush. He's a disaster beyond my nightmares. He HAS to go.
 
 
The Tower Always Falls
16:27 / 29.02.04
I've heard this point before, and I kind of see the reasoning. I think there was a thread at one point that one should vote for Bush so that the counterculture will strengthen...

But if I may indulge in American solipsism for a moment, even if this is the case we NEED to get Bush out. Possibly the most important thing a President can do for American public policy is the appointing of Supreme Court judges, and the current batch we have now is one of the grayest ever. We have FOUR (almost Five soon) judges over seventy. Two of them over eighty. It wouldn't be a big deal if Scalia or Rehnquist step down, but all it takes is one of the more socially liberal judges (like Ginsburg, who's health is rumored to be spotty) to step down and Bush to replace her with some nutjob and you could conveivably say goodbye to reprductive rights and the constitutionality of things like the currently propsed Hate Amendment against homos (presuming it ever gets passed, which isn't likely with the current Senate) would be upheld.

Rather large run-on sentence there. Sorry. Short answer, we need to get him out. I'd rather take a crippled Democratic party for a decade than have a scary group of Fundamentalist judges potentially rolling back every civil liberty in America for the next thirty to forty years.
 
 
pachinko droog
16:45 / 29.02.04
While I can't stand Bush & Cheney, I feel that the "anybody but Bush" mentality is a dangerous one. Kerry ain't the answer, and anyone who tells you he is is either hopelessly delusional or a spin docter in disguise. Since when are the Democrats the answer anyway? Whatever happened to the idea of third party politics? Why is everyone getting so angry at Nader, as if he's actually capable of "splitting" the vote? Why is no one talking about Bush and Kerry being beholden to the same corporate interests, the very same ones who are benefitting the most from NAFTA, GATT, and the exploitative and rapacious policies of the WTO and the IMF?

Its not a choice between Republican and Democrat. Its a choice between corporate globalism and corporate globalism, under the guise of Republican vs. Republican Lite.

Yes Bush sucks. But Kerry would suck in his own special way.
 
 
w1rebaby
20:19 / 29.02.04
The point is that having Bush as a president for any longer than necessary is actively harmful. It's possible that a campaign for a third-party candidate might ultimately be a good thing, in fact I'm generally for voting for people who you actually agree with. But the unfortunate fact is that there are no other candidates apart from Bush on that particular end of the spectrum. If those opposed to Bush vote for all sorts of different people, he will win, because the opposition vote will be split and his won't. That will give the current administration four more years to fuck things up, and you'd better bet they'll make the most of those four years. It will get increasingly desperate and ill-advised.

Face it, nobody who has any chance of winning is "the answer". The argument is, should people vote for whom they think "the answer" is (and there's wide disagreement on that) in the hope that their expressed preference will influence the political agenda, or should they vote based on more immediate concerns of who would be the preferable likely candidate? And also - how many people are going to vote on the same basis as you?
 
 
eddie thirteen
22:50 / 29.02.04
When it comes to Nader, I'm sorry, but the argument that the democratic and republican parties are indistinguishable is a fun punk rock-sounding theory, but it doesn't hold much water when looked at from the perspective of the past four years. And if Nader were really representative of a third party that offered a serious alternative to the present system, wouldn't his votes have come from the normally republican and democratic sides in about equal measure, rather than entirely from the camp that would otherwise have voted for Gore? I know a *lot* of usually intelligent people who voted for Nader in 2000, and most of them now regret it; in essence, they now realize, they voted for George W. Bush.

If Nader had run, say, in the '96 election, when it was clear from the beginning that Clinton would win, cool; make your point *without* wiping your ass with the lives of everyone who will have to suffer under a republican administration for the next four years. But Ralph Nader is rich -- why the fuck should he care if Bush wrecks the economy?

I mean, look, the whole long term/who-gives-a-shit-about-people-who-get-killed-in-a-pointless-war and/or lose-their-jobs (not to mention sweat over the prospect of Roe v. Wade getting overturned one step at a time, a constitutional amendment to make life harder for gay people, etc., etc., and I could indeed go on) because-*in the long run*-it's-better-for-the-world-to-see-how-fucked-up-things-can-get-when-the-right-has-power is fine if you're, I dunno, Ozymandias in Watchmen, but in the real world, it's more important to make sure that everything is (if not utopian) at least safe and tolerable right now. It isn't.

Clearly, Kerry represents the lesser of two evils. He's not my choice for president any more than Gore was. At the same time, I do not believe for one second that a President Gore would have started a war in Iraq. There *is* a difference between the parties.
 
 
--
01:44 / 01.03.04
It's all a sham... either way the Bonesmen are getting one of their alumni into the whitehouse.

I was prepared to vote for Dean, but sadly he's gone now, so I guess I'll vote Nader. Might as well, I voted for him 4 years ago.
 
 
The Tower Always Falls
04:32 / 01.03.04
I really hope you're in New York or Illinois or California or some other safe Democratic state Sypha. Because if you're in Iowa, New Mexico, or even Minnesota (sadly), then I really hope you reconsider.

This is coming from someone who voted for Nader without regret in 2000. But I voted knowing full well that Gore would carry Illinois easy. If I were in Iowa, I would have voted Gore.

And I also donated to Dean (even though I had some problems with him as their campaign went on... but...). Yes, Kerry is about as inspiring as a mud-caked pubic hair. Yes, he may be a Bonesman.

But I must re-iterate. Forget the war. It's all about the Supreme Court here.
 
 
The Tower Always Falls
04:39 / 01.03.04
And as for Nader, I hope that someday there will be a party or personality who can effectively filter votes from the Far Right as effectively as he can from the Left...

Scary to say, but America could use a fundamentalist Christian party. THERE'S your election-fu right there.
 
 
grant
12:22 / 01.03.04
And if Nader were really representative of a third party that offered a serious alternative to the present system, wouldn't his votes have come from the normally republican and democratic sides in about equal measure, rather than entirely from the camp that would otherwise have voted for Gore?

He does claim that he got more Republican than Democratic votes in Florida, although how he knows this I'm not sure.
 
 
Nobody's girl
12:49 / 01.03.04
Believe it or not, my American pals, we in the UK thought that voting in Tony Blair and "New" Labour after 18 years of right wing government would herald a great change across the land.

I remember how excited everyone was on election night in 1997 as we kicked the Tories out of power, how full of hope. In the 1997 elections Scotland returned no Tory MP's to Parliament, my Uncle called from London to ask my Mum how it felt to live in a country with no Tories, green with envy.

Yeah. Then it became apparent that "New" Labour actually meant "We will fuck you just as much as the Tories have, except this time you can't hope for better" Labour.

As a result of this crushing disappointment it feels like the country as a whole has just given up. We are so fucking jaded, disempowered, compliant, beaten down. I almost envy the US for having Bush, at least you can hope for some improvement...
 
 
--
13:44 / 01.03.04
Well, I live in Rhode Island, and the democratic candidate almost always wins there. So, I have no regrets. Hell, even if Gore hadn't won in RI I would have had no regrets.
 
 
pachinko droog
17:47 / 01.03.04
I'm from MA. As far as I can tell, Kerry hasn't done much for us as a senator...He's voted consistently on whatever would help him keep his job. He's pro-NAFTA, so NO, he most emphatically does not have my vote.
 
 
bjacques
12:47 / 02.03.04
NAFTA was just bowing to the inevitable. The problem was that it was rushed into law knowing the provisions concerning labor rights and environmental protections weren't yet settled (and probably still haven't). Fast forward to the present, with the usual cheerleading for outsourcing jobs to India as a boon to the US economy, with the obligatory plea to Congress to provide a soft landing for displaced U.S. workers, like that'll happen.

Republicans and Democrats may slurp at the corporate trough, but the former have always gotten the boss hog's share and thus they more acutely feel corporations' pain. Democrats don't share the Republicans' outright hate for certain classes of people, or for anyone, really.

The rhetoric of making it worse so everyone will at last see and start making it better sounds suspiciously like the old New Left idea of "enncouraging revolutionary conditions," still in vogue in south America, Nepal and Basque Spain. As the government gets nastier and abuses more innocent citizens and reformists conveniently turn up dead, the people are supposed to become conscious, rise up and start the revolution.

What happens instead is that, with each new outrage, the public's horizons get shorter and they respond more easily to government fearmongering. When ETA or FARC try to hurry things by killing reformists, the people shout ever louder for the cops.

That's a bankrupt philosophy; it's never worked and, when tested an economic and nuclear superpower, it's pretty irresponsible.

Do you want Nader or the reforms he supports? You *can* get the latter without the former, and your chances are much better with Democrats in office. If Nader had been serious about making the Greens a viable party, he would have helped them build a solid base over time, not blown their money and political capital in one go. No wonder they kicked him out.

If the typhoid chicken's gonna come home to roost in 2005-2008, I'd still rather have Democrats in office. They're more likely to try to fix it rather than just profit from it.

As for New Labour, from here it looks like Blair, like Clinton, stepped into a political frame that had been pushed to the right. "Third Way" (and a looted treasury) may have meant little improvement, but the Tories would have kept pushing further to the right. At least now your backbenchers have a chance to fight back. Clare Short's showing backbone. After David Kelly, Blair's knives aren't so long anymore. Maybe you could save Labour and get rid of Blair, or at least check him. Just a thought.
 
 
raelianautopsy
15:44 / 02.03.04
I just got back from voting in the Ohio Democrat primary.(though I'm not a Democrat, don't tell them) I proudly voted for Al Sharpton, even had to write-in him. He is the most legitimate candidate after the media destroyed Howard Dean. Kucinich is an honest man, but way too socialist for me. Sharpton is my lesser evil in the bunch.

But I will not vote for John Kerry in the real election under any ciecumstances. I keep having to explain to you people- THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS.

Clinton would have invaded Iraq. He did continue the frequent bombing campagns and the sanctions. The thing about the Project for a New American Century is not that they control all the top cabinet positions, Bush himself is not a member, but they have so much INFLUENCE over the administration. They also influenced the Clinton administration to a degree. Just look at the PNAC to see that they have an obsession with the Balkans as well as the Middle East(and Clinton's wars WERE over oil).

Who knows what Gore would have done if president, but it is a lot easier for him to say that Bush betrayed us when he does not hold any political office. People forget that Gore is just as much a family oilman as Bush. Most politicians would use 9-11 as an excuse for more imperialism. The only real diffirence between them is that Bush slightly lowered taxes and Gore would have slightly raised taxes, as far as I see.

Ralph Nader is 100% right about this(though I wouldn't vote for him)- we desperately need more choices! THE LACK OF CHOICES IS HOW WE GOT INTO THIS MESS. A further regression into Republicratism is not the solution. One more thing about poor Ralph- it is Al Gore's fault that he lost that election.

And Democrats are plenty evil in their own way. Socialist welfare is just a way to get the poor dependant on the government, they want to take away my right to carry a gun(which is yet another Big Gov't ideal that Bush has[buy Dean didn't]). The list is endless. Has anyone noticed that most Democrats weren't so much against the Iraq war but against how Bush failed to get the UN to join the war effort. So the invasion and thousands of civilian deaths would have been justified if the UN was involved?!

Let's talk about the great white hope John Kerry.
1) He voted for the Patriot Act.
2) He voted for the Iraq war.
3) If elected, he will have been the third richest president in history.
4) He is a member of Skull and Bones. (and this is just way too much of a coincedence that in this historically important election BOTH candidates are Skull and Bonesmen.)
5) He is a twenty-year long career politician Washington insider that bleeds status qou.

My prediction if Kerry is elected. UN Globalism involved in taking over the Middle East, more one-sided support for Israel, the Patriot Act is not going anywhere, and if/when the Military Industrial Complex allows another major terrorist attack- get ready for a Kerry sponsered Patriot Act II.

The political process is a sham. So many of you have bought into it in your Anyone But Bush logic, voting for your 'electable' Democrat is playing right into the scam. We need either to return to being a Constitional Republic, or have a parliamentary form of government where there are real choices and the people are represented. Or both.

Honestly, I am not as uncompromising as I sound. But we need to choose the lesser of, say, thiry evils. Not the lesser of TWO evils! Two parties that are virtually indistinctable in their support of Big Business, Big Governnment, and imperialism. I've chosen my main third party, though I dont agree with every single thing they say verbatim. But I will never vote for another Republicrat.
 
 
HCE
17:00 / 02.03.04
Imagine a Democrat, any of them -- pick one, saying that we need a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

I can't imagine it. Would Kerry do anything to save his job? I hope so, because as a Democrat that means that even if he personally hates gays, women, etc., he still won't attack the Constitution or Roe v Wade, because that's the Democratic 'thing'. Dems don't build careers around hating gays. If you want to be totally jaded about it, you can still make that statement.

There's not a huge, exciting, inspiring difference. But there is a difference that to me, as somebody not rich, white, male, or straight, makes Bush so scary that I'd vote for a milquetoast like Kerry.

If you want to be an activist, great! Go for it full force in local politics. Who's controlling your school board? Who's your mayor? Your sheriff? Your local judges? Who's your congressman, your councilmen? The political process is not a sham there, you can't say that it is, and it may affect your daily life much more than you realize.

But please please think through very carefully your vote for president. Bush is not an unknown factor -- he has proven that he can and will do things that I would not have believed possible until I saw them happen.
 
 
pachinko droog
17:11 / 02.03.04
That's odd...I thought this was Barbelith. I must be on the wrong board. So sorry to have disturbed the status quo.
 
 
Hieronymus
18:11 / 02.03.04
Wake up, droog. This is the status quo.

*thankful that the majority of people he knows who voted for Nader are sufficiently burned enough by history not to fall for this 'Republicrat conspiracy' tripe*
 
 
ibis the being
15:24 / 03.03.04
It wouldn't be a big deal if Scalia or Rehnquist step down, but all it takes is one of the more socially liberal judges (like Ginsburg, who's health is rumored to be spotty) to step down and Bush to replace her with some nutjob and you could conveivably say goodbye to reprductive rights and the constitutionality of things like the currently propsed Hate Amendment against homos (presuming it ever gets passed, which isn't likely with the current Senate) would be upheld.

I'm so glad someone brought that up, because it's a key issue.

There may not be a huge difference between Reps & Dems, but there is a pretty big difference between Bush and the other candidates - and most other politicians, in fact. Bush is a radical conservative, while the vast majority of Americans fall somewhere around "moderate." I would rather see Kerry get blamed for the economic collapse and then have another Republican president after Kerry, than to have Bush for 4 more. That next Rep president is bound to be less radical than Bush. And anyway I think it would do equal or greater damage to the Democratic party if they were unable to unseat this president in 2004.
 
 
grant
15:57 / 03.03.04
My filecard on 2000: it should have been McCain vs. Bradley.

Kerry's nomination really makes this one seem like repeat, at least as far as that sensation goes.
 
 
raelianautopsy
16:28 / 03.03.04
pachinko droog is completely right. All of you Democrats have been tricked into supporting the status quo and you don't even realize it.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
17:23 / 03.03.04
rael,

You're right, but I believe the reports that voting booths were being patrolled by cops and diverting traffic long enough so that people did not get to even vote.

The problem is that the system is fixed. The push of Dean from the race proves it. I mean, look at it, he had real support from real people and now he's a fucking ghost?? Since 2000 the added problem is that some New Englanders voted for Nader and now think they voted for Bush instead. After the mess of Bush's extremist cabinet, they'd vote for Bozo the Clown if he was the popular Dem candidate rather than Nader. Besides, if Nader got in, who would he work with? The system that he hates? The sad truth is that you need someone in there who can play the game, which Kerry is. Sadly I agree that Kerry is not a good enough alternative and the Dem/Republican line has gotten very narrow over the years on some issues.

What about Edwards?

Can you give us a report on the Dem Convention?
 
 
pachinko droog
17:24 / 03.03.04
Heh. I'm not trying to start any flame wars here folks, though admittedly if I had posted what I was really thinking the other day, there would no doubt have been one.

That being said, I also realize that getting all emotional over the primaries is a HUGE waste of time. Yeah, Kerry's getting the nomination. Big surprise. Essentially, my gripe is that we seem to have less and less of a real choice every four years.

True, the Democrats aren't going to fuck with the constitution over gay marriage, but then again, the whole gay marriage debate is an election year maguffin. One of those emotionally-charged button-pressing issues that is certain to be as divisive as say, abortion or flag burning. While I'm not saying that these things in and of themselves aren't serious issues worth considering (because of course, they are), they have also served in recent years as wonderfully effective diversions from issues like jobs and healthcare, which affect everyone across the board, regardless of their standing on the political spectrum.

Getting back to gay marriage and a proposed constitutional ammendment now, it was simply Bush's way of reigning in the far right after his public relations blunder over allowing illegal immigrants to keep their jobs...which his PR flaks proposed as a way to reach out to the Hispanic vote (and probably the businesses who benefit from hiring said illegal immigrants). Funny how THAT issue just sort of dissapeard from public discourse after the gay marriage brouhaha broke. But its an election year, what did you expect? Its all PR and spin and publicity stunts for the next eight months. The Democrats do it too. Its called politics as usual. The only things that really change is how much more expensive it gets to run a political campaign and how fewer people actually bother to vote every four years.

That being said, the only conceivable way I'd vote for Kerry is if he has Edwards as his running mate. Otherwise, I'll be voting for "None of the Above". Nader isn't going to be splitting the vote for anyone. Yeah, he's an egotistical prick, but he also makes some damn good points. Kucinich also makes some good points, but unlike Nader he doesn't know how to make any noise, and so he is all but invisible, completely marginalized by the mainstream media. (I live in a very liberal area, and so got to pass many a Kucinich supporter holding signs on my way to vote in the primary. They thought it inconceivable that I would consider voting for anyone BUT Kucinich. And of course there's no arguing with them. Such is life in Western MA.)

Its a media circus we get suckered into every time. Cui Bono?
 
 
eddie thirteen
19:19 / 03.03.04
Well, given all the attention None of the Above gets -- he's certainly a candidate who knows how to make some noise -- I think we can pretty much bank on him riding that ass-kicking tidal wave of write-in votes all the way to the White House.....
 
 
Fist Fun
20:55 / 03.03.04
If I was American I'd tactically vote for the Democrats rather than Nader. It is kinda infuriating but he did split the vote and if you want change then you are going to have to unite behind something different.
 
 
Hieronymus
22:39 / 03.03.04
Hahahaha. And Bush starts the party with a bang.

That is one seriously weak ad.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
14:07 / 04.03.04
Pachinko- So you're voting for four more years for Bush then? Are you one of those 'let's make everything so bad that the people will HAVE to rebel' types?
 
 
Sax
14:31 / 04.03.04
Paul Rogers of Bradford University's Peace Studies Department, in his latest monthly briefing on the Oxford Research Group's website, posits the theory that if bin Laden is captured or killed before the election it will ensure a win for Bush, but another term for Dubya would be just what Al Qaida wants to continue the war.
 
 
HCE
15:24 / 04.03.04
I am reminded again of why I don't discuss politics. It brings out the very worst in people, myself included. I quite want to flame rather than reason, as reason seems ineffective and flaming at least delivers temporary release.

To those writing in some other candidate, not voting, etc. What is it about Bush that doesn't scare or disturb you?
 
 
pachinko droog
16:58 / 04.03.04
To Our Lady@ Flowers.com:

NO! I am NOT voting for "four more years of Bush", for the final and umpteenth time (sorry...I've been asked this a lot lately!); nor am I some ultra far-left SWP or Maoist parrot member out to further the cause of the worker's revolution by making everything bad so that the people will have no choice but to yadda yadda yadda...

I hate and loathe Bush & Cheney and the Republicans and all that they stand for and have done. YES, voting Kerry into office will get the far-right off our backs...temporarily...BUT--ANYONE who thinks that the Democrats are in any way the progressive alternative are delusional.

The poor did not fair well under Clinton. The gap between rich and poor under Clinton widened. NAFTA & GATT were signed into being under Clinton. We lobbed cruise missiles into a Sudanese baby formula facotry under the mistaken notion that it was producing chemical weapons, under Clinton. We intervened for questionable reasons in Kosovo under Clinton. There is considierable evidence that Clinton was compromised by what occurred in Mena, Arkansas (Iran-Contra) when he was gov., not that that stopped the far right from taking swings at him and pressuring him into signing the legistlation that they wanted. Kerry is a waffler and will no doubt be pressurred in a likewise manner if the far right retain their control of the congress. IE:Massive roadblocks for any kind of meaningful legislation being passed.

Our choice is between far-right and same old same old moderate conservative. Both sides support globalization, which is not "bowing to the inevitable". Its called being set-up.

Not a choice at all, IMHO. I don't subscribe to the line that "if only John Kerry were president, then everything will be fine."

I felt that way about Clinton in '92, and got burned. I did not vote for him again. (Back in that election, there was a strange little man named Ross Perot who made a lot of dire predictions about what would happen if NAFTA were passed. Not that anyone listened to him...He was, after all, a third party candidate and you just can't trust those guys.)

You want my answer in a nutshell? Fine: How about building a pro-Democracy movement here in the US? How's that for rebellion? Better than a co-opted sham spectator dumbocracy.

Of course, you could always hold your nose and vote for Kerry and hope for the best...And hide you head in the sand for another four years.
 
 
eddie thirteen
19:35 / 04.03.04
No offense, man, but you're the one who's being fooled here, and it's pretty clear here. Anytime anyone uses buzzwords like "republicrat" and "dumbocracy" (can "sheeple" be far behind?), it's obvious they're doing more reading than actual observation. Well-meaning or not, the guys who make up words like this are nothing more than the far left version of Anne Coulter, and should be taken about as seriously. If you really cannot see a difference between America in 1996 and America in 2004, you probably need to turn off the Internet and go outside. The poor may not have fared as well as everybody says under Clinton, but there were a hell of a lot *fewer* of them four years ago. And also? We hadn't alienated the whole rest of the planet. I mean, what the fuck.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
20:55 / 04.03.04
How about building a pro-Democracy movement here in the US?

How about existing in and engaging with reality instead? It's a dire time, and pragmatism beats out idealism in the face of what we're all up against.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply