Bob's Links and Rants

Welcome to my rants page! You can contact me by e-mail: Blog roll. Site feed.

Tuesday, June 29, 2004

Oppose the war by opposing the anti-war candidate!

The Repugs don't have a monopoly on Orwellian nonsense.

From Boondocks.

The Nader bashing has picked up again on our local "peace" e-mail list. And they don't stop with bashing Ralph; they want to bash anyone who might even think about voting for him. One person, Brandon, suggested, since there was some evidence that Republicans were aiding Nader's campaign in Arizona and elsewhere, that the Repugs were our "new friends." Here is how I replied:
I never feel more like voting for Kerry than when I see the ridiculous anti-Kerry ads that the Bushies put out. And I never feel more like voting for Nader than when I read the ridiculous attacks on him from the Kerry supporters. I think both are done largely for the same reason--their own candidate is mostly indefensible. And why anyone thinks that insulting progressives is the best way to get them to vote for Kerry is beyond me.

And, do you really think Kerry would have gotten the Democratic nomination without the support of Republicans, especially those who control the media? I watched many of the debates last year, and Kerry was consistently in the bottom two, whether you were talking issues or likeability or clarity or whatever. But the media used the Dean campaign to co-opt the anti-war movement (away from the true anti-war candidate, Kucinich), and then popped his bubble with idiotic debates about electability. They administered their coup-de-grace with the "Dean scream," as absurd a political non-event as there has ever been. So we were stuck with an awkward pro-war, pro-Patriot Act dullard (I imply boring, not stupid) because the right-wing media said he was electable.

Also, has anyone noticed how most of the Bush scandals were put on hold until after Kerry had the nomination sewn up? First Paul O'Neill, then David Kay, then the AWOL stuff, then Richard Clarke, then Abu Ghraib. All of this stuff was either known or strongly suggested way back into last year or before, but the press did their best to suppress it until a pro-war, pro-globalization, ACCEPTABLE Democrat was in place.

They knew that Kerry couldn't attack them on their greatest weakness, the illegal and insane decision to go to war, since he voted for it. They knew that they could use the silly "Massachusetts Liberal" crap to attack Kerry. And they knew that even if none of that worked that the corporate imperialist agenda would still be in safe hands (probably safer, actually).

A recent poll said that 54% of Americans now think the war in Iraq was a mistake, but Democrats are insulting us for even considering an anti-war candidate, telling us we should shut up and like it. Well I don't, and I think Kerry will likely be our third worst president ever, and the worst not named Bush. I'll see what happens before November, but for now I'm still hoping for a good alternative.

And Brandon--that "new friends" argument is completely out of line. It's the same argument Bush used last week to "link" Saddam and al Qaeda--"they both hate America." I can't control what the Repugs do. I'm against the war, and so is Pat Buchanan. It doesn't mean I'm buddies with Pat.
Michelle has more interesting thoughts on the Nader question.

My suggestion to Kerry supporters? IGNORE Ralph. Don't insult him or his supporters. Look at how well the right-wing attacks on "Fahrenheit 9/11" worked. Top-grossing movie of the weekend. Your attacks on Ralph will only cause more people to compare him to Kerry, a comparison in which your man clearly comes out a distant second.