O Shit! It's the Republican National Convention!

um, that's pretty much everybody here, except those of us going out of town.

Kerry vs. Kerry flash animation feat. Don King
Kerryopoly
The John Kerry Spendometer
"What Does John Kerry Have In Common With The Cicadas?"

whaddaya got?

x-post

Which, the kid with the pacifier or the other one?

Feature
Bush to New York: Here's Your $20 Billion—Now Drop Dead
What the soon-to-be-home of the Republican National Convention is not getting from the Republicans.

By Ryan Lizza

It’s hard to remember now, but at some point it was considered a stroke of genius: President George W. Bush and Republicans from across the country would celebrate their quadrennial party convention in New York City, site of the terrorist attacks that defined Bush’s first term. In New York, he’d be greeted by Michael Bloomberg, one of the few big-city Republican mayors, in a performance that would showcase Bloomberg’s national clout and Bush’s strength, compassion, and crossover appeal. All that would be left would be tabulating the Republican landslide.

What a fantasy. By the time the gathering starts on August 30, the host of this party, Mayor Bloomberg, will be quietly battling with his guests, President Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress, on almost every issue of importance to the city. When Bush, Bloomberg, and the Republican leadership climb the stage at Madison Square Garden for their inevitable photo ops this summer, the tight smiles and awkward backslapping will mask a simmering feud between New York and Washington over billions of dollars that some say are being fleeced from the city. Just about the only thing Bloomberg’s alliance with the Republicans has gained him is a ballot line to run on.

When it comes to New York’s relationship with Bush, almost all the media attention since 9/11 has focused on whether Washington really delivered the $20 billion in post-attack aid that Bush promised the city. Some Democrats point out that almost $5 billion of that aid was in the form of tax breaks that were never used and are about to expire. Others complain that the $20 billion was a floor, not a ceiling, and that the city needs much more. But many Democrats privately concede that for the most part, Bush has kept his word on the $20 billion. “There is a collective thought out there that New York got screwed on 9/11 funds,” a senior aide to Senator Chuck Schumer whispered to me recently. “That is really not the case.”

The spotlight on the 9/11 money has obscured a more comprehensive look at how Bush and his Republican colleagues have treated New York over the past four years. From the parochial perspective of New York City, the problem with Bush and the Congress is that they seem to screw New York on everything else.

Each February, a team of Bloomberg’s wonks scours the Bush budget to figure out how bad its impact will be on the city. In April, the mayor releases the fruit of that process, a thick, richly detailed book that outlines New York City’s agenda in Washington. This obscure 300-page document is the bible for understanding how the Bush administration treats the city. Every federal issue of importance to New York is described along with a comparison of how the Bush administration and Congress plan to treat it. The book sometimes reads as if it were written by the Democratic National Committee. On issue after issue, the Bloomberg administration, sometimes in withering language, describes how Bush’s proposals are bad for New York. One of the most common phrases appearing in the book is “Position: Oppose.” It crops up again and again when summarizing the Bloomberg response to Bush policies.

Once upon a time, Bloomberg’s Republican pedigree was seen as an advantage in diverting federal money to the city. In fact, the opposite may be true.

On education, the mayor accuses Bush of shortchanging the No Child Left Behind Act. He criticizes Bush’s proposed cuts to federal funds for child care. He argues that Republicans promised $700 million to implement the new election law passed in the wake of the Florida debacle, yet Bush finds only $40 million in his budget for it. He opposes the proposed cuts to bioterrorism funds, the $110 million reduction in a program for dislocated workers, the $240 million cut to a program that helps New York City fight poverty, the elimination of Justice Department grants that Bloomberg uses to help fight drugs and pay 911 operators, the slashing of millions from public housing, a Republican proposal that would siphon transportation dollars from New York and ship them to states like Texas, and Bush’s paltry spending on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The criticisms go on and on. On criminal-justice issues, Bloomberg attacks the Republican approach to gun legislation as irresponsible. On the environment, he argues that new EPA rules would “directly threaten the City’s air quality,” opposes Bush’s cuts for money to clean up brownfields, and even insists that the Bush budget “risks dealing a mortal blow” to a program that is eradicating a nasty beetle from China destroying New York’s trees. The city hates Bush’s proposal to slash money to fight HIV/AIDS and argues that without more federal funds than Bush proposes for immunizations, thousands of New Yorkers might die.

All of these cuts are especially galling when one considers the most important fact about New York City’s relationship with the federal government. In 2002, the last year for which data are available, New Yorkers sent $65.9 billion in federal taxes to Washington, and yet the federal government sent only $54.5 billion back, according to the mayor’s office. In one year, more than $11 billion was sucked out of New York and redistributed across America by the Republicans in Washington who control the federal budget.

Of course, ’twas ever thus. New York has a long record of getting screwed by the Feds. Like the city, the state has always been a donor, paying more in federal taxes than it receives in federal funds and services. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan would get so angry about this bias that his staff would produce an annual report documenting all the ways his constituents were being robbed by the rest of the country. Much of this funding bias has its roots in the rise of the welfare state. Many of the formulas that allocate money for federal programs were written decades ago. Often they were devised with the egalitarian intent of using money from wealthier regions of the country to help poorer ones. “When the New Deal was enacted, New York was a rich state,” says Congressman Jerrold Nadler, who has represented Manhattan’s West Side for twelve years. “The New Deal built the infrastructure that allowed the South and West to rise. Who paid for all those dams? It came from New York and the other wealthy states. The federal allocation formulas created in the thirties were written to help these other states. We’re no longer the rich state, but the formulas haven’t been changed.”

Unfortunately for the city, formulas that have been devised much more recently repeat these inequities. In the Bush years, some of the largest new streams of federal money are for protecting the homeland and combating bioterrorism. For homeland security, there are two large pots of money that once seemed promising for the city but that have recently been turned into slush funds to satiate congressmen’s appetites for pork. One pot, known as the State Homeland Security Grant Program, was designed by Bush and Congress using a formula that awards money to every state without regard to the actual level of terrorist threat. Billions of dollars in funds for first responders have been doled out this way. New York has been an Al Qaeda target numerous times in the past eleven years, and yet the state ranks 49th in per capita funding in this grant program. In fact, Wyoming, not known as a top bin Laden target, will get $38.31 per capita this year, while New York will get $5.47. The entire program is purposely blind to the fact that New York City, according to the intelligence community, is the highest-priority target in America. “There are 435 members, and they all want to get a piece of this,” says an aide to Bloomberg.

Even worse, the one homeland-security program that actually factors threat levels into its allocation formula has been turned into pork. The Urban Areas Security Initiative, which was designed to deliver funds to cities at the top of Al Qaeda’s target list, started out as one of Washington’s great gifts to New York. In 2003, the city received a quarter of the funds, which were divvied out to just seven high-priority states. But the Bush administration and Congress have steadily increased the number of cities and other entities deemed “high risk.” There are now 80 on the list, and New York’s share of the money has dropped to less than 7 percent. Bloomberg and his aides complain that the city’s allotment of high-threat funding has been slashed by two thirds since last year. “The chairman of the Appropriations Committee is from Kentucky,” says a Bloomberg aide, explaining how sympathy for New York has given way to pork-barrel politics. “He doesn’t want to go home and say, ‘Well, gosh, guys, I don’t see any Al Qaeda here.’ He wants to take some home, too.” Louisville is slated to receive $9 million this year.

Getting money for bioterrorism has proved to be even harder for New York. While the Bush administration says it’s willing to change the formula for some homeland-security grants, no bioterrorism money is distributed by threat level, and the administration hasn’t said it would change the formula. New York wants the money granted based on population density and risk. Amazingly, the city ranks 45th out of 54 states and municipalities in per capita funding on bioterrorism preparedness. New York Democrats often accuse the president of cheating the city on homeland-security matters, but some of the toughest criticism is quietly tucked into Bloomberg’s annual wish list, the federal legislative agenda. It points out that federal bioterror money has been reduced by $144 million. New York takes the brunt of these cuts. “Clearly, New York City bears a disproportionate risk of high-impact/high-casualty terrorist events, yet has consistently been shortchanged by federal funding by any measure of assessment,” the document notes.

Every inch of progress the city makes seems to be accompanied by a setback. Last month, Tommy Thompson, the secretary of Health and Human Services, funneled some extra bioterror money to New York, but last week, House Republicans voted to allow homeland-security funds to be used for natural disasters like floods and forest fires. This ridiculous change, the mayor argued in a letter, “would further dilute any effort to prevent and respond to international terrorism.” The legislation is being pushed by a Republican from rural Ohio.

There are real consequences to all the anti-terror money that is pickpocketed from New Yorkers. Recently, Bloomberg’s office wrote a nineteen-page memo cataloging $900 million worth of emergency-preparedness needs that are unfunded in the city. It’s a frightening list. The New York Police Department lacks $40 million needed for training its officers in counterterrorism measures. Four NYPD facilities, including One Police Plaza and the Police Lab in Jamaica, which are critical to command and control in the event of an attack, need $48 million worth of security enhancements, including bomb-blast protection and perimeter defenses. Other key NYPD sites lack bulletproof glass, anti-fragmentation film, and chemical detectors. The police are also facing a serious shortage of emergency-response vehicles. The Fire Department has $277 million worth of “urgent needs.”

The FDNY still needs $120 million to replace the outdated communications structure that so hampered the response to 9/11. It needs $40 million to upgrade a data network for dispatching fire and EMS personnel because the current system can be shut down entirely by an attack on one small part of the system. The FDNY also needs money for a large fireboat in the event of an attack on a cruise ship, bridge, or port, as well as a new hazardous-material battalion that will cost $25 million. Without it, Bloomberg’s shopping list flatly states, “the City of New York is inadequately prepared for a major chemical and/or biological incident.”

As the city fights on one front to save its anti-terror dollars from being redirected to Podunk, America, on another front it is battling Republicans who have attacked one of the few federal funding formulas that actually do benefit New York. Every six years, Congress passes a mammoth transportation bill paid for with federal gasoline taxes assessed at the pump. When the money is returned to the states, it is spent not just on highways and bridges that benefit the car owners who pay the gas taxes, but on mass-transit projects used by people who may never buy gas. Every six years, this quirk in the formula pits gas-tax donor states like Texas against states like New York. Last year, Tom DeLay, from Sugarland, Texas, launched a crusade to mandate that every state get back at least 95 percent of its gas-tax dollars. The current so-called minimum guarantee is 91.5 percent. DeLay happens to be the majority leader of the House and the person whom Bloomberg’s lobbyists consider to be the most consistently anti–New York member of Congress. “He seems to be the one that always gets in the way,” says a Bloomberg aide. “And he’s powerful.” If DeLay wins this fight, it will cost the state $300 million a year, according to Bloomberg, with most of that money coming at the city’s expense.

One of the most important streams of federal money for New York City comes through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It’s also one of the fattest annual targets of Bush’s budget ax. “Our housing money is under attack,” a Bloomberg aide says, sighing. One of every twelve New Yorkers relies on the New York City Housing Authority, making it the largest entity of its kind in America. It mostly serves the poor, the elderly, and the very young. Since Bush was inaugurated, the Housing Authority has seen a drop of $175 million in federal funding at the same time demand for its help has soared. Last year, the city lost $3.8 million in Community Development Block Grants, which are used for dozens of different projects to make New York more livable, from neighborhood preservation to the cleanup of vacant lots to providing health- and day-care services in housing projects.

In addition, in next year’s budget, Bush has proposed to cut so-called Section 8 vouchers, used by poor tenants to pay for housing, by $107 million. The Bloomberg administration argues, “A loss of this size will have serious repercussions for the City of New York.” Earlier this year, as New York’s delegation fought to restore some of this money, it was blindsided by a technical ruling from the Bush administration that would drastically scale back how much Washington would pay for Section 8 vouchers from last year’s budget. The change would mean that New York would face a shortfall of some $50 million.

Even Bush’s signature housing initiative, the American Dream Downpayment Act (ADDP), which would help first-time home buyers afford a house, actually hurts New York City. New Yorkers, and everyone else, already have access to such funds under an existing program called the Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME). Unfortunately for the city, the funding formula for Bush’s new program is much less favorable to New York than home. Bush and Republicans want to move money from HOME to ADDP, which means that the city, which already has one of the lowest home-ownership rates in America, would actually receive less money to address the problem. The White House considers ADDP one of Bush’s major domestic-policy achievements.

Another domestic program the Bush administration has been especially proud of is his education law. It too has inflicted financial pain on the city over the past few years. It’s no wonder that New York’s response to Bush’s No Child Left Behind legislation is virtually identical to John Kerry’s. They both agree that Bush hasn’t delivered what he promised when the law was designed. Bush has consistently argued that education funding has rapidly increased on his watch, but Bloomberg undercuts this claim by noting that it hasn’t risen nearly enough to implement the sweeping reforms of Bush’s new law. Bloomberg wants billions more than Bush put in his budget this year. “Absent significant federal increases in the future,” the mayor’s office recently wrote, “effective implementation of new federal education reforms will be extremely difficult.”

Bloomberg’s budget team occasionally seems frustrated enough with Bush’s cuts that they sound like Democratic operatives. When explaining how Bush’s budget funds a program to educate disadvantaged children at only half of what the city is eligible to receive, the Bloomberg legislative agenda notes that “more than 200,000 low-income students are being left behind in New York City as a result of the federal shortfall.”

It’s not hard to explain why New York seems to be fighting Bush and the GOP Congress on almost every issue important to the city. At a macro level, the budget policies the Bush administration has pursued over the past four years are wildly out of sync with New York’s needs. Some of the biggest budget winners of the Bush years have been in the areas of defense, homeland security, and agriculture. New York has virtually no defense industry. And, not surprisingly, Bush’s massive increase in farm subsidies hasn’t exactly helped Manhattan. Meanwhile, Bush’s budget priorities that haven’t passed are hardly pro–New York. For example, his long-stalled energy bill would lavish tax breaks and subsidies on the oil and gas industries based out West.

The other major budgetary change of the Bush years has been huge tax cuts tilted to the wealthy. On the one hand, the city has one of the highest concentrations of rich people in the world, so many individual New Yorkers benefited from the tax cuts. But the city as a whole should hardly be thankful. Bush’s tax cuts worsened the very problems plaguing the city’s dysfunctional relationship with D.C. The tax cuts helped create the $500 billion federal budget deficit that has constricted the flow of dollars from Washington to New York. Bush’s response to the deficits has been to freeze or cut discretionary spending—money for health care, education, housing, the environment, etc.—which happens to be the part of the federal budget upon which New York disproportionately relies.

There is another often-untold consequence of Bush’s tax cuts for New Yorkers. A quirk in the tax code known as the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) hits the city harder than other parts of the country. The AMT was designed to ensure that wealthy taxpayers can’t take so many deductions that their burden falls to zero. In 2001, Bush slashed regular tax rates but didn’t cut the AMT rates. The effect is that millions of Americans are starting to pay the AMT for the first time. Those hit hardest are members of the upper middle class living in places with high state and local taxes, like New York. In fact, the percentage of New York City taxpayers getting ensnared by the AMT is more than twice that of the country as a whole. Thirty-eight percent of New Yorkers with an annual income of $100,000 to $200,000—people who hardly qualify as superrich, especially in a city where the cost of living can be shockingly high—are now paying the AMT, while nationwide, less than 10 percent of taxpayers in that income range pay it. And anyone paying the AMT isn’t getting Bush’s tax cuts. Republicans don’t have a plan to overhaul the problem, and some see a partisan bias in their cavalier attitude, since low-tax areas of the country, especially the South, are harmed the least by the AMT. “Tom DeLay comes here and his constituents get tax cuts and New Yorkers don’t,” complains Jonathan Sheiner, an aide to Congressman Charlie Rangel.

At the same time the city is facing a Republican agenda hostile to New York, it also has to deal with its diminishing clout in Washington. In general, the power and influence in Congress have been shifting south and west over the past few decades. For example, New York State lost two congressional seats in the most recent Census while Texas gained two. And the congressmen that New York does have are absent from the most important centers of congressional power. Of the fourteen committees or subcommittees that control spending in the House of Representatives, only two have chairmen from the Northeast. (One of them, from New Jersey, runs the subcommittee on the District of Columbia, not exactly a plum perch from which to win dollars for northeastern constituents.) The majority of the House appropriations chairmen are from the South and West. In the Senate, ten of the appropriations chairmen are from the South and West, two are from the Midwest, and two are from the Northeast. Of course, every chairman in both chambers is a Republican. In other words, the federal budget is controlled by conservative Republicans from the South and West, while New York City is represented by liberal Democrats from the Northeast. It’s not really a fair fight.

Once upon a time, Bloomberg’s Republican pedigree was seen as a potential asset to overcome this disadvantage. But it actually seems to be making things worse. Instead of picking high-profile fights that draw attention to the city’s priorities, Bloomberg is stressing unity with his GOP conventioneers. Last fall, Bloomberg singled out Tom DeLay as the city’s chief GOP nemesis. After a conservative outcry, Bloomberg backed down from his criticism. But Bloomberg aides are confident of at least one legislative victory this year. They think they will get the extra $25 million they need to protect the Republican confab later this summer. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney likes to say, “The only time New York is going to get adequate homeland-security funding is when Republicans come to town for their convention.” It looks like she’s right.

It's not January anymore. The race is ours to lose.

good fuckin' luck on that, altho the folks at CampaignDesk.org might point out a good one someday...

Borrowing a tactic from Boston's police union, New York's police and firefighters warned that if the unions do not reach a contract before the convention begins, they might picket parties and receptions for Republican state delegations.

Stephen J. Cassidy, the president of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, said, "We intend to make our case and to highlight the lack of respect that the mayor has for the firefighters and cops, and if we have to picket the parties that the mayor holds to do that, we will."

The police and firefighters denied that their threat to picket various Republican parties would violate a pledge by the city's Central Labor Council not to disrupt the convention, a pledge aimed at attracting the convention and its economic benefits.

Al O'Leary, a spokesman for the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, said, "Picketing a party at the Marriott Marquis has nothing to do with Madison Square Garden," which will house the Republican convention.

Unions leaders said they would engage in informational picketing over the next few weeks, without urging people not to cross the lines. But they said their effort might escalate into full-fledged picket lines that they ask others to honor.

The unions hope that pressuring Mr. Bloomberg before the convention will cause him to increase his wage offer. Explaining the picketing plans, Patrick J. Lynch, the P.B.A.'s president, said, "We have a Republican administration in the White House, Statehouse and City Hall, and we need the White House and Statehouse to know that the mayor is not treating us fairly."

Mr. Bloomberg, on his weekly radio program on WABC with John Gambling, ridiculed the union leaders yesterday morning. "I love it - they're yelling and screaming they're going to pressure the Republican Party to give us more money so they'll get raises," he said. "No. 1, the administration doesn't give money, it's Congress. No. 2, there isn't a chance in a zillion that Congress is going to vote monies for New York City unions. Let's get serious here."

Delegates to the Democratic National Convention, which begins in Boston on Monday, have been thrown off balance by the plans of Boston's police union to picket the welcoming parties being held this Sunday for 30 state delegations. With many Democrats unwilling to cross picket lines, the Michigan and Ohio delegations have canceled their welcoming parties.

Typically less sympathetic to labor, Republicans are generally more willing to cross picket lines. But labor leaders said it would be awkward for Republican delegates to cross picket lines set up by New York's firefighters and police - the workers hailed for their heroism after the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

Mr. Bloomberg has urged the police, firefighters and teachers to accept the same amount accepted by the largest municipal union, District Council 37: a 5 percent raise over three years. But they have picketed and distributed fliers this week outside Madison Square Garden, insisting that a 5 percent raise is inadequate.

Mr. Bloomberg restated his position that if the unions want more than the 5 percent, they should agree to money-saving measures to finance larger raises.

"Let's change leadership of these unions, and put in people who care about the union members, and sit down and try to find a way to generate productivity savings so that we can pay our municipal workers more," Mr. Bloomberg said.

The police and fire unions - both without a contract for two years - held a news conference yesterday outside the Garden, announcing that they have rented two trucks to crisscross the city, carrying mobile billboards that criticize the mayor.

One billboard reads: "Billionaire Bloomberg says pay for your own raises. Police and Firefighters pay every day . . . in blood." Both billboards urge New Yorkers to call 311 to urge the mayor to give the police and firefighters "a real raise."

Mr. Bloomberg lambasted the union leaders for organizing the protests. "You've got to remember that a lot of this is not driven by what the union members want," he said on his radio program. "It's driven by the union leaders who are running for re-election all the time, and they've got to show that they're stronger than everybody else. And so they go out there and yell and scream." Saying the city could not afford the raises the police, firefighters and teachers sought, Mr. Bloomberg said, "We have enormous deficits staring us in the face."

Randi Weingarten, president of the United Federation of Teachers, who won re-election in April with 88 percent of the vote, criticized Mr. Bloomberg's remarks. "I find it puzzling that when we exercise some of the limited rights we have, such as the right to protest, the mayor becomes very nasty and vituperative," she said. "There is an easy way to cure this, and that is get to the bargaining table and to bargain in good faith, instead of sounding like a broken record to accept the same contract as D.C. 37."

Several officials with the police and firefighters noted that the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association, after threatening for weeks to picket various events during the Democratic convention, received a 14.5 percent raise over four years through an arbitrator's decision on Thursday.

"We're green with envy," said Mr. O'Leary, the P.B.A. spokesman. His union wants an arbitrator to render a decision to resolve its contract dispute.

With pay levels higher in several suburbs, the union insists that the mayor's offer is far too low to resolve the problems the city faces in retaining and recruiting police officers.

Responding to the unions' threats to picket various convention activities, Jordan Barowitz, a City Hall spokesman, said: "The hard-working members of the Police and Fire Departments would be better served by union leaders who had the guts to negotiate a contract at the bargaining table instead of engaging in lame theatrics."

Paul Elliott, a spokesman for the New York City Host Committee, said: "The Republican convention is creating jobs and boosting wages for working people at what is a usually slow time in the city's economy. Labor was and remains the city's partner in planning for the Republican convention."

btw, Nancy Reagan just announced she won't be appearing at the RNC

The negative attitude toward that kind of activism speaks a lot to what's wrong with the country in general, why we might not be headed in a positive direction imo.

Short-sighted and ill-convceived policies, and the shameless attempts to capitalize on a national tragedy really upset me.

All of this and much much more are reasons behind my decision to be in NYC during the RNC to raise my voice in protest of the President.

also, i want someone to run as "The Jerry Orbach Candidate"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

kim jong-il's southern californian pothead cousin?

I have a weird feeling about this party.

will we see the unions, the police & firefighters' groups? of course not.

They will only get in trouble when they are seen to be attacking ordinary Americans. It will happen and it will suddenly look like they are attacking their own. Put that in your ass and light it, Rove, I want fireworks.

http://www.cursor.org/images/prowarprotest.jpg

(And oh, how I wish that he wasn't wearing a Cardinals shirt.)

sing, instead. I recommend Sam Cooke songs. You can start with the obvious "Chain Gang," and work your way from there.

this dude is totally otm

Gabbneb, I disagree, I think people are starting to wake up to how to use spin and might well behave with that in mind. I'd say it would also be a good idea to turn up in your work clothes if you do any 'identifiable' uniformed profession: UPS guys, mechanics, stewardesses, waitresses, truck drivers. I would also like to see a smattering of fast-food uniforms. Make the point and make it stick.

There's a call for a "khaki bloc" to confuse the cops.

that link might work a little better

early 70's college yearbooks have some FUCKED up design

August 25, 2004
G.O.P.'s Southern Strategy? Cranking Up Lynyrd Skynyrd
By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON

If the political right has a soundtrack, perhaps it used to be Bach's "Brandenburg" Concerto No. 2, the piece that introduced William F. Buckley Jr. on his program "Firing Line." But in 2004?

Two words: "Free Bird."

On the Sunday night before the first day of the Republican National Convention, the Southern rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd (or its latest incarnation) will be performing at the nightclub Crobar in Chelsea for a party honoring Southern Republicans in Congress. There are only two original members left in the band, but, as the song goes, "a bird you cannot change," and the band is still touring and still quite popular in the red states. For Sunday's event, the band members are going to be paid as if it were any other concert, but their manager, Ross Schilling, said money was not the only factor.

"They make no qualms about it: they are definitely a Republican band," he said, adding that the band performed at a party during the Republican National Convention in 2000 and at several campaign stops for President Bush.

Skynyrd is not the only member of the Southern rock delegation: on Monday, ZZ Top is scheduled to perform at a party at B.B. King's; the Charlie Daniels Band and 38 Special will perform the same night at an event at Crobar, and on Wednesday night the Marshall Tucker Band is scheduled to play at a concert at a Midtown club with the Dickey Betts Band (Mr. Betts being a former member of the Allman Brothers).

"I don't think anyone coordinated it this way," said Brandon Winfrey, who helped organize the Lynyrd Skynyrd party. "These are just great throwback bands and I think everybody enjoys them."

Throwbacks, maybe, but that does not mean they are uncontroversial: Charlie Daniels recently angered some Arab-Americans with a song that included the lyrics "This ain't no rag, it's a flag, and we don't wear it on our heads." And Lynyrd Skynyrd is known for waving a giant Confederate flag during their rendition of "Sweet Home Alabama."

It is not all going to be Nascar rock, of course. Otis Day and the Knights, the rhythm and blues band of "Animal House" fame, will be sharing the bill with Charlie Daniels.

(okay, okay, bad snipe but it's still funny!)

Have you ever lived down in the ghetto?
Have you ever felt the cold wind blow?
If you don’t know what I mean,
Won’t you stand up and scream?
’cause there’s things goin’ on that you don’t know.

Too many lives they’ve spent across the ocean.
Too much money been spent upon the moon.
Well, until they make it right
I hope they never sleep at night
They better make some changes
And do it soon.

They’re goin ruin the air we breathe
Lord have mercy.
They’re gonna ruin us all, by and by.
I’m telling you all beware
I don’t think they really care
I think they just sit up there
And just get high.

Those mornic, star-struck Nebraskans are such hayseeds. They love Brooks & Dunn, don't they?

" and potential New Jersey gubernatorial candidate and human punch line Joe Piscopo." WHA?

August 25, 2004
New York Judge Rules City Can Ban Protesters From Park
By CHRISTINE HAUSER and CARLA BARANAUCKAS

State Supreme Court judge in Manhattan ruled today that New York City can ban protesters from using the Great Lawn in Central Park on Sunday for a rally, the largest that has been planned to coincide with the Republican National Convention, which begins on Monday.

Justice Jacqueline W. Silbermann wrote in her ruling that the protesters' group, United for Peace and Justice, was "guilty of inexcusable and inequitable delay" in bringing its case against the city.

The group sued to try to force the city to grant a permit to rally in the park after months of negotiation failed to produce an agreement on where the demonstration could be held.

"The Parks Department appropriately applied content-neutral regulations while leaving plaintiff with a reasonable alternate site suitable with ample means of communication," the judge wrote. "Moreover, by seeking to invoke this court's equity jurisdiction mere days before the convention, plaintiff foreclosed an opportunity for the city to formulate an appropriate plan to ensure the safety of the public and to protect the city's parkland from what likely would be irreparable damage."

The national coordinator for United for Peace and Justice, Leslie Cagan, told the court on Tuesday that if the antiwar coalition was not allowed on the grass of the Great Lawn, "then we simply can't have the rally."

Ms. Cagan said later that the group still planned to march up Seventh Avenue past the convention site at Madison Square Garden.

In her ruling, Justice Silbermann took note of a similar case in which a federal judge in Manhattan this week refused to force the city to allow a large rally on Saturday on the Great Lawn, after the Bloomberg administration and protest organizers failed to reach a compromise. In denying the request, by the National Council of Arab Americans and the Answer Coalition, the federal judge cited security issues and the potential for damage among the reasons.

Justice Silbermann said that while the federal ruling "was not controlling" her decision, she noted that many of the same issues before her court had been "raised and considered" by the federal judge in his ruling.

Despite the two unfavorable rulings, many protesters say they still intend to go to the park, permit or not, and officials are making plans to police them.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said that the authorities wanted people to come to New York and speak their minds, but that some might "get a little bit over the top."

Speaking before Justice Silbermann's ruling, Mr. Bloomberg said, "We'll comply with the law, whatever it is, and we expect everybody to comply with the law."

Asked if he thought people might be frustrated with the extra security measures, Mr. Bloomberg said, "I think New Yorkers look forward to having extra security in this day and age."

In rejecting the protesters' arguments, Justice Silbermann wrote that "plaintiff cannot clearly demonstrate a constitutional violation" by the city in denying the permit.

"Defendants do not dispute that that plaintiff has a right under the State Constitution to engage in political speech," the judge said. "However, that privilege does not guarantee the right to communicate ones views at ail times and places or in any manner that may be desired."

And citing what she said were unacceptable delays by the coalition in bringing its case to court, the judge wrote that "plaintiff simply cannot be heard to bring a constitutional challenge to a march-and-rally plan it publicly and voluntarily agreed to on July 21, 2004 — more than one month ago."

"Indeed," she continued, "even after plaintiff reneged on that agreement on Aug. 1O, 2004, it waited an additional week to bring suit, unnecessarily prejudicing defendants."

Citing other court decisions, Justice Silbermann also said that "nothing in the Constitution commands that dissemination of all forms of speech at all times on all kinds of property are absolutely protected under the First Amendment, without regard for the nature of the activity, the property or the disruption that might be engendered by unregulated expressive activity in certain circumstances."

"Accordingly, speech may be regulated by reasonable time, place and manner restrictions," the judge wrote.

She added that in her judgment the Parks Department had met the law's requirements for setting "content neutral" regulations for parkland to be used for free-speech gatherings.

"There is no credible evidence," she concluded, "that the denial of plaintiff's permit application for a rally in Central Park was based on content or viewpoint."

The more I think about it, the more this seems like an abject failure. They should've taken the West Side rally spot - their objections were rather weak. Not to mention the spot would've been at West Street and Chambers - close to Ground Zero for maximum symbolism!

which words will Zell Miller use to describe John Kerry:
http://www.poolitics.com/?q=node/view/1458

Choice 1:
+ Flip-Flopper
Choice 2:
+ French-Looking
Choice 3:
+ Northern Liberal
Choice 4:
+ Out of the Mainstream
Choice 5:
+ Tax & Spender
Choice 6:
+ Unfit for Command
Choice 7:
+ Waffler

the problem is, you don't get a say in this, gabbnebb. people want to express their disapproval w/GWB and the media gives them no outlet to do it, except in periodic 1000-person-sample polls.

i hope dave225 was kidding when he said that about rednecks.

August 26, 2004
Speaker's Comments Anger New York Democrats
By WINNIE HU

Some of New York's Congressional Democrats yesterday denounced what they saw as House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's negative portrayal of their efforts to secure federal aid after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, accusing him of partisan politics less than a week before the Republican National Convention begins here.

Mr. Hastert, Republican of Illinois, was quoted in The New York Post yesterday as saying that federal aid had become the driving issue for the state's legislators after the terror attacks: "All the tragedy was converted into dollars and cents," The Post quoted him as saying. "People kind of lost the sense of the depth of the tragedy itself."

John Feehery, a spokesman for Mr. Hastert, disputed the Post article, saying that the speaker's views had been mischaracterized. "I don't think he was being critical at all," Mr. Feehery said. "He was just talking about the tragic situation surrounding 9/11."

"There's been no better friend to New York than Speaker Hastert," he said.

In a conference call yesterday, several Congressional Democrats reacted angrily to what they saw as another Republican attack on New York. Representative Jerrold Nadler said the $20 billion in federal aid the state was expected to receive covered just a fraction of the real financial impact on the city. "This administration has shown contempt for New York City, and done everything possible not to help us with funding," he said.

Representative Carolyn B. Maloney said that she found Mr. Hastert's comments to be "tremendously disturbing" and "extremely unfair." Nearly three years after the attacks, she said, New York still has unmet needs and unpaid bills.

"People who say it was a money-grubbing game, or that it was an unseemly scramble for dollars, do not understand the depths of the suffering people experienced, the real human needs that still exist today because the federal response has been lackluster," she said. "Instead of hurling accusations, we should be doing what we did after 9/11, being united and working to solve these problems."

yeah, when people see him on the street, they say "godDAMN, that kid's a BIG FAT FUCK!"

how to sublet your apartment for the RNC -- republican-style!

exactly. this is about expression, not results (or resistance). i am interested in results. getting rid of Bush is going to require convincing a threshold number of undecided voters not to vote for Bush and hopefully to also vote for Kerry. if there's one thing we know about swing voters, as a group, it's that they don't like (are afraid of?) strident criticism of Bush or the war (or anything?). they are not rebellious people. i am all for a protest that convinced more people not to vote for Bush. i am against a protest that convinces more people to vote Bush. (incidentally, I don't think this pre-convention Sunday march will hurt, necessarily, and conceivably could help, provided it is very large and very orderly/peaceful, but even if it were a huge symbolic statement, I think most battleground staters would say 'so what, we know people in New York don't like Bush.')

and the media gives them no outlet to do it, except in periodic 1000-person-sample polls.

well yes, we live in a mass culture. i suppose that participation in an angry massed response is the easiest way for an individual to feel like he or she makes a statement. i place more trust in the iconography selected by the opposing political professionals - sending money to help them put ads on the air and hold rallies and bus tours (participating if possible, but these probably don't happen where you live because you've chosen a place where more people are like you). if you want to participate more organically, I think it's more effective to engage in personal dialogue with undecided voters by visiting their states or writing letters to them or their newspapers.

the problem is, you don't get a say in this, gabbnebb.

Right, I get a say only in what I do myself, and what I can convince others to do (not necessarily likely). I choose to restrain, or use differently, my desire for self-expression.

unfortunately gabbneb, i think you may be fully on the money here, but hopefully it'll charge up the lazy democrats to think, "hell yes, i'll go and vote" which is probably as important i guess (providing it's a nice peaceful march)

This may be true of battleground staters in general, but I'm not so sure it's true of the swing voters. Let's recall: these are the voters who tend to be the least politically informed. These are the people who are sitting here in late August, after four years of a Bush administration and at least a year of intensive election coverage, and they still haven't figured out who they like better, Kerry or Bush! I wouldn't assume they know much of anything about national voting patterns.

I agree that that's possible. But we just don't know in advance how it will play

Well, it may help to recall that in the archetypal example of convention-related unrest, Chicago 1968, the unrest happened at the Democratic Convention and it was the Democrats that lost the election.

a display of anger at powerlessness makes Bush look strong and his opposition look weak.

I don't think people will demonstrate because they feel powerless, gabbneb.

c.f. "the media gives them no outlet to do it,"

I'm not so sure. Bush came into office by promising "compassionate conservatism" and promising to "change the tone" in Washington. Instead he has become one of the most polarizing Presidents in recent memory. Although polls show that voters give him points for decisiveness, I think there is also a perception that he can be a bit headstrong and arrogant. I'm not sure that the image of a President who angers large numbers of people is really the image that Rove and co. would like to project, regardless of the qualms that swing voters may have about the protesters' particular positions.

I'm not so sure. Bush came into office by promising "compassionate conservatism" and promising to "change the tone" in Washington

right. and then we got 9/11, and Bush is a completely different President. he's not even trying to make himself nice for the middle. he trusts that their fear of terrorism will lead them to prefer decisiveness to 'flip-flopping,' "every time" as he likes to say.

That's not the impression that I get from looking at the RNC speakers line-up. It's chock full of moderates, liberals even (Pataki, Schwartzenegger, Bloomberg!) - even a Democrat (Miller).

bah xpost

The "return to normalcy" meme:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110005288

i guess my question to you is: has mass protest ever been effective, in your view, or was it once, but now something about political culture makes in counterproductive?

Well, I think it's more than a trope. I think it's integral to many right-wingers' being. And I think that it's at least to some extent part of the makeup of some or many swing voters. Making the decision to vote for someone, to some extent, is an election of affinity with the candidate and their supporters. Acting in a way that swing voters wouldn't will damage the effort to have them declare that affinity.

has mass protest ever been effective, in your view, or was it once, but now something about political culture makes in counterproductive?

it was most effective in the civil rights movement, because the protesters (many of them, at least) were disenfranchised and asserting rights (of free movement and association) denied to them personally. Protesting about policy in a representative democracy is very different.

"And, if Kerry is a hypocrite for having served in a war he opposed, what about Dick Cheney--who avoided serving in a war he supported?"

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040906&s=trb090604

is this the best you can do, protesting americans?

is my position the law for all time on the left or a highly contingent preference?

am I asking anyone to change their views in any respect or to refrain from expressing them, or am i asking them only to carefully choose the means by which they express them?

i don't view my position as an attempt to prove that I am normal and reasonable. I view my position as an abnormal concession to people who are different from me to better position myself to reach an attainable common goal. It's called compromise, or politics. Is it right wing to ask John Kerry to shake hands with people who might be on the fence?

The marchers aren't Democratic campaign operatives. They're people, and they're pissed. And expressing that is what democracy is all about.

There is no hope: no "Vote or Die"; no club songs about doing good or resisting war; no
rappers confessing they had never registered in the past but, well, things are different now. Eight years later, and staring down the
barrel of four more, there is no reason to feel that way again. We're all tired as hell.

(xpost yance i seriously doubt the article points to politix reciprocating, just that there is "something resembling a choice" now and not when 2pac was being self-destructive, and hip-hop [or at least russell simmons] wants you to know that)

-- gabbneb (gabbne...), August 27th, 2004 9:16 AM. (gabbneb) (later)

http://wwws.mmjbdata.com/graphics/www.mmguide.musicmatch.com/album_image/amg/drf000/f032/f03265ob6df.jpg

simmons only looks really rich by the "he's a *black* entrepeneur" standard. by the standards of real wealth in america, he's pushing chump change.

Prior to the sale, Russell Simmons' net worth was estimated at $200 million. Simmons still manages a number of properties like Oneworld magazine, Rush Media, an advertising agency, The Rush PrePaid Visa Card, RushMobile and a host of other properties. After establishing Phat Farm in 1992, Simmons had reportedly sought $200-$300 million for the company.

(2pac from beyond the grave: man in 96 we didn't see any hope, but i didn't realize how cool clinton could become, that one day my music would fascinate the next leading centrist democratic candidate like a bug under a microscope and he'd really hear where i was coming from so he could get on MTV and reach out to that important core constituency of minority youth. shit, i'm sorry i signed with death row. i shoulda run with bad boy entertainment and put out 'hey ya' before outkast even thought of that shit.)

A nationwide survey found that 16% of voters in 1992 made up their minds during the last three days before the election, 8% during the last week, and 18% during the last two weeks. Twenty four percent decided sometime in the fall and 33% earlier than the fall. Perot voters were almost twice as likely to make up their minds in the last three days as Clinton and Bush supporters. Older voters make up their minds earlier than others. The poll was taken by Voter Research & Surveys, November 3, 1992, for a consortium including ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, and CNN.

source: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v14/ai_14345487

from Kerry's April 15, 2004 campaign speech:

This president had a unique opportunity after September 11th to ask Americans to join together to do something special for America-not just ask soldiers to go and risk their lives. Those are the young people who are bearing the greatest brunt of the world we live in today. But we all ought to be bearing some responsibility for the world we live in today. Too many children left behind every single day. An America that's content to run almost a farm system for prisons in our country.

I used to be-I used to be a prosecutor. And I used to go spend time and talk to kids, 15, 16 and 17 years old who are in trouble.

And I'd ask them, you know, “What happened? How did you get here? Tell me about your life.” There wasn't a kid I talked to in trouble, in the court system, who didn't tell me about the absence of adults in their life, or the abuse of adults, or the neglect of adults, or the chaos that they were living in, and the struggle to try to get a hold of a piece of life and make something out of their lives. Not a kid.

And I'll tell you something, we've got to stop being a country that's content to spend $50,000 a year, or $70,000 a year to send a young person to prison for the rest of their life, rather than invest $10,000 a year in Head Start, Early Start, Smart Start, early childhood education, and AmeriCorps. (Applause.)

hiphop in the election

Republican fundraisers on Wall St shy away from Bush
By David Wighton in New York and James Harding in Washington
Published: August 26 2004 20:58 | Last updated: August 26 2004 20:58

Wall Street's enthusiasm for US President George W. Bush appears to have
cooled as the presidential race tightens and concerns grow about foreign
policy and fiscal deficits.

Some leading fundraisers of Mr Bush's re-election bid have stopped
active campaigning and others privately voice reservations.

The New York financial community is expected to give the Republicans a
lavish welcome when the president's party arrives for its national
convention next week. Wall Street has been a big contributor to Mr
Bush's record-breaking re-election fund. But one senior Wall Street
figure, once talked of as a possible Bush cabinet member, said that he
and other prominent Republicans had been raising money with increasing
reluctance. “Many are doing so with a heavy heart and some not at all.”
He cited foreign policy and the ballooning federal deficit as Wall
Street Republicans' main concerns.

A Republican in the financial services industry concurs. “Many of them
may be maxed out,” he said, referring to campaign contributions that
have hit the legal ceiling, “but they are backing away from Bush.”

The deficit has been criticised by Peter Peterson, chairman and
co-founder of Blackstone Group, the New York investment firm, and former
commerce secretary under President Richard Nixon. In his new book,
Running on Empty, he accuses both parties of recklessness but attacks
the Republican leadership for a “new level of fiscal irresponsibility”.

One New York dinner in June 2003 raised more than $4m, partly thanks to
the efforts of Stan O'Neal, chief executive of Merrill Lynch. Yet Mr
O'Neal has done no fundraising for the campaign at all since then and
friends say he is not supporting Mr Bush. “He is best described as
independent,” said one. Another senior Wall Street figure, who has given
money to the campaign, said he was among many Wall Street bosses who
were impressed with Mr Bush's handling of the September 11 attacks. “But
since then, I have lost faith over foreign policy and tax,” he said.

Even those who are campaigning for Mr Bush sound increasingly defensive.
“Whether or not you like him, you can't change leaders during a war,”
said the head of one Wall Street firm.

That's it. I'm voting for Bush.

Nearly 250 bicyclists were arrested during a mass protest that passed Madison Square Garden Friday night, the first major police crackdown on demonstrators just days before a wave of activists were expected to descend for the Republican National Convention.

The cyclists had snaked through Manhattan for the monthly Critical Mass ride. But what was usually a crowd of hundreds swelled to thousands Friday, with organizers saying the excursion drew a horde of bikers who wanted to protest the convention....

yup, something tells me than some bad shit is gunna go down...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/08/28/ny.bombplot/index.html

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040827/capt.nydb10108271614.cvn_protests_nydb101.jpg

Elizabeth Bird, second from right, and her daughter Sylvia, 2, of Brooklyn, walk across the Brooklyn Bridge, Friday, Aug. 27, 2004, in New York, as part of a protest organized by the group 'Mothers Opposing Bush.' (AP Photo/ Diane Bondareff)

SOMEONE STOP THEM! THEY'RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO SHRUBYA'S HANDS, OMGWTF!?!?!

live, unnarrated footage from today's UPJ march

i wish the dorks with the red Che flags would have left them on their dorm walls...

Yes, let's take it right down to the macro level and settle the election with a fight between two little guys.

but you sound so open minded and potentially fun in bed!

One of the interesting things about this week for me is watching auditions for 2008, both on and off the podium. On it, we get McCain, Giuliani and Mark Racicot (?) on Mon night, Frist and Schwarzenegger on Tuesday, Romney on Wednesday and Pataki on Thursday (George Allen already spoke this AM). I don't see any podium appearance by my pick of consensus candidates - CO Gov. Bill Owens.

Yes, let's take it right down to the macro level and settle the election with a fight between two little guys.

Micro, I believe...

Sun Aug 29 02PM: I went to the huge rally/march/protest in NYC. Compared to the anti-war protest in February, 2003, there was astoundingly little violence. The worst I saw was a rowdy protester swipe an anti-Kerry sign from an anti-Kerry dude behind a fence, which was a shame because people were actually engaging in civilized, sometimes calm debate across the fence. The snatching initiated a lot of yelling and then some cops showed up out of nowhere and created a four-foot margin on either side of the fence and told the protesters to keep walking, which we did. Nobody got hurt, everyone calmed down, and nobody was mad at anyone except the sign-snatcher. The NYPD showed an exceptional level of the Courtesy, Professionalism, and Respect they're always bragging about. They genuinely seemed concerned with maintaining peace and order and didn't instigate any sort of hostility with anyone.

The only thing that really pissed me off today was Fox News. After the march passed Madison Square Gardens (the venue of the actual RNC), a huge screen showing the live Fox News broadcast was visible on the side of a building. William and I watched for about ten minutes and saw the following: "Mr. Splainer" explaining in an interview what was going on inside MSG, a shot of an empty NYC street (yeah, because everyone was PROTESTING ON SEVENTH AVE), a report on the rise of meth labs in Fresno, and finally some live coverage from Orlando, where the MTV Music Video Awards will soon be shot. Text at the bottom of the screen explained that Howard Stern appeared as Fartman at the awards in 1992.

I'm not saying these guys need to always be 100% fair and balanced, but the streets of the most important city in the world were flooded with hundreds of thousands of people who were -- ah, forget it. Fuck Fox News.

People were stopping in front of MSG. And, like your friend said, Fox News had their ugly billboard ("We Report. You Decide." ... right) and a big TV screen where the crowd turned down 34th. Which promted a "Fox News Sucks" chant.

Wound up heading home from 34th to get some food and water and sit in the AC. But, huge success and glad to have been a part of it. Nice to see democracy in action and made me really appreciate NYC.

"I left God's country," said Leon Mosley of Waterloo, Iowa, co-chairman of his state party. "They could use a bunch of people from Iowa to come here to show New Yorkers what life is all about, what being patriotic is all about, and what country is all about. I'm as confident about Bush being re-elected as I am that eggs are going to be in New York tomorrow morning.'

Jason Glodt, executive director of the South Dakota Republican Party, said he thought the protesters did "reflect the base of the Democratic Party," and added: "I hope that all Americans are taking a close look at those protesters and what they represent. I don't think they represent American values.

"It's not their freedom of speech that we disagree with," Mr. Glodt said, "it's the content of what they're saying. It really only motivates us even more to go home and work harder at the grass-roots level and make sure people are going out and voting."

good thing he doesn't make the half-effort to actually list anything the other side is "saying"

Regardless of what the candidates say on the issues, this boils down to a gigantic "Who do you trust?" macroquestion; the main reason I'm voting Democrat is not because John Kerry's views line up with mine (although for the most part they do), it's because when he says something I don't jump up and scream "LIAR! FUCKING HORSESHIT DUMBASS LIAR! FUCK YOU AND YOUR WHOLE FAMILY!" at the television.

you should TOTALLY get that on a t-shirt

By Karen Freifeld
Staff Writer

August 29, 2004, 9:03 PM EDT

Newsday photographer Moises Saman - who spent eight days in an Iraqi prison in 2003 - was arrested Sunday in Times Square while covering a protest related to the Republican convention.

"I was photographing a guy getting arrested and somebody grabbed me from the back with a lot of force and made me fly backwards," said the award-wining photographer, who was working at 45th Street and 7th Avenue at about 5 p.m. when the incident occurred. "I turned around and it was a police officer in a white shirt. He just said something like, 'You're arrested, ... I told you to move.' But he (had) never said anything to me."

Spencer Platt, a staff photographer for Getty Images, who was on the scene, said police had started to arrest some quasi-anarchists on the street corners when police got rough with Saman and others.

"There were about 10 photographers photographing what I think was an arrest," said Platt. "And a cop just walked up, arbitrarily grabbed Moises by his shoulders and just threw him backwards. ... Moises was on the ground dazed and shocked. We're all yelling, 'What are you doing?' and he picked him up off the street and arrested him. I've never seen anything like it."

Saman, 30, said cops handcuffed him and put him in a van with about 10 protestors, took a Polaroid photograph of him, and drove him to the West Side pier, where a temporary processing center has been set up for those arrested during the protests. "By that time, they already knew about me and they took me aside from the rest of the protestors," Saman said. "They told me they were going to let me go."

Police officials later said several photographers were taken into custody when a group of protestors blocking the sidewalk were arrested. After officials realized they were members of the media, police said they were released and no charges were pressed.

Saman said it took about two hours before he was released. An officer then escorted him to the West Side Highway, where he hailed a cab and returned to Times Square to continue to work.

The Newsday photographer along with Newsday reporter Matt McAllester, was held by Saddam Hussein's security agents at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in March 2003 as U.S. trooped pressed into Baghdad,.

What's his relationship with Bush? "Fine, but it's been fine since 2000 ... [they have sports in common; it's not such that he wants to describe it]"

What's his relationship with Kerry? "Excellent, excellent ... we're very close friends ... he is a good friend and he has my respect"

Also, nice for him to call our European allies that as well.

They have NO PLAN.

For the economy, for the Middle East, for anything.

Yet all anyone can talk about is how their smears have "worked."

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL.

I'm ready to go back on everything I said about Kerry staying above the fray. Actually, I'd settle for him getting within ten feet of the fray.

I, like most Americans, have no idea what that means.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040831_691.html

Democrats flip-flop, Republicans merely back-track

I'm not sure about this little comedy act the girls are putting on here, though.

Republicans are so weird.

The "Sex and the City" quip brought the mutest response, predictably.

well maybe they're doing their best for their party. you know, the Democrats. note Barbara's line about getting a lot of shit at Yale because her Dad is a Republican. but I doubt it.

- Bullshit about the GOP being the party of immigrants? Check!
- Bullshit about individualism? Check!
- Extra special Bullshit about 'vested interests'? Check!
- Bullshit about Lincoln, Nixon, Roosevelt? Check!
- Bullshit about what being a Republican means? Check!
- Bullshit about 'The American Dream'? CHECK!!
- Bullshit 'I'll Be Back' gags? Check!
- Bullshit 'Four More Years' two minute hate type mantra? Check!
- Bullshit pronouncements on other countries disguised as patriotism? Check!
- Loathsome Bullshit about terminating enemies? Check!

well, duh, but it was really good-sounding bullshit

Well okay I'm immune to his charms maybe, blinkered whatever, but I can't see how anyone exposed to that could even consider voting republican. Unless they think casting a vote is the same as buying a movie stub. Laura Bush's speech, yes. That was good.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040901/i/r38137575.jpg

Choice 1:
+ Flip-Flopper
Choice 2:
+ French-Looking
Choice 3:
+ Northern Liberal
Choice 4:
+ Out of the Mainstream
Choice 5:
+ Tax & Spender
Choice 6:
+ Unfit for Command
Choice 7:
+ Waffler
Choice 8:
Franken -something
Choice 9:
Botox Johnny

anyway, i can't objectively evaluate Rudy's speech because i'm completely resistant to whatever hold he has on people (which i actually think isn't that strong - i think part of it is that Republicans like that he can appeal to Democrats), but i still don't think there was anything special about it. not bad, sure, but pretty much just a bunch of red meat to a hungry but wounded crowd. it was too long. and what was up with the rambling we're-all-just-sitting-around-with-some-cigars section in the late middle?

As for fair - I thought insults were the name of the game?

x-post

FINALLY the Republicans are taking a page from the Bill Clinton handbook! (sorry)

And when you do analyze it on something other than some sort of vague "audience appreciation" scale or whatever, it falls completely flat - and quite honestly what he said scared the crap outta me and made me glad I wasn't around for much of his time as NYC's mayor. And fuck being "objective," it's way too late in the game for that. The GOP certainly isn't these days.

(xpost)

I think there was more ... all this in only three minutes or so.

(xposts)

Actually, that's a platitude. But I'm just working it through in my head.

"I don't know anyone who's trying to exploit 9/11," he said. [emphasis added]

"It's an example of the police suckering the protesters," said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, referring to the arrest of some 200 protesters who said they thought they were abiding by an agreement they had negotiated with the police as they marched from ground zero on Fulton Street.

"It was a bait-and-switch tactic," she added, "where they approved a demonstration and the protesters kept up their end of the bargain. They undermined people's confidence in the police, and that's a serious problem as we go forward."

Indeed, the turning point appeared to come as several hundred protesters with the War Resisters League tried to begin a march up Fulton Street that organizers had negotiated with police, although they did not have a permit.

Ed Hedemann, one of the organizers, said their understanding was that if they stayed on the sidewalk and did not block foot traffic or vehicles, they could proceed toward Madison Square Garden.

But within minutes, the protesters were confronted by a line of police officers who told demonstrators they were blocking the sidewalk and would be arrested, although they did not appear to be blocking pedestrian traffic at that point.

A commanding officer, telling the crowd of about 200 "you're all under arrest," ordered other officers to bring the "prison van" and the "orange netting" with which to enmesh the protesters.

"We don't know why we are being arrested, we were just crossing the street," said Lambert Rochfort, who was among the protesters. "We were told if we don't do anything illegal we would be allowed to march on the sidewalk and we did just that. Then they arrested us for no apparent reason."

The persuasion doesn't come from the rhetoric, I think; It's a purs show of strength. The party with the most people cheering speeches the loudest with the most aggressive speakers saying the most aggressive things is the strongest. (I remember somebody discussing this briefly in a book or talk about war - that most firing is used as an intimidation not as an attack, and he said the same elements are found in all manner of events, including political rallys)

Wait a minute. Maybe he was.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040831/capt.nyr13708311642.cvn_patriot_art_nyr137.jpg

Artist Scott LoBaido, a self-styled 'creative patriot,' stands in front of his painting called 'Have Faith,' a portrayal of President Bush on horseback, triumphantly clutching the severed head of Osama bin Laden, by the turban, at the Tribute Gallery Monday, Aug. 30, 2004, in New York. 'I wanted to let the Republicans know there are some creative people in this city who are on their side,' the 39-year-old artist said last week as his exhibit opened just before the Republican National Convention. (AP Photo/Scout Tufankjian)

...maybe a merkin?

http://academic.evergreen.edu/k/kenmic21/poster_small_hitler_in_armor.gif

http://home.att.net/~jvbond0007/grp203.jpg

You can call it hyperbole if you must, but if you don't see the propagandistic parallels you aren't familiar with the term "willfull blindness."

Protests upstage Convention tonight on 11 o'clock news.
Every major TV news channel presented footage of the protests (including bystander complaints of police brutality), some for 15-20 minutes, before mentioning what happened tonite inside the Convention.

and i don't necessarily think it's based on that kinda propaganda. surely there's some rendering of St George(the british one, ho ho) somewhere with flag & slain enemy?

while i'm not accusing you of anything, hstencil (you've def. been paying attention beyond 30 minutes on Comedy Central), that statement sums up my entire problem with most young liberals I know (esp. as they start turning more ignorantly fatalistic about the election).

xp yeah, that's what i meant. the tradition goes back a loonnnnng time

Ted Koppel was weird, jokes were good, typical Daily Show.

xpost - the tradition goes back a long time, but sorta ended after WWII for good reason (except for Soviet art, I guess).

Ahh, but it could still be irony - even more so with said title. (And for argument's sake: What if it were intentional irony? What if Franken/Moore had painted it? And who says this guy isn't playing for the team left of center?)

"and i don't necessarily think it's based on that kinda propaganda. surely there's some rendering of St George(the british one, ho ho) somewhere with flag & slain enemy?"

On the other hand, if it's not based on "that kinda propaganda" isn't it still propaganda and perhaps not equally creepy, but creepy nonetheless?

Painting W with Osama's head in one hand, the Stars & Stripes in the other, sitting on the hood of a Hummer - now that, that'd pass the, 'well it's not "that kinda propaganda" test,' but to harken back to say to revolution-era style (both in subject and style)? Come again?

i don't think that it HAS to have been directly influenced by blatantly fascist propaganda to be "crypto-fascist." there exists imagery that attracts crypto-fascists like honey attracts bears. "man on a horse" and "religious overtones" are both pretty high up on that list (as well as "classical" [as opposed to "abstract" or "impressionist"] modes of expression).

but i'm just being the master of the obvious here, methinks.

true, but I'm pissed that so many people are satisfied with a half-hour of liberal yuks. that the daily show doesn't inspire them to follow-up the obviously fucked-with stories (anybody see that piece about the gas station attendant during the Kerry epsiode? anybody sure what REALLY happened?) and learn more elsewhere. Daily Show may be MORE informed than local news watchers (easy to assume if you're liberal, which I am), but I don't consider folks who proudly say that they get ALL their news from the Daily Show (and I know folks of all ages who say it) to be informed at all.

people who think Bill O'Reilly is the smartest man on TV are hopeless fucks who I WANT to sit on that couch and not act on their beliefs.

but i think you're right, if i read a little extra into what you're saying: i'm more or less the stereotypical lefty who has no faith in anything, and that could well be a common thread between the breed. and that's what really troubles you, right? the lack of ACTION or whatever.

i'm picking up the gauntlet: who or what on television is better? besides cardinals games at the moment.

There was a story on Mr. Parmar in the Times the other day.

this is very good.

I guess I know what I'm not.

I'd say the Right Wing is the "breed" who lacks faith.

HELP WANTED - CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Excellent benefits, Housing provided, 4 year contract Qualified candidate must have extensive experience in turning around company/country with low morale and financial issues. Specific areas of expertise include an ability to enhance relations with our outside partners/allies, provide health care options for more employees/citizens, and willingness to focus on the elimination of a continuing external threat, without allowing personal issues/family grudges to divert resources. Readiness to admit mistakes and correct course midstream is a plus. USA is an equal opportunity employer/nation, does not discriminate and expects the same from the successful candidate. Must be able to relocate to Washington DC. Position available January, 2005. CR - PHIL

Have you read _Native Son_?

People ask me all the time whether George has changed. He's a little grayer - and of course, he has learned and grown as we all have. But he's still the same person I met at a backyard barbecue in Midland, Texas and married three months later. And you've come to know many of the same things that I know about him. He'll always tell you what he really thinks.

The thing that combats that narrative most effectively: reality, complexity. People may find something alluring in that message, but people are by and large a bit cynical in this country, or at least skeptical, and I think there are ways that the Democrats can tap into that without seeming negative or whiny. This administration as a whole has been super-long on reassuring spectacle, and I hope to God that the remainder of the campaign includes a lot of good-natured Wizard of Oz style curtain-pulling. Forget "issues"; so long as Republicans continue with this elision of Bush/America there will be no "issues"; in fact one of the most tragic after-effects if 9/11 is taking the focus off of a domestic administration that, under normal circumstances, would surely have pitlike approval ratings. This will become, for better or worse, a race about whose hands people would rather have America in -- not whose policies, but whose hands -- and when it comes down to it, it shouldn't be that hard to convince people that it's not George's; it should be triply easy -- since it doesn't play as well to attack George "America" Bush" -- to convince people that it's not the universally-feared administration underneath him. I doubt there are many Americans who don't find many of the major figures in this cabinet totally creepy and frightening and skepticism-inspiring, even on personal levels, and some shots need to come in from there.

sorry, maybe it's not, but i felt like cinniblount typified this in that other thread (and admittedly i don't know his politics either so i could be misinterpreting here, but he's wrong either way):

"the easiest way to get the 'real' left defensive is suggest they get off their ass and work toward establishing a progressive majority and maybe just once making even a half-step toward accomplishing any of their goals. it's a pity the radical right isn't as completely uninterested in results as the radical left." (= o nate's "just work within the system" post in so many words)

vs.

"who was involved in the kucinich campaign: the 'real' left (haha - "involved"), yknow that silent majority that is just waiting there if only a 'real' democrat would come along (yknow, like dennis kucinich)."

and

"if the Democratic establishment could rally behind an angry anti-war governor from a tiny state i'm pretty damn sure they could've rallied behind a considerably less-angry anti-war congressman from fucking ohio (only the jewel in the fucking crown), but then people didn't show up for the congressman from ohio (the 'real' left must've overslept that day)"

(=dennis kucinich was an uberleft candidate who was wiped out simply because his political policies isolated the american public, ergo you're an insane extremist, assimilate or be destroyed)

FUCK YOU, VOTE FOR KERRY

The 'work within the system!!!' stuff is complete bullshit, though. The system is tailored to people with money. By and large, these people are not leftists.

Continuing to blindly and proudly support the Democratic Party is suicide for progressive causes. If they have your vote in pocket, their's no need to address your issues, there's no need to actually enact policies that you care about or support.

Voting for a third-party really isn't that much better, but it's something - to say that the way to enact progressive legislation and causes is to "work within the Democrats" is incomprehensible, given the last two decades of the Democratic policy.

Blount's line about telling them to build a progressive majority outside of elections is a bit of a strawman - one, this is purely a question of electoral politics, two, you don't need a progressive majority - conservatives poll at 20-25% but they've been damn good at enacting their agenda.

Hey, that's fine! The left can play that game if they want to. The only problem is - it's never going to happen. The moderates are never going to reach out to the left when it's politically less risky to keep reaching towards the center. If the left wants influence, they're going to get a bit more organized about it.

Perhaps the reason that the religious right is more successful at this is that religious fundamentalists are by nature sheep, whereas leftists tend to be artists, dreamers and nonconformists - people who don't naturally follow leaders or take direction well.

Sure, money talks in politics - but votes talk louder. Religious fundamentalists didn't get to their current level of influence by being richer than everyone else.

The smartest, most productive path for progressive causes is mass action (as it always has been), but that's not exactly relevant to the DNC v. GOP v. Greens v. Anyone Else.

And Nate, sure they did. You think the Christian Coalition and Dobson et al. came out of thin air?

I don't feel the need to show any faux-respect for religion here.

The remarkable thing is that despite all of this, Republicans continue to whistle past the graveyard. That's not principle, that's discipline. There's a big difference. And I'd much rather be part of a fractious party riven by debate than a collection of drones submerging principle for the sake of Dear Leader. That's fascism, pure and simple, and I want no part of it.

i know these are tough times but ("far left"!!) liberals' love for john mccain (and the cia! wtf!) is a little unseemly. respect, sure, but seriously...

i mean the radical right basically = the white superrich and white christian fundies while the radical left = the poor, minorities, and atheists

is a minority of the rich and the exceptionally christian really equivalent to a collection of disparate minorities with poverty and impotence as perhaps the only common threads in a country where money talks and well over half of the population is christian?

i don't know about you but i'd have had no trouble picking the winning dog in that fight.

I didn't want to get into this, but I do at least have to ask this question, the same question I asked in a years-old Nader debate on here. For those who're so resistant to backing centrist, plausibly-electable Democratic candidates: what do you imagine this attitude will, in the long run, achieve? Electorally speaking. Seriously, what's the concrete end goal of this stance, and how are we going to get there? What are the results?

huh?

you might get some arguments from religious people about 'scary', 'guy' and/or 'sky'. not to mention 'hell'

In the long run, people hope to see more Wellstones and Kuciniches on the ballot and fewer Al Gores and Zell Millers.

The "how we gonna get there" argument falls flat - you don't need a point-by-point plan to save the future in order to criticize the present or consider better options.

the best political lesson i ever got was a finite math class: "under any voting system, actors must decide to vote in such a way that has the greatest chance of delivering the outcome closest to their wishes."

xpost

it's not at all. we just don't understand the practical alternative, which expresses indifference to a moderate left v. a moderate-to-conservative-to-radical right outcome.

Hence Dean's support among Naderite lefties. He was more of a centrist than Kerry, but he was an honest centrist, which appealed to them.

The "extreme" left is as reactionary, insular and self-involved as the "extreme" right; the major ideological difference I see is that left-leaning moderates don't feel like they can misrepresent their views as a means of attaining/maintaining power (painting in really broad strokes with a brush made completely of pulled-this-analysis-out-of-my-ass so don't ask for footnotes).

Is there any conceivable way that the "extreme left" could please you?

a) painfully immature;
b) a gigantic asshole.

There are some people out on the left who could never be happy with someone to their right, yes. But a lot of disgruntled lefties (and that goes for people who continue supporting and voting DNC) would be appeased by small measures. Shows of good faith that the party and its leadership are listening to them and are interested in their issues. As long as the DLC has the reins, that will never happen.

Kerry won't be pro-same sex marriage. So he compromises to civil unions before he can be attacked. Only now the compromise of the compromise will be what, toothless civil unions? Nominal status without legal protections?

As for Milo, the part of your answer that interests me most is your hope to see “more Wellstones and Kuciniches” on the ballots, which I’m interpreting as an admission that you would prefer to achieve your aims through the Democratic party—specifically by pushing for a more progressive version of it than we currently see. If your plan is to withhold support from centrists until such point as the party’s forced to reach leftward to regain them, then fine—that’s totally coherent. But it doesn’t match any of the rhetoric you’ve laid out above, and if the goal is to pull the party leftward, surely this is more easily accomplished from within it than as a dissenter (cf everything just said about the religious right, who for what it’s worth do plenty of principled criticism of the right when there’s not an office at stake). And while you may not need a point-by-point plan in order to criticize the present options, you’re not simply criticizing them; you’re basically, from what I’ve read, advocating a course of action (withholding support from centrist Democrats). Which makes it reasonable to ask what you plan to accomplish with that action, particularly when it appears to work in direct opposition to what you claim to want to accomplish.

So by electing moderate - and Clinton/Gore were very much center-right in orientation, not -left anything - you want to push things leftward? Huh? That's the strategy that, for the past twenty years, has encouraged the right's agenda to move forward at a rapid clip. I mean, if your 'plan' had shown any signs of doing anything, maybe. But it hasn't.

Nabisco, nowhere did I say my aim was for Wellstones and Kuciniches. That's a nice goal and much better than Gores and Millers. What I said was I don't consider electoral politics to ever be conducive to progressive causes. All the progressive leaps forward have been made outside the political mainstream through protest and action and forcing the politicians to come to you. Trying to accomplish an agenda primarily through our electoral system, built the way it is, and more than that trying to change the way an entire electoral system works is a bit of a fool's game.

xpost - Your assumption is that there is a candidate strongly preferred. And not just in an oppositional format (lesser-evil) but in and of himself. If Kerry were running against a principled, honest, intelligent conservative instead of an Evil Chimp would he still be so appetizing?

I am not yet sure if that's a large enough lapse in judgement to keep me from voting for him. So far it isn't; we'll see how far he pushes this homeland security issue before the election.

And the question is in no sense heavily-loaded: it's a flat question of what you hope for, what your plans are! This is only a loaded question if what you hope for and plan to achieve is to endlessly criticize the political system as an excuse to never have to (a) support an actual candidate or (b) admit that your views are -- as much as mine -- marginalized and unlikely to be represented by an electable candidate.

Your second graph rumbles right over reality, by the way; what having even centrist Democrats in power accomplishes is to not have far-right conservatives in power. Call it oppositional if you wish, but to me that's a "preferable" outcome even if it doesn't result in any immediate catering to an outright progressive agenda.

Also, dude, you just skipped again around the issue of how you think progressive politics can succeed; you say "people" want to see more progressive Democrats on various tickets; now you say you specifically find that nice, but progressive causes only really work from a grass-roots level. In which case I agree with you, except all we're doing is talking about two different phases of a progressive cause; the one where it's marginalized and the one where it becomes non-marginal enough to be serviced by a major political party. Personally I don't think any particular issues have reached that tipping-point quite yet; I don't see any magic-bullet marginalized progressive issues that have anything near the groundswell associated with them to actually put any reasonable sway to the Democratic party. So I'm with you as far as methods, but there ain't a thing out there that's ready to tip the scales; work on the groundswell first, and then start playing the electoral politics.

What kind of choice is that? I don't want to have to strategize with my vote. I want to be able to vote for the candidate whom I feel speaks to my interests. Instead, I have to sit around and think about whom I'd rather have as an adversary on Nov. 3. That's democracy?

Nabisco:
And the question is in no sense heavily-loaded: it's a flat question of what you hope for, what your plans are!
No, it asked "Why aren't the leftists supporting the centrists? What is there to gain for them by not supporting the centrists, huh?" That's loaded - it's an assumption that they should be supporting centrism (to accomplish their agenda, presumably) and are willfully doing the opposite.

Hence turning it around on you.

Your second graph rumbles right over reality, by the way; what having even centrist Democrats in power accomplishes is to not have far-right conservatives in power. Call it oppositional if you wish, but to me that's a "preferable" outcome even if it doesn't result in any immediate catering to an outright progressive agenda.
Which accomplishes exactly what I said - nothing. You just keep giving ground away in order to keep them from taking more. It's defeatist, unless you're a big fan of welfare-reform.

The only way that strategy even starts to become coherent is if you've abandoned all hope of progress and reform.

Also, dude, you just skipped again around the issue of how you think progressive politics can succeed; you say "people" want to see more progressive Democrats on various tickets; now you say you specifically find that nice, but progressive causes only really work from a grass-roots level.
No, I answered your question where you misread me and attributed what other people are looking for in opposing center/center-right Democrats to me.

The two things you refer to aren't contradictory. One is an assessment of what disgruntled Democrats are looking for, and the other is how I view our options for progress.

So I'm with you as far as methods, but there ain't a thing out there that's ready to tip the scales; work on the groundswell first, and then start playing the electoral politics.
You should probably read what I've said about electoral politics before saying this. I don't play electoral politics, I don't think it's productive for progressives to pin their hopes on them. If the electoral systems gets a little more progressive great, but it can't be the focus.

Watching the last six years of elections, though, it's going to be the focus for a lot of people because it's easy. Voting remains the least involved you can be in the entire political process without disavowing it completely. So I look at electoral politics, yes.

gabbneb's comment: You have four years to protest him (or, more effectively, try to take back the House and Senate, write letters to Kerry and your congress people, support Dean's group, set up your own organization to push the party, etc.). is a laugh and a half. 'Cuz that "we'll protest against him on the first Wednesday of November" really turned out in the '90s, right? I mean, you didn't have Democrats lining up behind Bill then. And telling you not "hey, he's better than Bush, you shouldn't complain!"

Or fuck off, either one's good for me.

No, on second thought, I'll fuck off because I'm the one getting unreasonably testy.

Dan, I know what I said. Comparing it to the other administrations makes them a lesser-evil. Yep. Doesn't make them center-left. Or, really, center at all. What you kept claiming was that I had compared them to the others and found them more right-wing or equally right-wing. Which was complete and utter horseshit, as any basic reading of the paragraph would bear out.

Gabbneb, wanna run down the accomplishments of those two years? Gays in the military? Universal healthcare? Living wage? Intervention in Rwanda? Removal of Iraqi sanctions? This "well he had an opposition Congress" thing is pretty weak, given the strength of the Presidency, and the fact that Ronnie and Bush II weren't exactly kneecapped by their oppositional Congresses.

Sure. Economic plan that created the longest economic expansion in history and 22 million jobs v. two small raises in the minimum wage.

My bad for not arguing what you wanted me to argue.

Basically you are a gigantic tool.

I'm also not sure why you think the election of centrist Democrats "keeps giving ground away." First of all, to be shit-obvious again, abandoning them serves to give not just ground but the actual office in question away to the right. Second of all, you'll have to explain why you consider electing moderates some sort of slippery rightward slope; electing moderates strikes me as the only way to retain any sort of foothold in the process at all, and without that foothold I'm not sure how you intend to drag government as far left as you're headed.

I think your assumption that "electing moderates" means "steady rightward drift" (as opposed to "actually electing somebody!") is part of why I'm not able to follow your thinking on this at all. That and your ability to not actually advocate anything concrete in particular.

This is one of my most favorite bits of political legend rhetoric ever.

Is it really progress if it can all disappear in six months?

Dan: You made what, three posts accusing me of calling Clinton/Gore more right-wing than Reagan and Bush, then blew up when I pointed out that I said no such thing. That's what I'm talking about when you got upset that I didn't argue what you wanted me to argue.

Nor did I say you had bashed third-party voting, I said that 'side' has - and you've most certainly taken your opportunity to build strawmen about the 'extreme' left and "FUCK VOTING."

Nabisco: Milo, you've now so clearly outlined what you're not saying that I have no idea what stance you're defending in the first place. I hope you won't mind my saying that this seems symptomatic to me.

I really don't know what it is you want to hear. I've been pretty clear about my position on electoral politics and defending those who choose to not toe the "Democrats or else!" line. Why am I saying that supporting moderates continues to the rightward slippage? Because it does, because that strategy has accomplished absolutely nothing in my lifetime. The best that strategy has done is elect a President who fucked up way more than he got it right. The worst that strategy has done is blow the 2002 elections completely. What good is a foothold, if you're just going to keep slipping?

I'll say again what I said to start with - if the Democrats have your lefty vote locked up, there's absolutely no reason for them to speak to your issues or to care about you. You (and lefties in general) don't have money, you can't buy influence in the electoral system. All you've got is a vote, that's all the power you have in the electoral system. So long as they remain one step to the left of the GOP agenda, you'll keep supporting them. You've just thrown away what small amount of power you've got.

Where does it stop?

As I said, the only way that makes sense to me is if you have given up completely on the idea of progress and reform being possible. If you think the status quo is the best we can do, fine - but say that. Don't cloak it in "by electing moderates, we move toward a left-wing agenda" - 'cuz that hasn't worked yet.

If you decide to vote, vote your conscience. If your conscience says that it's worth accepting a terrible candidate over an evil candidate, fine. Never vote for someone you distrust, dislike and don't support because someone else tells you it's important. And if you hate them all, don't vote.

(Of course, you shouldn't vote for someone you find "terrible." Vote for whoever you like.)

(x-post)

People get complacent under a Democratic administration - that same "better than the other guy" mentality bleeds through, as does basic party loyalty. How many of the anti-war protesters would be out if it happened under a Democrat? Lots. John D. touched on this in a long, long past thread - Democrats and supporters are less likely to rag on their own for actions identical to those undertaken by a Republican. How often do we hear about Jimmy Carter's sterling international human rights record from left-of-center voices? Lots. But Carter's record was only good in comparison to Reagan and Nixon, which is like saying Pinochet wasn't so bad when you look at Honduran death squads.

No, there's a very good reason for them to do so - they care about the issue.

Don't pin your hopes on enacting progress through elections. Work in a soup kitchen or volunteer

Wow. You sound just like George W. Bush.

Wow. You sound just like George W. Bush.
Yes, how dare I encourage people to... wait, what was so reprehensible there?

Seriously, gabbneb, this is the stupidest strawman I've seen you try. "Well, well, you encouraged volunteerism U R A REPUBLICAN STOOGE"?

In addition to John's WTF, I'll throw a WTF to Anthony's last one, 'cuz that's almost as crazy as gabbneb. Who said abdicate the electoral process? I said vote your conscience, and if your conscience says don't vote, then don't. I don't know how much clearer that could be. WTF - Messiah?

What you don't mention is that Kerry remains gung-ho about his role in supporting and writing part of the PATRIOT Act, and all the other tough-on-crime/weak-on-civil-liberties laws he's supported in the last decade. Trying that out isn't exactly swinging me into Kerry's camp, Anthony.

(I mean, for fuck's sake, could I say "Kerry is the lesser of two evils, Kerry is somewhat better than Bush, etc." again?)

a) there's no valuable difference between Kerry & Bush, no difference worth pulling a lever over
b) the government is only going to swing further to the right

how ISN'T this a sign that shit's gonna come to a head? How DO you see things changing if not via civil war? through "volunteering"?

oh, now michael reagan is talking about how thanks to his father's policies, he and his family were able to realize the american dream. nothing to do with the fact that he was born into american royalty, of course.

xpost - i'm not sure.

gee cece, it looks to me like he worded that with particular care, precisely to avoid any such accusations:

"primarily"

"a bit"

in other words, in the charge (if such a dynamic word can be used here) for progressive reform, attention should not be focused exclusively, or even primarily, on the electoral system. i totally agree with that, and even if you don't, he ain't advocating abdication.

if you just want to yell at a non-voting far-left dickwad, i'm game, but milo's been pretty coolheaded, genuine, and patient with you guys so can we please at least stop (i want to say willfully) misrepresenting him here?? hats off to nabisco for not being a twat about this stuff. (though i'm not necessarily indicting all you other guys cuz i know it's not easy)

You realize that 'volunteering' was an example, right? Something people could do to get involved, rather than just "well, I voted for the centrist, I DID MY PART TO MAKE AMERICA BETTER."

GIRLIE MEN!!!!

POT?? KETTLE ??? BLACK???? WTF ???????

If, in fact, we're on the verge of a police state, then the election is really meaningless, since it will be rigged or the results will be ignored. If you've got the power to institute a police state, an election ain't shit.

naw, naw, there was some government shit involved in keeping Luda down, Herb. Black ops. Money under tables. Grassy knoll shit.

Zell is a bit of a trip. Watching him made me feel like I've travelled back in time a bit.

"_________ ROCKS!":the gradual erosion of meaning.

shit he means it

My clock says 1992, 'round the time that Pat Buchanan stepped on the dais.

Right. Buchanan didn't help them then, I'm not so sure Miller did tonight.

(xpost again!)

Ok Cheney's on angel dust

"I see George Bush at work every day" - such a blatant, obvious lie.

If someone ever gets to assassinate Cheney, I hope they shoot him through his fat grinning mouth.

I can't believe people aren't talking more about Miller's rabid, insane, lying piece of shit speech.

With the "Let Freedom Reign" signs and that oval of flags on the screen behind Miller and everything else, this was like the Nuremberg rally or something. I mean, these fuckers outright lie and demogogue and don't give a shit. If I have to hear that cynical bullshit about "voting against the 87 billion and denying our troops body armor" or "this isn't a war we chose" stuff one more time, I'm seriously going to lose it.

I promise not all straight while Southern males are facists, I promise. God, this convention makes me feel like Quentin Compson at the end of Absalom, Absalom! "I don't hate the South. I don't hate it. I don't."

Miller's on MSNBC now. I suspect Matthews is going to go after him

Holy shit. Are you guys watching this? Miller might be legitimately insane.

He is INSANE. He's the right-wing wacko version of Howard Beale on Network.

Where is everyone.

Both CNN and MSNBC just demolished Miller. Or rather, Miller just went supernova, and the news channels just enjoyed the sight.

Anyways...
On the whole issue of "vote for who you really want" vs. "vote for the better of the two", there are really two issues aren’t there? The rational and the emotional? It is realpolitik vs. idealism and/or being too self-centered (or impatient) vs. too self-denying (patient). Even that is too blunt a dichotomy. I don’t know. I have little faith in the idea that a progressive candidate with mass appeal will appear Christ-like to save us from "fascism" or even moderates (not that anyone is calling for this here), but I am not sure that Nitsuh's *almost* Hegelian view, whereby, with a Kerry victory, a moderate left platform becomes a base for a new dialectic between a newly chastised, more moderate right and a newly-confident, more progressive left, is the solution either. This is not Nitsuh's fault, nor Hegel’s nor Marx’s nor whoever, but probably the DLC.

I have a feeling (and sorry to base an argument on something so vague) that many moderate democrats, in a pragmatic sort of way, appreciate the rightward slide of the republican party, if only to gain more votes from moderate republicans who are socially liberal. Ever since Clinton, and his triangulation strategy, there has been little interest in really discussing, say, the inequities of free-market capitalism (not even in a leftist, socialist sense, but just, you know "the market isn’t god, it can fuck people over"). The voter the democrats are trying to reach, and the voters that the Christian coalition (or whomever) is helping them reach, is one that really has no desires to change anything, but doesn’t hate "fags" either.

I don’t think all of the above validates either Nitsuh’s stance of a Kerry victory being a foothold, nor Milo’s stance that a moderate democrat victory would increase the rightward thrust. It really depends on Kerry himself, and his administration. If he can use his rhetorical skills to convince the moderate republicans who voted for him towards more centrist or moderate-leftist views, then the spectrum will move leftward as Nitsuh claims, but if he is unable to withstand the inevitable frenzy of attacks that the republicans will unleash to retain control of congress, then his presidency will be over by midterms, just like Clinton's was (Clinton 92-92 vs. Clinton 94-2000 are very different!), and Milo’s worst fears will out. Speaking of which, Kerry, if elected, needs to portray any stalling of legislation by congress, as their denial of the new popular will, instead of acting a victim. Again, if he is made impotent, the republicans will win, even if they are not in office.