Baltimore Sun: An Echo, Not a Choice

[Larkspur]

reprinted in Commondreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0813-05.htm

John Kerry is a man of great personal courage, which served him well as a naval officer in the Vietnam War. But the man who takes the inaugural oath in January won't be asked to lead a bayonet charge. A more vital quality in a president is moral courage. And trying to detect evidence of that attribute in Mr. Kerry is like expecting Mikhail Baryshnikov to show up at the county fair.

The latest proof that Mr. Kerry's backbone is made of goose down was his statement that even if he had known what he knows now about Iraq's yet-to-be-found weapons of mass destruction and mythical partnership with al-Qaida, he still would have voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to go to war. "I believe it's the right authority for a president to have," he said.

The Iraq war is shaping up to be the greatest American foreign policy debacle since Vietnam. It has killed nearly 1,000 American soldiers and wounded more than 6,000, while tying down 140,000 troops who are cruelly undermanned. Its price tag has reached $150 billion, with more costs to come. The war and occupation have alienated our friends, inflamed anti-Americanism in the Arab world and diverted us from the war on al-Qaida. If those facts don't convince Mr. Kerry that his vote was a mistake, it's hard to imagine what would.

Actually, it's not so hard to imagine what would cause Mr. Kerry to recant: political expedience. The Massachusetts senator firmly believes something he firmly believed when he voted for the war resolution, which is that he should take the politically safe course no matter what. So he's happy to straddle the fence by criticizing Mr. Bush for taking us down the wrong road in Iraq while refusing to say Congress should have stopped him. And he figures he can stand by his vote because opponents of the war have nowhere else to turn. But they can always turn to Ralph Nader, or just stay home. When it comes to Iraq, after all, Mr. Kerry sounds an awful lot like the guy who got us into this mess.
<SNIP>

[MajorFlaw]

1. You've made it clear that you are not at all enthusiastic about Kerry,

perhaps you would share your own preference.

[Larkspur]

2. As I've said before, I'm voting for Kerry but not supporting him

Read my signature line. That is my philosophy for 2004.

I don't have a viable alternative at this point, so I have to vote for Kerry, but I have not donated time or money to his campaign and will not defend him from Repuke attacks. I will however criticize him, especially on Iraq, Israel, and Venezuela, whether or not he wins the election this November.

[MajorFlaw]

3. Voting against shrub is justifiable on its own merits. What I'm trying to

understand is who your ideal candidate is.

[Larkspur]

4. A cross between Howard Dean, Barack Obama, Hugo Chavez and

Susan B. Anthony. That would be my ideal candidate.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

5. Good Luck...

On finding one of those. :eyes:

[MajorFlaw]

6. Can you be more specific as to the issues you feel are not being

addressed. I Like both Dean and Obama, but I am unclear as to who you think would be better able to send shrub packing than John Kerry. Come Jan 20, President Kerry will have to answer to my expectations as well. In the mean time, no nose holding here, I'm enthusiastic about Kerry.

[Larkspur]

10. I strongly opposed the Iraq War and Kerry is for it

Kerry has never said that the Iraq war was wrong and his recent fall into bush's verbal trap clarifies it. Kerry has only disagreed with how the war was executed. The fact that the war was morally wrong is totally ignored by Kerry. Because of his rightwing and pro-Likkudite foreign views, Kerry, should Bush lose the election, will end up with the same political fate as LBJ. Even if bush loses, the Repukes will be in full revenge mode and Kerry's support base is shallow. The ABB coalition expires right after the November election.

I have lots of admiration for Hugo Chavez. He is able to do what politicians in our American system can not do -- lead a non-violent populist political revolution that will not only affect his nation, but those on his continent and hopefully the USA, as well. Reports today show that the poor and marginalized are turning out in record numbers to support their president.

Kerry will never see the kind of support Chavez has. Chavez's voters actually like or love their candidate because he has worked to make their lives better. Most of those voting for Kerry are doing it because they hate Bush not because they like Kerry. These voters would have voted for any Dem candidate.

[MajorFlaw]

12. Unfortunately, Kerry must get elected before he is able to do anything

about the war. If you want to know his thoughts on war, might I suggest reading, "Tour Of Duty". There is no way this guy is unaware of the similarities between Iraq and Vietnam, and no way he would have distracted us from AQ by going after Saddam. He could have run a straight "end the war" campaign like Dean and Kucinich, but doing so would probably cost him the election, that is if he even got the Dem nomination. Right now he is saying what he needs to in order to get elected--which is expected. Once he is sworn in it is perfectly reasonable and responsible to hold him to a different standard. Have a little faith, Kerry is a good guy.

[Larkspur]

14. I don't believe Kerry is a good guy. I believe he is a political

opportunist who'd betray his base to win battles and lose the war. I have no faith in Kerry. I'm only voting for him to get Bush out and wait for a better leader.

[MajorFlaw]

15. Who do you see as his base and how is he willing to betray them? n/t

[MODemocrat]

7. Why would you vote for someone you don't support

Why not just vote for your choice? There are many of us who didn't get our favorite candidate, but, anyone of the ten candidates are far and above George W. Bush.
:shrug: :dem:

[Larkspur]

11. Read my signature line

My political philosophy for this election is there.

[ixion]

13. I'm with you, Larkspur

Kerry is not at all my ideal candidate, but I am ABB.

[Joe Chi Minh]

8. Kerry on the war

With something like fifty years of assassinations and mysterious accidents to people who threatened the power and wealth of at least a certain coterie of Republican plutocrats among the top 1%, is it not likely that Kerry is simply being prudent enough to say as little as possible on certain "hot" topics (in terms of the said coterie and their aims and objectives), until he is president? Indeed, Roosevelt only avoided being the victim of a coup, thanks to the heroic integrity of the retired marine general, Smedley Butler.

Bear in mind that, although the invasion of Iraq is naked imperialism, a more subtle form of imperialism has been very "successfully"(!) prosecuted by the US for much longer than fifty years - and that, under the aegis of both parties. True many of its chief beneficiaries among the 1% must be aghast at the Iraq debacle, but bear in mind that many billions already have been committed/squandered there and many airfields will already have been built or work is currently in progress.

My own feeling is that those bases will be simply untenable, whatever the economic losses and "face" lost, and that Kerry either believes as much now, or will quickly come to do so. I think he will have to make an alliance with a nation that is currently anathema, just to withdraw from Iraq without a total loss of face. Even with all the Allies.

But be that as it may, the point I am making is that there are somethings that are simply too "holy" to Mammon, to speak about at this stage. It would be like waving a clove of garlic at a vampire. It's surely why specific terms such as "protectionism", "anti-globalisation", etc, have been avoided by Kerry and Edwards, when they would be sure-fire winners, if it were only the electorate that had to be factored into the equation.

After a landslide victory, many other things seem likely to become possible. Mind you, Kerry and Edwards *have* spoken about job saving, the creation of well-paid manufacturing jobs and stopping the deliberate hemorrhaging of jobs abroad - all of which evidently entail an appropriate degree of protectionism. It really would be another "New Deal", if carried through.

If so, the world will have every reason to be jubilant, and the far right everywhere in the West will be under pressure to renounce open-ended globalisation. So, I applaud the reticence of Kerry and Edwards on certain matters, at the present time.

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. Kerry and Iraq