Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Stop me before I cast my vote for Kerry-Edwards

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-04 11:33 AM
Original message
Stop me before I cast my vote for Kerry-Edwards
By DAVID LANGWORTHY
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle

<snip>
My Republican friends will tell me I should just lie down until these warm feelings about the Democrats pass. Perhaps, but this Republican-leaning voter is finding it harder to identify good reasons not to seriously consider casting a ballot for John Kerry and John Edwards.
<snip>
• Iraq — From the beginning, I supported Bush's decision to go to war to get rid of Saddam Hussein. But then, so does Kerry. And I like the chances of a President Kerry bringing our allies back in to move us out of Iraq in the most effective fashion. I think that's utterly necessary. Advantage: Kerry.
• Energy — I totally understand the disingenuousness of the Democrats' calling for energy independence, then walling off Alaska and other areas from exploration and development. But then, I am also profoundly unmoved by this president's lack of willingness to rally the country around this cause. It is urgent. It is not going away. It places us in economic and personal jeopardy (see Iraq and the war on terror above). Advantage: None. A tossup.
<snip>
So there you have it. I'm looking forward to the Republican convention in New York City at the end of the month. I'll be watching carefully to have my mind changed. But I won't be relaxing in my easy chair with remote in hand. I'll be sitting on the fence. And I don't think I'll be alone.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2712083





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-04 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. energy a "toss-up" ?
I'll never get it. Bush doesn't consider it a problem. Kerry does. How is that a "toss-up"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-04 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I don't think the op-ed is terribly insightful ...

... but I do think a number of Republican-leaning folk like the author may now be sitting on the fence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jjmalonejr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-04 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Because this guy believes that part of achieving energy independence...
...should involve exploration and development of oil resources in Alaska (i.e. drilling). However, he recognizes that there are other steps that must be taken in terms of alternative energy research that Kerry is championing, but Bush doesn't give a rats ass about.

He disagrees with Kerry's opposition to drilling in the Alaskan wilderness, but is dismayed by Bush's lack of focus on other means of achieving energy independence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-04 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. I once made a proposal: trade drilling for renewable committment
It went over like a lead balloon, but I still think it has merits. Go to Congress and say "OK, you can drill for more oil, but in return you have to make some concessions to sanity, by making a serious committment to increasing the use of non-fossil energy sources."

Of course, what's actually happening is that the BLM is approving a record number of new drilling sites, while people are arguing over ANWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
olddem43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-04 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Bush is a failed oil man, in bed with the Saudi Royal Family.
How is that helping us on energy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-04 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. "We need an energy policy that encourages consumption" - G.W. Bush
Actual quote, folks. Advantage - Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tigereye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-04 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. this may be the wrong place for anyone to convince you
Edited on Mon Aug-02-04 11:47 AM by tigereye
not to vote for K/E and vote Rep, but I am glad you are considering them. I think if you look at the policies from a practical standpoint, the Bush team does not look too good.

Rush to war without a really strong rationale. Not providing the money and resources that our troops need and allowing Halliburton et al to do an even worse and expensive job in these areas.

Radical foreign policy shift - unilateralism can be understood on some level in the wake of 9-11, but it is a poor long-term strategy and alienating our allies was a very bad move. It is also a major shift from previous admins, many of them Rep. admins. We need friends abroad.

Energy. I can see improving our energy planning here and abroad, but invasion ( assuming that was one of the rationales,) is also not the way to go and extremely expensive. Personally, it reminds me of all the gas guzzling cars from the 70s, followed by the energy crisis of that period. Seems like we learn energy lessons just to unlearn them.


oops I thought this was your personal argument. WEll, I'll just have to find a Rep to send this to. Sorry.

Education. Although I think education is the one area where * actually tried to do his homework, this policy is very intrusive on one level ( goes against the local standards) and also is not backed up with $ - more unfunded mandates. ( I think that qualifies as both a Dem and a Rep argument.)

Crazed spending with little eye toward deficit reduction. Even Neocons are apparently aghast at the ballooning deficit. If you look at the companies that Bush ran generally, fiscal resp. was not really his strongpoint.

anyway, just one Dem's view. GOod luch with your decision. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-04 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Try this
Spend one week reading the informative posts on this forum. Forget the opinions of repub's or dem's. We all sound pretty silly these days but I believe that most people have good intentions. Reason from the other side's point of view for one week, give yourself that much, and don't engage the repub's or dem's.

You know what to do, you just don't know how grateful you may be for giving yourself this one week. Here is a sample of what is available as posted on another forum on this site.


PNAC 101 - Rise of the Neocons (For the newer folks)


George W. Bush constantly reminds the nation about the threat of terrorism that began with 911 but he leaves out a few important details that you should know.........

In June 1997, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was born. Populated by influential Movers of industry and Shakers of public opinion, the PNAC is an organization united in the vision for a global U.S. empire - "Pax Americana" - through coercion and military domination. Their philosophy can be simply summarized:

There are countries to plunder and fortunes to be made. You have it, we want it. Do as we say or suffer the consequences.

The U.S. already has a powerful military but we plan to nurture and grow it until it's massive and we are indominable. Resistance is futile. We are.......

Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Steve Forbes, William J. Bennett, Frank Gaffney, and I. Lewis Libby, signator's - among others - of the PNAC's "Statement of Principles".

"We need to...challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values."

"We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future."

"It is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge."
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples...

JANUARY 1998 - The PNAC knew that he who owns the oil also owns the world so they sent a letter to President Clinton urging him to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power since he put "a significant portion of the world's supply of oil at hazard". Clinton didn't grant them their wish and the PNAC was disheartened that they couldn't manipulate the military while outside of the White House power structure.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

MARCH - APRIL 1999 - In an effort to capture and control the castle and all its warriors and weapons, the PNAC offered up members Steve Forbes, Dan Quayle and Gary Bauer to run as Republican candidates in the upcoming Presidential election.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/profile.htm

JUNE 1999 - Ever persistent and determined to maximize their potential for success in the Presidential campaign, the PNAC exercised their power of nepotism and member-Jeb Bush's brother George stepped up to the plate to join the race.

SPRING 2000 - The PNAC may have felt confident with their candidate's chances for winning the White House but they were absolutely smug over what they saw as a possible Fallback Plan...electronic voting machines with severe security flaws that included hidden backdoors, erasable audit trails and multiple vote totals with the potential to propel vote tampering to new heights through the magic of remote access.

How To Rig An Election In The United States
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

Can the votes be changed?
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/access-diebold.htm

Bettter yet, Chuck Hagel - a fellow Republican loyalist - owned the ES&S voting machine company that counted 60% of all U.S. votes. He had already won one election and was part of the U.S. Senate power team in Washington.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0301/S00166.htm

Assured that the White House would soon be theirs, the PNAC debuted their 76-page blueprint to achieve world domination. "Rebuilding America's Defenses" became the PNAC's manifesto, detailing the ideal level of military power to specifically eliminate the hostile regimes of Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea and it endorsed pre-emptive strikes against them, tradition be damned. Iraq was given star billing as Control Central for their Mideast base of operations.

At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible."

"American landpower is the essential link in the chain that translates U.S. military supremacy into American geopolitical preeminence.

"We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership."

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

What is particularly foreboding and chilling in view of events to later unfold, is this statement bemoaning the lengthy process of rebuilding the existing U.S. military according to the heightened standards and specifications the PNAC aspired to.

...the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
http://cryptome.org/rad.htm

NOVEMBER 2000 - Saddam may have sensed an ill wind in the air when he made the first strike, turned his back on the U.S. Dollar and accepted only Euros as payment for his oil. This had the potential of seriously destabilizing the U.S. economy and the PNAC considered this an hostile act of aggression towards their personal and business interests. The heat was on for them to make their first move.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/11/0111200016084...

DECEMBER 2000 - In a highly contentious Presidential vote battle on the home turf of PNAC-Jeb Bush, the Supreme Court decided that George Bush was the new President.

How George W. Bush Won the 2004 Presidential Election
http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.html

Bush now had the green light to seamlessly merge members of the PNAC into his Administration with no one the wiser. PNAC members elevated to the Bush hierarchy include, among others:

Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense

Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense

Elliott Abrams - Member of the National Security Council

John Bolton - Undersecretary for Arms Control and InternationalSecurity

Richard Perle - Chairman of the advisory Defense Policy Board

Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State

John Bolton - Undersecretary of State for Disarmament

Zalmay Khalilzad - White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition

An Honorable Mention was awarded to Condoleezza Rice - National Security Advisor - who is a former oil-company consultant having been on the board of directors of Chevron as its main expert on Kazakhstan.

The PNAC agenda had now passed "Go". The most powerful military machine in the world stood at their ready and Saddam was in the crosshair.

"It is important to shape circumstances...... ." - PNAC Statement of Principles

In May 2001 the U.S. State Department met with Iran, German and Italian officials to discuss Afghanistan. It was decided that the ruling Taliban would be toppled and a "broad-based government" would control the country so a gas pipeline could be built there.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7969.pdf .
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex20867.htm

Even as plans were being made to remove the Taliban rulers from power, Colin Powell announced a $43 million "gift" to Afghanistan.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-09170...
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html

Meanwhile, the U.S. Embassy in the UAE received a call that Bin Laden supporters were in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives. It was rumored that Bin Laden was interested in hijacking U.S. aircraft.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf

In June 2001 the decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense was changed. NORAD’s military commanders could no longer issue the command to launch fighter jets because approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/for_the...

In July 2001, the private plot formulated in May for toppling the Taliban was divulged during the G8 summit in Genoa, Italy. Immediately after the conference, American, Russian, German and Pakistani officials secretly met in Berlin to finalize the strategy for military strikes against the Taliban, scheduled to begin before mid-October 2001

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,55...

In September 2001 the "catastrophic and catalyzing" modern-day Pearl Harbor envisioned years earlier by the PNAC came to pass when the WTC and Pentagon were attacked as Rumsfeld sat passive and unresponsive. The finger of blame was pointed at Osama bin Laden, a former CIA operative with ties to Afghanistan. Suddenly, the U.S. "gift" of $43 million to the Taliban in May was cast in a new light. Coincidentally, Pakistan had participated in the plan to attack Afghanistan and the chief of Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) agency was later linked to a 911 hijacker after wiring him $100,00 just days before the WTC fell. Pakistan's ISI also had a long-standing working relationship with the CIA.

http://cryptome.org/rad.htm
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8830
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1266317,...

The PNAC had scored a home run with the bases loaded with the 911 event: shock, horror and fear gripped the nation, the war on "terrorism" had been established in no uncertain terms, attacking Afghanistan with public approval was a foregone conclusion and the stage was set for building a public case against Saddam.

Not one to let a good attack go to waste, Defense Secretary and PNAC-member Donald H. Rumsfeld sprung into action.

He told his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq, even though Saddam wasn't linked to the attacks.

PNAC-James Woolsey, former CIA director, was dispatched to London to look for and 'firm up' evidence of Iraqi involvement in the 911 attacks.

PNAC-member and Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was authorized to create the Office of Special Plans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/m...

"It is important to shape circumstances..........."- PNAC Statement of Principles

The Office of Special Plans (OSP) was a secret group of analysts and policy advisors with no status in the intelligence community. Nevertheless they reported directly to the White House and National Security office with cherry-picked intelligence from questionable sources to support the case for invading Iraq. The OSP circumvented formal, well-established oversight procedures, ignored intelligence that didn't further their agenda, expanded the intelligence on weapons beyond what was justified and over-emphasized the national security risk. They became more influential than the C.I.A. or the Defense Intelligence Agency who didn't even know the ultra-secret OSP existed for at least a year.

Because they were based in the Pentagon, it was assumed that the OSP was an intelligence-gathering agency that was second-guessing the C.I.A. but in actuality it was the White House Military Marketing Machine charged with the task of writing the PNAC's "Get Saddam" sales pitch for the public. Shading and bending reality to suit their own purpose, it wasn't important for the OSP's stories about Saddam to be factual, only that the average American believed them to be - in true Hollywood fashion.

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact

While the nation was stripped to the emotional bone and painfully vulnerable, the White House capitalized on the opportunity to reshape public perceptions and responses to conform with the PNAC's new American agenda. Rather than buoy the "can do" American spirit with optimism and hope for the future as Presidents before him had done in times of crisis, Bush spoke with an alarmist and pessimistic tone that served to perpetuate the high anxiety, excitability and fear in the populace.

To hear him speak, the world was a dark, evil and dangerous place....terrorism was here to stay....it would be a long struggle....America was helpless without the military might of the Government to keep the nation safe. The intent was to create a psychologically broken, weary and docile populace that would be easier to lead into war.

Fear became the Administration's strategic tactic for reprogramming the public into accepting the PNAC's militaristic designs. Still shell-shocked and exhausted from the enormity of the WTC and Pentagon tragedies, the public's panic shifted into frenzied over-drive when anthrax-laced envelopes arrived in government and media offices, killing five people. A perpetrator was never identified but the investigation eventually centered around the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, one of the nation's main anthrax research centers.

Using classic "operant learning" techniques from the realm of consumer psychology, the public was purposely kept on High Alert and continually "shaped" with ominous sound bites on the nightly news and "Level Orange Terror Alerts" at regularly scheduled but discrete intervals.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/130534_focusecond...
http://www.consumerpsychologist.com/#Perception

In October 2001, with flags waving, crowds cheering, and anthems playing, the "War On Terror" and the hunt for Osama began when Afghanistan was attacked right on schedule of July's secret meeting

Immediately afterwards the PNAC and White House collaboration of "GET SADDAM" played relentlessly on televisions and in newspapers across the nation and the World as the "War on Terror" waged on and the litany of lies began.

VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE IN 2004




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeanQ Donating Member (515 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-04 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. ARRGGHHHH! Thanks for the scare!
Right, I'd heard of the PNAC, but had never looked up the website. I just followed the links you provided.

I'm hopping I'll sleep OK tonight! :scared: Particularly when I started reading through http://www.newamericancentury.org/whatsnew.htm. Almost all of the first few articles I checked seemed to take some small piece of information out of context, or some statement of vague possibility, and turn it into a statement of fact supporting some outrageous position statement. The most frightening raw spin I've seen yet. These people aren't just wrong, they're #$&#& fanatics who have lost complete touch with everything but their own drive for power!

Thanks for the cold shower!

(no, really, thanks for all the great links and summaries!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-04 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. You're welcome and yes, it will keep you up, but ....
we have a huge awakening coming in these united states and those that prepare will be able to best help their children. You might also check out Peter Peterson,(go to Amazon) who is also a republican on the fence who also served in previous republican administrations. His writings reflect a great deal of the concerns we all face economically what with budget deficits so high. And I think his writings resonate well the issues that moderate republicans face in this era of a changing republican party. For republicans who have ascribed to this party for many years it is very disconcerting to realize how things have changed so dramatically.

Anyway, enjoy, good luck and let us know what else you need. Many here have walked your walk before you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Hi SeanQ!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-04 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. No, it's not my personal view. It's an op-ed ...

... which I posted because it indicates that there may be real confusion and discontent out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-04 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. But its clear that many people, repub. or dem. really want to understand
what is happening in the US in terms of this gargantuan budget and the use of our military. That is encouraging. It isn't as if average citizens who have been with the republican party for generations are trying to remain confused or ill informed. This election dramatically enhances what some in the country have suspected all along and that is that the republican party has been co-opted by a religious right and the super wealthy for nefarious purposes.

We shalls see what we shall see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC