John Kerry for president
OK, I know it's early -- really early -- but it's vital that those of us who want to end the Bush regime's occupation of the White House decide upon our candidate soon, even before the presidential primary season begins.
Why?
Because while "President" Bush is raising a record amount of tens of millions of dollars for his re-election campaign (I say "re-election," but he was never elected in the first place; Al Gore is our elected president), campaign contributions for the 2004 Democratic candidate are now being scattered among nine hopefuls -- and the list of Democratic contenders might grow even longer, further diluting the message and the fundraising capability of the only party that can recapture the White House.
I'm not the Democrats' biggest fan. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and for Green Party candidate Peter Camejo in California's gubernatorial election last year. I recently switched my party registration from the Green Party back to the Democratic Party primarily so that I can vote in the Democratic presidential primary.
My overriding goal for the next presidential election is to get Bush II out of the Oval Office by any (legal) means necessary. The damage that the second Bush regime has caused to the economy, to the environment, to labor, to civil rights, to the United States' global reputation, etc., will take years to reverse. We progressives must do whatever we can (legally) to prevent him from getting a second term.
The only party that can beat Bush in 2004 is the Democratic Party. And we must make sure that Bush's Democratic opponent thrashes his ass so soundly that a dozen Katherine Harrises, Jeb Bushes and U.S. Supreme Courts could not steal the election away from the American people again.
Yes, it's early. But the fact remains that if we progressives want to give Bush Jr. the pink slip, we need to settle soon on a candidate and support that candidate as much as we possibly can.
Let's look briefly at the field of nine who are seeking the Democratic presidential nomination (for much more detail on the nine declared candidates, click here):
Dennis Kucinich, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton: Discussing these individuals' merits, in terms of which Democratic contender can beat Bush, is pointless. In national polls all of them consistently poll only in the single digits. I would love to see a President Kucinich, but it's not going to happen, folks, at least not in 2004. Sure, we could throw our support behind one of these far-left candidates. But do we want to prevent a second Bush II term or not?
John Edwards and Bob Graham: These two also consistently poll nationally only in the single digits. Bash polls and polling as much as we like, but multiple polls taken by different parties over a period of time do form at least a rough picture of public opinion -- how Americans are likely to vote. Again, do we want to prevent a second Bush II term or not?
Howard Dean: Although he is probably the loudest and scrappiest of the nine Democratic contenders, Dean, like all of those listed above, consistently polls nationally only in the single digits. Although he is an attractive candidate to us progressives (and to us fags), he is very unlikely to beat Bush in the Bush-regime-created post-9/11 climate of fear, pseudo-patriotism and warmongering. Dean, like Kucinich, is a thinking person's candidate, and the American masses don't like to think very hard (as evidenced by Bush II's consistently favorable approval ratings).
Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman and John Kerry: These three candidates have consistently polled nationally in the top three, with double digits, and unless another very popular candidate comes forward, it is likely that one of these three will get the Democratic nomination.
Lieberman has polled well, but that is, I and others believe, attributable mainly to the name recognition he has from having been half of the Gore-Lieberman ticket in 2000. Once people get to know him better, his poll numbers should drop. Lieberman is a Republican wannabe disaster (see liebermansucks.com). If the Democrats -- if we -- pick Lieberman to run against Bush in 2004, it will be as big a mistake (no, actually, bigger) as the Republicans' mistake of picking right-wing businessman (and not a very good one) Bill Simon over moderate former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan to run against Democrat Gray Davis last year. If Lieberman gets the Democratic nomination, Bush assuredly will get a second term.
Dick Gephardt is preferable to Lieberman (who isn't?), but where has Dick been during the Bush regime's continued trashing of the economy, of the environment, of the Bill of Rights and of Iraq? If he hasn't taken the Bush regime on thus far, what's going to magically happen to make him take it on now?
This leaves us with one candidate who can beat Bush: John Kerry.
Is Kerry my personal favorite? If it were solely up to me to pick the next president -- like it was solely up to the U.S. Supreme Court to pick the current "president" -- would I pick Kerry? Perhaps not. There's a good chance that I'd pick Kucinich or Dean.
But the difference between Kerry and Dean and Kucinich is that Kerry can win.
It is abundantly clear that the Bush regime plans to use the 9-11/terrorism/fear/war angle in Dubya's "re-election" campaign. It's all that they've got; all that Baby Bush has done since he stole office in late 2000 -- besides pounding Iraq into the sand for Daddy at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of dollars of the American taxpayers' money -- is to abuse his office to make his frat buds even richer. The Bush regime has done precious little to nothing for the common, middle-class American. (All of those tax rebate checks -- bribes -- are going to bite us in the ass later as the federal budget deficit continues to soar under Bush II, who quickly squandered the budget surplus that he inherited, much of it on his War for Papa.)
So the only appeal that the Bush regime can make to common, middle-class Americans is the appeal to their irrational fear of American- and Jesus-hating Middle Eastern suicide bombers coming to the homeland to destroy the Great American Way.
Sadly, such tactics seem to work -- at least right now, in the current political climate. And in the face of such Karl Rove-scripted tactics, all of the nine Democratic presidential wannabes but Kerry will crumble.
Why?
Because Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, is the only of the nine Democratic contenders who has been in combat.
And because the Bush regime is unlikely to attack Kerry as a wussy un-American peacenik when the fact is that George W. Bush -- despite his carefully choreographed Tom Cruise impersonation on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln -- avoided going to Vietnam when his family connections in Texas got his precious rich ass into the Texas Air National Guard, from which he went AWOL (see awolbush.com). A Bush regime attack on Kerry is likely to open that can of worms, and it's highly unlikely that even spinmeister Karl Rove wants to go there, and can you blame White House spokesweasel Ari Fleischer for having gotten out while the getting was good?
Is Kerry's having fought in Vietnam enough to qualify him to be president? No, but it's a crucial strategic piece against the Bush regime, which is going to push war as the centerpiece of its "re-election" campaign.
Kerry is right on a number of issues, including ending America's dependence on oil, protecting the environment, opposing tax cuts for the rich, increasing Americans' access to health care, and supporting veterans' rights (it's ironic that the Bush regime isn't supporting our soldiers -- nevermind; no, it isn't). (To read where Kerry stands on several issues, click here, and read the excerpts from his recent speech below. Also, Kerry is scheduled to be profiled on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" this Sunday morning on ABC. Check your local TV listings.)
Am I a sellout for thinking so pragmatically and strategically in my choice of Kerry? (I voted for Ralph Fucking Nader, for Chrissakes!) Many will think so. But I ask again: do we want to prevent a second Bush II term or not?
---
Because there are nine vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, it can be difficult for any one of them to get his or her message out. In that vein, so that you can learn more about him, here are excerpts from a speech that Kerry gave earlier this month:
My friends, let me make something clear: I worked with aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin -- for real. I know something about aircraft carriers and I'm glad the president thanked our men and women in uniform for their service.
But having a skilled Navy pilot land you on an aircraft carrier doesn't make up for a failed economic policy. It doesn't make up for union-busting, for degrading our environment, for standing in the way of civil rights -- and it won't convince America to let you privatize Social Security.
It doesn't make up for leaving 12 million children behind with the stroke of a pen by denying them a child care tax credit so people earning more than $315,000 a year get another tax cut....
My fellow Democrats: We need to bring that sense of outrage to the center of our effort to win back the White House. This is not the normal contest of Democrats versus Republicans. This is a contest between common-sense American values and extreme ideologues whose agenda is to dismantle 50 years of Democratic achievement, and we're not going to let them do it.
Last week I read in The New York Times that some people were frustrated that they couldn't tell the difference between us and them.
Well, I say to them: Take out the earplugs, open your eyes; sit up and listen up -- the differences could not be more clear, the agenda could not be more compelling, and the stakes could not be higher.
Two and a half million jobs lost in two years. They promised with their first tax cut a million jobs would be created. A million were lost.
Now they come with another tax cut -- 54 percent of it goes to 1 percent of America. They accelerate the highest rate cuts for the wealthiest Americans and wait for the trickle down. Well, I know a lot of hard working Americans who are tired of getting trickled on.
Our agenda is as clear as it is different and fairer. We want to create jobs now by giving a middle-class tax cut that puts money in the pockets of all now by restoring confidence in our economy with fiscal responsibility -- by investing in schools, cities, transportation, housing, rural communities -- and put Americans back to work now. We want to make clear that with retirement accounts wiped out, unemployment compensation denied, COPS programs cut, surpluses blown, deficits as far as the eye can see, the one American who deserves to be laid off is George W. Bush.
...We want to protect the constitutional right of privacy and make clear that at the center of this struggle is our commitment to have a Supreme Court that will protect the equal rights, the civil rights, and the right to choose in this nation.
At the center of this struggle is our commitment not to go backwards on the Family and Medical Leave Act, on the Violence Against Women Act, on Title Nine, on Affirmative Action and to make clear that when I am President of the United States, there will be no John Ashcroft trampling on the Bill of Rights.
...I'm running for President because instead of spending $50,000 a year for a young person's jail cell, we should be investing $10,000 a year for a young person's future with early childhood education, child care, Head Start, Smart Start, Healthy Start, a real start on the road to full citizenship.
The president talks about compassionate conservatism, but where is the compassion in denying workers safety standards in the workplace, attacking the 40-hour work week and prevailing wage? Where is the compassion in opposing a minimum wage increase let alone a living wage and remaining content to let people work for less than poverty levels in America?
I will remind those Republicans content to give speeches about the heroes of New York City that every one of those firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical personnel who rushed up the steps to give their lives so that others might live: they were all members of organized labor and they believed in the right to bargain, the right to organize and the right to strike and they deserve a president who protects the rights of working people.
They talk about homeland security but cut the funding for cops and firefighters. We should not be opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in New York City. If we can find the money to build schools, roads, hospitals, provide books in Iraq, we can do it here at home.
They march us backwards on the environment, seeking to undo clean air and clean water protections; they walk away from global warming; they can't wait to develop wetlands and drill in national monuments.
But we are committed to making our legacy for the environment a great issue of our time. I am proud to have led the fight John McCain and I lost to raise fuel efficiency standards on our cars and I am proud to have led the fight we won to stop drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
But now we must engage in the greatest challenge of all: We must decide that just as President Kennedy challenged us to go to the moon in the 1960s, we will "go to the moon" right here on Earth by declaring that never again will young American soldiers, men and women, be held hostage to our dependency on Middle East oil. We need a president who will boldly set America on the path to energy independence....
They [the Bush regime] stand by while 44 million Americans go without health care and the cost of prescription drugs go through the roof.
I'm running for president because it is long since overdue that the United States of America stops being the only industrialized nation on this planet that doesn't have health care available for all of its citizens. I'm running to make health care in America a right and not a privilege -- to help every American afford the same health care the president, vice president and members of Congress give themselves....
For all the issues where they are taking us backwards or taking us nowhere at all, the Republicans are betting Americans will forgive them in 2004 because of national security and the war on terrorism.
Well, I have news for them: We as Democrats will not cede this issue to them. I am running for president because after September 11th, we need a president who has the experience and the vision to make this country safer, stronger and more secure.
President Clinton said it best: the 2002 elections proved that strong and wrong beats weak and right. Well, I am running for president to lead a Democratic Party that has a foreign policy that is strong and right.
I am running for president because as committed as I am to having the most powerful military on the face of this planet, even the United States of America needs friends and allies on this planet and we better get about the business of making them.
And there's another difference critical to our politics.
They are content to let more and more money distort the American agenda and diminish the quality of our own democracy. With George Bush in the White House, we have seen a "get mine and get out" ethic that glorifies a creed of greed. Enron executives bilk the retirement savings of ordinary investors, and for months the administration resists reform. Polluters are given a free pass. Powerful corporations enjoy sweetheart deals at the expense of everyday Americans. Lobbyists come in from the cold to write laws favoring the companies that pay their lavish bills. Insiders ride a revolving door between the White House and major industries. Failed CEOs get golden parachutes while their employees get pink slips. And, for the first time in this nation's history, the most privileged among us get enormous tax breaks during a time of war.
I'm running for president to bring leadership to the White House that puts country before campaign contributions.
...Today, in the aftermath of September 11th, with middle-class Americans struggling and with America facing budget deficits and environmental destruction, we need a new patriotism -- a progressive patriotism -- that demands not only change at the top, but a spirit of service to harness the faith, the energy and the commitment of people of all ages in communities all across the country. A new patriotism that focuses on what we can give, not just what we can get. I'm running for president to remind this president that the American flag and patriotism doesn't belong to any political party -- it belongs to all of us as Americans.
...America doesn't need a Democratic Party that says "yes, but less" or "yes, but slower" to Republican policies that take us backward. It doesn't need a Democratic Party that is satisfied with defending our past achievements from Republican attack without also pursuing high ambitions for the future. I say to you: America doesn't need two Republican parties.
America needs a Democratic party that stands up for America, that stands up for jobs, stands up for our rights, stands up for the environment, stands up for a secure America, stands up for Social Security, stands up for health care for all. You can lead the way. Now let's go out of here and win -- let's make America safer, stronger and more secure.
Kerry's speech demonstrates that he is fully aware of his unique position to defeat Bush: The Sequel. Kerry remains true to progressive values and beliefs without sacrificing Americans' security. The two are not mutually exclusive, as those on the far right -- and on the far left -- might have us believe. As Kerry eloquently put it, we need a foreign policy that is strong and right.
7:09:42 PM 
|
