echoing from dabrooklyn.

[kuangning]

I consider it timely, actually, because I've had a few conversations with other people who feel that Kerry is simply "the lesser of two evils" and thus intend to vote for third-party candidates. Any other election, I'd agree with that. This year, I, too, think that the top priority should be removing Bush. Because a refusal to vote for the lesser of two evils, to paraphrase someone else, could mean that the greater of two evils remains in office. I'm not friendslocking this one; I hope you'll understand.

We, the undersigned, were selected by Ralph Nader to be members of his 113-person national "Nader 2000 Citizens Committee." This year, we urge support for Kerry/Edwards in all swing states, even while we strongly disagree with Kerry's policies on Iraq and other issues. For people seeking progressive social change in the United States, removing George W. Bush from office should be the top priority in the 2004 presidential election. Progressive votes for John Kerry in swing states may prove decisive in attaining this vital goal.

* David Barsamian, Author, Radio Interviewer
* Juliette Beck, California Citizens for Fair Trade
* Herbert Bernstein, Professor of Physics at Hampshire College
* Thomas Berry, Author, Dream of the Earth
* Wendell Berry, Farmer and Writer
* Norman Birnbaum, Author and Educator
* Grace Lee Boggs, Detroit Activist and Writer
* Blase Bonpane, Office of the Americas
* Theresa Bonpane, Office of the Americas
* Eric Brakken, Former Staffer, United Students Against Sweatshops
* Ira Byock, Palliative Care Physician, Author of Dying Well
* Edgar Cahn, Founder of Time Banking
* John Cavanagh, Director of Institute for Policy Studies
* Noam Chomsky, Author and Professor at MIT
* Steve Cobble, Strategist, Jackson '88, Nader '00, Kucinich '04
* Ben Cohen, Co-founder of Ben & Jerry's
* Peter Coyote, Actor and Writer
* Ronnie Cummins, Director of Organic Consumers Association
* Herman Daly, Professor at University of Maryland
* Iris DeMent, Musician/Songwriter
* Phil Donahue, Former Talk Show Host
* Mark Dowie, Journalist, Former Editor/Publisher of Mother Jones
* Barbara Dudley, Former President, Greenpeace and National Lawyers Guild
* Ronnie Dugger, Co-founder of Alliance for Democracy
* Troy Duster, Professor at New York University
* Barbara Ehrenreich, Political Essayist and Social Critic

* Richard Falk, Center of International Studies, Princeton University
* Jim Goodman, Organic Dairy Farmer
* Rebecca Goodman, Organic Dairy Farmer
* Doris (Granny D) Haddock, Senate Candidate, Reform Activist
* Paul Hawken, Author, Economist
* Randy Hayes, Founder, Rainforest Action Network and Director of Sustainability, City of Oakland
* Jim Hightower, Author and Commentator
* Wes Jackson, The Land Institute
* David Kairys, Law Professor at Temple University and Author
* Ynestra King, Ecofeminist Writer/Activist
* John Kinsman, Family Farm Defenders
* Philip M. Klasky, Co-director, Bay Area Nuclear Waste Coalition
* David Korten, Author of When Corporations Rule the World
* Frances Korten, Director of Positive Futures Network
* Saul Landau, California State Polytechnic University
* Rabbi Michael Lerner, The Tikkun Community
* Theodore Lowi, Political Scientist, Author
* Howard Lyman, Former Rancher, Vegetarian Activist
* Joanna Macy, Author and Scholar
* Jerry Mander, President of International Forum on Globalization
* Manning Marable, Institute for Research in African American Studies, Columbia
* Redwood Mary, Plight of the Redwoods Campaign
* Robert McChesney, Professor, University of Illinois
* Carolyn Merchant, Professor of Environmental History, University of California-Berkeley
* Peter Montague, Environmental Research Foundation
* Gus Newport, Former Mayor of Berkeley, California
* Ruth Ozeki, Novelist
* Frances Fox Piven, City University of New York
* Bonnie Raitt, Guitarist/Singer/Songwriter
* Sheldon Rampton, Co-author of Banana Republicans
* Marcus Raskin, Author
* Tim Robbins
* Vicki Robin, New Road Map Foundation
* Susan Sarandon, Actor and Activist
* John Schaeffer, Founder of Real Goods Trading Company
* Michelle Shocked, Musician
* John Stauber, Co-author of Banana Republicans
* Andrew Strauss, Professor at Widener University School of Law
* Charlotte Talberth, Max and Anna Levinson Foundation
* Meredith Tax, Writer and Human Rights Activist
* Studs Terkel, Author, Oral Historian
* Tom Tomorrow, Cartoonist
* Sarah van Gelder, Editor of YES! Magazine
* Eddie Vedder, Musician, Pearl Jam
* Harvey Wasserman, Author of Harvey Wasserman's History of the US
* Cornel West, Professor, Author of Democracy Matters
* Sheldon Wolin, Professor Emeritus, Princeton University
* Howard Zinn, Historian and Author

Other prominent Nader 2000 supporters endorsing this statement:

* Medea Benjamin, Code Pink
* Jackson Browne
* Jerry Greenfield, Ben & Jerry's Co-founder
* Bob Harris, Author
* Norman Solomon, Columnist

For more information, click http://www.votetostopbush.org/

Comments

[kaolinfire.livejournal.com]

yes.

and second on the list should be changing the voting situation so this sort of thing becomes ancient history. which means popularizing other voting methods and introducing them locally.

I'm playing with the Ranked Pairs method of Condorect voting at the moment.

Anybody but Bush?

[jlassen.livejournal.com]

I'm not criticizing your focus on ousting Bush, but do you think Kerry will make things better? Personally, I'm beginning to think that Kerry will make things SEEM better, which will let everybody go back to their lives and pretend their is nothing wrong, thereby casting aside any gains that the progressive movement has made under the Bush Regime.

If a third party candidate "spoils" this election again, do you think there would be support from within the Democratic party for electoral reform at the state and local level?

Instant Run-off elections at the state, local and federal level, and proportional electoral collage vote allotment are the only to things that will break the two/one party stranglehold on power. What am I willing to sacrifice to see that these changes in our political system occure? What kind of “cold calculations” am I willing to make?

I know where I want to go. I don't think Kerry will take me there. Bush's extreme Malfacence may in fact take me where I want to go. As the election is "too close to call", I think it is safe to say that most of the country isn't very informed, or is in fact willfully ignorant. John Kerry has already made the cold calculations (back in 2002), and decided that dead Americans in Iraq were a good price to pay, in order to get himself elected.

Should I make the same calculations, and say that keeping bush in Office is the best way to destroy the strangle hold that corporations and corrupt politicians have over the government? How many people will die if Bush is re-elected? How many people will STILL die if Kerry is elected? How many people will die in the long run if the current corrupt corporate/political 1 party system remains controlling the strings of the repug/demo political machines?

What action is most likely to result in a long term structural change?

"Anybody But Bush" is a slogan that fills me with grave concern. It is cry of the defeated who have no hope or vision for any kind of real change.

Re: Anybody but Bush?

[tangaroa.livejournal.com]

"Won't make things as worse as quickly" is enough for me. There are a lot more important things at stake than the war of the nonce, and many smaller things also worth concern, and Kerry would be better for many of them. Another four years of Bush risks unifying that competing corporate corruption into one entity which controls the money, the guns, the courts, and the media. The goal of the past several years of Republican lobbying and politicking has been to make it unprofitable for any power holders to not hitch themselves to the Republican right wing, and the Bush bureaucracy is spitting out or sidelining high-quality employees who haven't drunk the kool-aid. The direction things are going does not look promising.

Re: Anybody but Bush?

[midnightfae.livejournal.com]

I second this.

Re: Anybody but Bush?

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

Yes, I third it. Bush got us into a whole lot of serious, frightening messes. Whether Kerry can get us out isn't a fair question. We simply cannot afford to let Bush fuck us up any longer. The future of our country and the entire world rides on us de-selecting Bush from office, NOW.

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

Thank you for posting this. There are a lot of highly influential people who I respect on that there list. Although I think they used bad judgement in voting for Nader in 2000, they've come to their senses and I'm grateful for it.

Re: Anybody but Bush?

[midnightfae.livejournal.com]

I think you misuderstood me. I was agreeing with the comment above me, the one dissenting voice in the mass of "Anybody but Bush" hysteria. I will be voting for Kerry, but not soley to remove Bush from office. In fact, I find such a mentality as you are espousing even more frightening than another four years under the Shrub Administration.

Re: Anybody but Bush?

[kuangning]

I understand where you're coming from, a little. Letting Bush have four more years would certainly bring the country to the point of needing radical change. The trouble is, as fast as he's tampering with the balance of power, and given the opportunity to continue unchecked for another term, there might be no way, when he's done, to effect that radical change without revolution. I, for one, am not ready for revolution.

Do I think Kerry's going to be better than Bush in all the ways I want him to be? No. His view doesn't match mine on every point -- no candidate's does. But is he going to be better in the most major ways? Hell, yes. I make no apologies -- I like living comfortably. I want a government that makes it possible for me to work, earn enough to take care of myself, and have a bit left over to play with every now and again. Most people do, I think. And I'd care very little about who was in office, as long as they didn't make my life hard. Even if they did inconvenience me only a little -- a raised tax, a few new laws that impacted only small things -- I would shrug and wait for their term to end, and work for changes in those small things. But this government isn't sticking to small things. I care about freedom to speak my mind, to go about my daily dealings without undue hindrance, to take part in the things that matter to me. I see Bush as a threat to those freedoms -- protest has almost become a crime in this country. Disagreement with the party line is labeled unAmerican. Reluctance to rush into war is akin to treason. But the worst is that bite by bite, this government is working to ensure that their agenda becomes the only one possible, for a very long time. They're trying to remove the assurance that this country has always had -- that no matter how much we disliked any particular candidate's politics, we only had to wait and then he and his politics would be out the door, and things could start getting better again. After four more years of Bush, I don't know what, short of violence, could bring us back to the point where we could start making things better.

We want changes. I think we're more likely to get them peacefully while Kerry's in office. We want some of the most egregious legislation rolled back. I don't think we have even a hope of that with Bush in office. Or even after that, if he gets four more years to place more ultra-conservative people in positions of power.

Besides which -- if I'm not ready for the revolution, how many people are? Enough, do you think, to carry it through effectively? And what happens after that? Even if it doesn't come to violence, how many people do you think will embrace the cause after third-party candidates and followers made it clear that, to advance their politics, they were willing to let this country go through what was guaranteed to be hell at home? Not abroad, mind you. Not soldiers dying out of sight "over there". Not "a few changes in the name of security" -- Bush et al can at least say that they believed in what they're bringing about -- but outright abandonment of the nation to people they didn't believe in, whose cause they knew would not be the right thing for the nation they then professed to love and want to lead? Do you think that kind of government by that kind of leader would last long? Because I don't.

Re: Anybody but Bush?

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

Yes, I did misunderstand. I didn't follow the thread correctly and thought you were seconding the comments of the person who first responded to the comment above you.

And you misunderstood me. I will also be voting for Kerry, but not solely to remove Bush from office, just as one very compelling reason. I don't agree with Kerry on the Iraq war, but certainly agree more with him than with Bush on other sociopolitical issues.

Re: Anybody but Bush?

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

Also, you're voting for Kerry. But the commenter above you most likely isn't. You're only really seconding part of his comments if you're supporting Kerry with your vote.

Re: Anybody but Bush?

[kuangning]

I doubt you're seconding everything he just said. He just suggested that leaving Bush in office, knowing that Bush would not be good for the country, would advance his cause, and so he might be prepared to allow it.

[jlassen.livejournal.com]

"I make no apologies -- I like living comfortably... And I'd care very little about who was in office, as long as they didn't make my life hard."

I think most Bush voters would agree with you on this. To me, this gets to the heart of the problem. Most of America is willing to die a slow death by a thousand cuts, rather then acknowledge that there might be a problem, or take an honest look at the role that they play.

"how many people do you think will embrace the cause after third-party candidates and followers made it clear that, to advance their politics, they were willing to let this country go through what was guaranteed to be hell at home?"

A large portion of Democratic party voters do just this…They routinely vote for Democratic candidates that in fact, to advance their own politics, have let this country go through hell.

Look at the Patriot Act. Look at the Iraq war resolution. Look at the pre 9-11 votes, such as the confirmation of John Ashrcroft. To my mind, the democratic party has already made this deal with the devil. They have already sold their country down the shit hole, just to score a few points with their cronies across the aisle. They could have STOPED ASHCROFT DEAD in 2001, They could have easily bottled up his nomination in COmmitte. There were enough Repubican senators who were critical of aschroft that a concereted effort could have kept this crazy man from the highest seat of power.

But instead, they chose to NOT take that stand. And we have seen the results of their cold calculations. A fascist, theological regime that would make the Taliban proud. Your argument against third parties cuts no ice with me. I see betrayal at every cornoer by the Democratic party.

Our differences are not so great, but simply a matter of degree. You fear what America MIGHT become. From my perspective, it has already become the dystopic state you fear. Four more years of Bush will, to my mind, simply force people like yourself to acknowledge what has happened. A Kerry victory will allow you to pretend that our government is not bought and sold by and for a corporate ologarchy that poisons our air and water and charges us for the privilege...

What are you willing to give up, in order to take back your country? I'm willing to give up everything if it means my children just might be able to find pride in being American... That they might be able to grow up in a country that doesn't marginalize, poison and exploit them, and send them off to die in some desert, for a corporations quarterly balance sheet.

Do you have any opinions on Instant run-off elections? That’s the first step towards taking your government back. Even at the local and state level, this first step would do more for changing our country for the better then any one politician getting elected, and that includes Kerry beating Bush.

peace,
-jl

[deusinnomen.livejournal.com]

I'm very, very, very undecided on this entire subject. As it stands, I don't like having to choose between an extremist Republican and an extremist Democrat (my words and not someone elses), as the former has wrecked the state of the economy and made it significantly leaning towards big corporations instead of small businesses and the workers, and the latter has no solid plan and does not impress me whatsoever. All Kerry has said so far is the "I'm everything Bush isn't" concepts, which do not sell me on him.

The Democratic party is too damn week. Maybe they DO need another defeat to realize that the Republicans are making complete bitches of them in the politics game. Not that I even remotely advocate four more years of that blind madman.

Who knows, cause I don't. I hate politics, and I hate that I have to pay attention to them in these times just as much.

Re: Anybody but Bush?

[jlassen.livejournal.com]

"Another four years of Bush risks unifying that competing corporate corruption into one entity which controls the money, the guns, the courts, and the media."

You think they are not already unified? I think the biased media coverage ofthe 2000 and 2002 elections, combined with the supremae court appointment of Bush pretty much demonstrates just how far down this road we are. Could it get worse? yes. resoundingly so. Will it continue to get worse under Kerry? yes, absolutely.

What do you propose to do to change this, other then closing your eyes and pretending there isn't a problem, if Kerry is elected?

My suggestion is to start implementing instant run-off elections at every level, and I will back any candidate and any party that is willing to fight for this reform. Libertarian, Green, Natural laww, the fucking KKK… whoever. The so-called "liberal" democratic party of American can't be bothered to care about any legitimate reform of the electoral system, because it might threaten their strangle hold on power. So I have to take my allies where I can get them.

Re: Anybody but Bush?

[jlassen.livejournal.com]

Shit, its not about "my cause". Your misrepresenting what I said. I SUSPECT that, in the long run, it might be better for America if people were forced to wake up and take an active role in their government.

This is not about MY CAUSE. I'm trying to determine what would be best for my country, and vote accordingly, just like all of our elected officials do. Many of them voted for the Iraq war. Many of them voted to confirm John Ashcroft, or to pass the patriot act. They did these bad things, because they felt that in the long run, “loosing a battle to win the war” was the best thing for America, even if it seemed counter-intuitive to do so.

You can't damn me on one hand, and defend them(Kerry, for example) on the other. Well you can. But you would be a hypocrite for doing so.

[jlassen.livejournal.com]

"Extremist Democrat"
In what way do you mean extremist? If you mean very right wing and conservative, I'd agree with you.

If you are trying to suggest that ANY national democratic candidate, but particularly Kerry is anything but a bought and paid for "DLC, pro-business centrist", then I'd have to disagree.

And don't talk to me about “Governors who ruin state economies.” I'll see your "extremist democrat" and raise you one Texes energy cartel and a republican controlled federal regulatory board that cheered as my state was raped and pillaged. The fact that this market manipulation was blamed on a sitting, pro-business Democratic governor does indeed show how pitiful the democratic party is.

I’ve got a lot of anger for Bush and his policies. But I’ve seen the so-called opposition’s blind support for most of these policies -- at this point I have nothing but contempt for the democratic party.

Where were they when small business and large buisnesses alike were being put out of business by the Republicans and their rolling black outs and market manipulation. Where were they when my state was looted. Where were they when Ashcroft confirmed. Where were they WHEN THEY CONTROLLED THE SENATE, and could have blocked the Iraqi war resolution? Where were they when the patriot act was passed? Where were they when Enron, and Global Crossing, and hundreds of other corporate entities bilked small time investors and pension funds out of hundreds of billions of dollars? They were busy stuffing their pockets with this corporate money during the Clinton years.

I could go on and on, but you all know the litany.

[siliconshaman.livejournal.com]

I only wish I had a vote, it'd be nice to have the illusion that we could actually choose whomever is really running our country...
Of course, it's a lot like the Alien V Preditor film.
No matter who wins, we lose.

Because from this side of the pond, the differnce between Kerry and Bush is way too small to see. Of course, we know Bush's record in office, which is why I'd probably vote Kerry, given a choice.

Still at least people should vote. And make the most of it while they can.

[deusinnomen.livejournal.com]

I don't want to get into a debate, so I'm just say that yes, I meant Very Right Wing and Conservative.

Otherwise, I'm in agreement with you on all those counts.

Re: Anybody but Bush?

[midnightfae.livejournal.com]

Well, yes and no. I'm seconding the response, as a whole, which is that for a democracy to work properly, people need to vote for the best candidate, the candidate who they feel will get the country where they feel it needs to go. Not just vote "for the lesser of two evils", but for the best candidate, in their mind, even if they think it will lose.

The only difference in our opinions, really, is that I feel Kerry will get me where I want to go better than the other candidates, even the Libertarian one, despite who I pay my party dues to. (Which is nice, since the party doesn't encourage voting strictly along party lines). I don't have to agree with his political choice to agree with the heart of the political opinion voiced in that comment.

Re: Anybody but Bush?

[midnightfae.livejournal.com]

Yup, and I think that if he feels that way, he should vote that way. So I second it. I, unlike many liberals who have forgotten to think for themselves, do not think Bush will be the downfall of the country. The world is not going to blow up in the next four years, no matter who is President. Just because you read it in the Guardian doesn't make it true. I don't like Bush, but, on the other hand, he certainly isn't the worst thing to happen to this country. Possibly for my generation, but my generation is only 20 years old...

As I said before, I'm voting for Kerry because I think he will push this country further in the direction I want to see it go. Not because I can't abide Bush.

Re: Anybody but Bush?

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

OK, got it. And I agree with you, which is why I voted for Kucinich in the primaries. :) And in this election I believe strongly that Kerry is the better candidate (even if he's far from perfect).

I also think that there is nothing wrong with repeating what a horrible, horrible job Bush has done, at the same time as addressing the positive reasons to vote for Kerry.

For currently undecided voters in particular, Bush's failed leadership could indeed be a stronger motivator than putting trust in Kerry.

Re: Anybody but Bush?

[kuangning]

That's true enough. Thanks for the clarification.