Who knows, it could all be just a coincidence. But what a wonderful bait and switch team these two are.
W is so obnoxiously, in your face right wing evangelical, environmentally hostile and civil liberties destructive.

But then along comes Karry to save the day. Bring back the division of church and state and green up America and let people get along.

Bush bull shitted us into war and now Kerry is promising to escalate to clean up the mess Bush made.

Give me a break. The best bait and switch maneuver in history even if it is a total coincidence,

I am going to spend more money in Iraq. No! I am going to spend more money in Iraq. Oh no!! I am tougher on terror. No way, I am really tougher on terror.

Good thing it’s all just a big joke.

Good thinking, lb.

Kerry voted for the Iraq war resolution.

Voted for the Patriot Act.

Supports American meddling in the middle east which started all this trouble.

Says he will fight the War on Terror better than Bush.

Refuses to bring the troops home ... says he hopes to achieve "significant reductions" in troop strength at the END of his first four-year term ... i.e., he supports the ongoing occupation of Iraq, via those 14 giant new bases.

In all probability, Kerry is being brought in because, as a veteran who served honorably in combat, he has more credibility than shirker Bush to pass a new military draft.

Bottom line, I categorically reject everything Kerry stands for. I am totally indifferent between Kerry and Bush -- two traitorous peas from the same rancid pod. Eff 'em both.

Once again,.......

(no, not T.T.T.)


"NOT A DIME'S WORTH A DIFFERENCE........"
(said with a rough cracker drawl)

Same old good cop,bad cop routine!

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/f...&refpage=issues

"To a collectivist like Quigley, this is a necessary illusion to prevent voters from meddling into the important affairs of state. If you have ever wondered why the two American parties appear so different at election time but not so different afterward, listen carefully to Quigley’s approving overview of American politics:"

Point 4 and further.

OK, so what do you do? Do you vote for Bush? Kerry? or..........
not vote at all.

I don't think that Nader has a chance in hell.

What other valid choices do you have? Like MH said, "Eff em both!"

What should be churning in the brain, is.. who offers a valid alternative to years
of spend, spend, spend, and no tax to the upper class, or tax, tax, tax, and spend, spend spend.

I have to tell all, that I am soooo pissed off at the "Gee Dubya" administration that I voted for. I thought that I was voting for a "conservative". He has yet to Veto a single spending bill. I (as a middle class) worker thought that my taxes would be reduced. Yeah, right.

But the alternative, was Gore. Ha Ha Ha. You think he would have helped the situation? Probably sell more nuclear tech info to the N. koreans, and Iran.

Excuse me while I fix the Hamburger Helper to feed my family.

OK I'm back. Not much else to say about this election. "EFF 'EM Both!!!"

I don't know guys, you might be singing a different tune if you wake up in a Christian reeducation camp one morning.

Kerry makes me sick, but the corporate hedgemon won't let a truly decent candidate take an honest run at the white house. Witness Howard Dean. Perhaps Kerry is playing a hawk to get elected, but will prove to be a dove, when he gets in. We can always dream. My brother thinks Kerry is so lame he's actually trying to lose, that the democratic party has been infiltrated by fascists. I think this is possible but think it's happening on a different level and that Kerry is sincere in his effort to get elected. If Kerry can't beat Bush, the repugs should go all out and run Charles Manson in 2008. No problem

Mhead, Your point is valid. According to my New Age buddies my approach is "fear based". If everyone just followed their hearts, Dean probably would have been nominated. Everyone is so busy looking over their shoulder trying to ascertain if the candidate is presidential enough, for the other guy. Never mind how they feel about him/her themselves.

Here's an interesting take on John Edwards.

From Counterpunch:

John stood against armies of lawyers? No, actually John swelled the ranks of lawyers who now swarm America like the aftereffect of a lab-accident release of killer bees, spreading conflict and fear everywhere they appear. The blurb doesn't say that in twenty years John had made himself a very rich man through litigation, that is by helping to raise insurance premiums for everyone, but that's the truth. "Standing up against the powerful insurance industry" could just as well read, "Mining the huge revenues of the insurance industry for all he could haul away."

http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman07312004.html

Bait and switch, good cop-bad cop, what’s the difference. None. The only remedy is instant run off voting and most people have no idea what that is.

The lesser of two nitwits, how freaking inspiring. No wonder no one votes.
Instant run off voting may even give the people hacking all those voting machines some degree of headache.

Thanks MH for the affirmation. Wish it were wrong but it just fits too well.

Think I will just refer to W as Bait from now on and see if anyone gets it. Not likely.
No wonder I felt those convention retards were extra stupid this year. Not a dimes worth of difference and they get all worked up anyway. A dork born every minute.

We still have sex drugs and rock & role. And fortunately those are all the marks of evildoers according to the G squad. So party on.

What a shame Dean has killed any chance of a write-in or third party run. Lots of folks for that guy.

And why is it so?

Ike warned about it 40+ years ago.

Military-industrial complex
The birth of the military-industrial complex was described on January 17, 1961, by President Dwight David Eisenhower <http://www.americanpresidents.org/presidents/president.asp?PresidentNumber=33> in his farewell address to the nation in what is called his Military Industrial Complex Speech <http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html>:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

The military-industrial complex is generally defined as a "coalition consisting of the military and industrialists who profit by manufacturing arms and selling them to the government." (War profiteering <http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=War_profiteering>) Eisenhower related, however, that until World War II, the United States did not have an armaments industry. Even though "American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well," the United States could "no longer risk emergency improvisation" of the country's national defense.[1] <http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html>


http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?tit...ustrial_complex

All this in combination with Oil The Presidents Men--the world as we have known it is effed.

So after eight (8) years of failing to demobilize from Europe, Japan and Korea, Ike warns us three (3) days before leaving office that we should beware of the military-industrial complex.

Thanks a lot, Ike. That took a lot of courage.

Good point MH.They must have cut him out of the loop!

--Thinking and reading a lot about this issue, trying to figure out what is best for Amurkah.

Benefit of voting your heart, ideals and moral code and shunning both parties, even if it means Shithead gets voted back in.

You can look at yourself in the mirror

You have made a reasonable assessment of the "end justifies the means" and understand that living with the consequences of that philosophy may be as bad as 4 more years of Bush.

If Bushco gets back in they have to reap what they have sown, a loser war, against the backdrop of a cratering economy, throw in a few natural eco disasters for good measure, and a deepening polarization of the populace, that will likely deep six the repugs forever. Stronger opposition against the weak kneed ninny party dems can than coalesce in the ensuing vacuum.

A strong symbolic showing against both parties will be taken as a clear sign by foreigners that Americans are anti-war. This could engender enough good will that you may be able to travel internationally without being beaten up.

A huge benefit would be watching Bush completely crack up over the next four years. The guy has all the oratory skills of Porky Pig and it's getting worse. Highly amusing.

The costs

There is a possibility that Bush, deLay, Ashcroft have some goddawful fundy fun planned for the US of A. These dudes believe in the rapture and Bush has his finger near the button.

This may be overly alarmist. Bush is being carefully babysat at the moment and would never be allowed near the button, it might kill too many consumers.

If the Democrats win, it's true there will be very little difference. It'll be exchanging a retard for an elite goof, both run by the same crowd. Beware the military industrial complex, indeed!

This open letter to Barbara Ehrenreich from Chris Randolph says it all.

Counterpunch:

Which of Kerry's progressive causes energizes you to the extent that you need to mock Nader in a most public forum? Is it his desire to spend a half trillion dollars on Reagan's lunatic Star Wars plan? Is it his desire to better manage the Bush war in Iraq, for which he voted, and to expand it to include NATO, which Bush has yet been unsuccessful in doing? Are you drawn by the Democratic Party's failure in the aftermath of the last election to stand up for voting rights of African-Americans, or is it more the attempts of the party to keep anyone from voting for Nader this time around? Perhaps as a self-described feminist you're drawn to Kerry's willingness to appoint anti-choice judges to the federal bench? His attacks on welfare mothers? His description of his position on gay marriage being similar to Dick Cheney's?

http://www.counterpunch.org/randolph07202004.html

This election has a similar feel as that election between Peres and Netanyahu in Israel. Two men from two radically different camps try to court the centre so much that it looks like there is no difference.

Kerry is a liberal and pacifist at heart, much more even than Howard Dean. But this is overshadowed by Kerry's timidy and caution. In the Senate, Kerry was not the one to take big political risks. In the last two decades where American policies shifted to the right, Kerry sold his liberal soul to his political carreer.

Bush is a moralist and plutocrat. Bush believes in a romantic view in which a rich oligarchy rules America to glory, much like the aristocracy used to rule in Europe. In his personal life, Bush had to combat against alcoholism, and he believes that he was rescued by turning to god. For all we know, Bush may still be into alcohol. In business, Bush was a failure, who was constantly bailed out by his father's friends.

There is definitely a difference between both. But that difference is smaller than the partizans see it.

Kerry said what? Ohmygod, what a frikkin' goof. It's as if he's really and truly trying to lose the election now. Way to go, idiot! You've outbushed Bush, who can at least be partially excused on the grounds of being a mental cripple.

Still lookin' for that dime's difference.

Actually, if Kerry: a) really wanted to win, 2) really was substantively
any different than Pretzle, c) knew his ass from a hole-inna-ground,
we'd have heard the following words/phrases many times-bubble,
overleveraged, derivatives explosion, refi madness, extreme over-
valuation, etc., etc.

Interesting piece on neo-conservatism with plenty of links.

Congress and the media also completely abdicated their responsibility to serve as a check to the special interests who advocated the attack on Iraq. As these systematic failures are not caused by neo-conservatism, but rather by a combination of intellectual and structural weaknesses in the American political system, the danger remains that the next crisis will lead to the same problem caused by another special interest group, even after the neo-cons are chased out of Washington.

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/

(test) deleted

Mebbee J.Kerry has been informed how phjooked the USA is and doesn't want to have to clear up the mess!

Here's Bob Dreyfuss <http://tompaine.com/archives/the_dreyfuss_report.php> on Kerry's position on Iraq:

"Kerry's failure to articulate a coherent policy on Iraq has now reached the status of a three-alarm fire. It seems almost unbelievable: On one hand, here's a president who invaded a sovereign nation illegally, without the support of the United Nations or U.S. allies, lied about the reasons for the war, failed utterly to find WMD or terrorism ties in Baghdad, misjudged post-invasion Iraq so badly that it is still engaging in nearly full-scale war against the people of Iraq, and apparently has no plan at all about what to do.

And yet it's Kerry on the defensive?"

It is unbelievable. Kerry has managed to take his strongest weapon against Bush - an illegal war which is turning into a disaster, is disliked by the majority of Americans, and was sold to Congress and the American people based on a long series of lies told by the Bush Administration - and completely mangled it. It is so bad that Bush can use Kerry's own words as an endorsement of Bush's Presidency----"


http://xymphora.blogspot.com/

I agree with the opinions about our "choices"....if you want to call them that...seems familiar....

Why is it always "the lesser of two evils" when it comes down towards election time ?..

I long for someone someday to come in and step outside the box but the "its all about money and power syndrome" which has gotten worse since the mania began....I think the war was "for the economy", thus I consider it an element of mania blowback...911 was an attack on our "wealth"....

So now, any voices of reason are muzzled or destroyed by the media before the match is lit and the sheeples light bulb goes on...everything is preplanned and processed like poltical soylent green....

As for Dean...his simple little "scream" allowed the media to destroy him but I liked his fire and the fact that he was a fighter who often pushed the envelope,,,his stances were clear whether you beleived in them or not...I respect people who challange other's in the arena without fear but too often if they are seen as a threat, they are destroyed....

I see our choices as either "right wing skull and bones neo con" or "republican skull and bones light"....probably not much change in the tax codes..maybe a little tweaking of sheet that doesn't matter to us....each will oversee the same war we are in and very well may do the same thing...one will likely lead us into a new war or wars.... during the debates, we will hear the same bullsheet lines and the same promises that never get fulfilled unless it benefits the special interest groups...and then the same issues will be talked about in 2008 "if we are still here"....or if our government exists as we know it...

joe six pack will make his or her decision based on what CNN or Faux news says in some 60 second sound bite after the debates end because its "easy" to vote for the "winner" and be lumped into that class....I remember watching one debate last election where my wife and I thought Gore kicked ass and when it ended the media said he got destroyed...we looked at each other...

The words that have come out of Kerry recently about the war really shows how rudderless he is now...his answer by the grand canyon was stunning, particularly when there has been an all out assault on his charachter and state of the current situation in the middle east is getting worse...I get the feeling he'd have no clue what to do or no better plan than Shrub because it's now become a "war of unintended consequences"....I actually think we are being surrounded there by the bordering countries and we don't know it yet....those poor kids are sitting ducks... and if that happens, we know whats next....the word our current guy can't pronounce...

To me all politicians are the same and if you check their palms they are all full of grease...Basically Kerry's main problem is he voted for everything that happened in Iraq, but in his defense, if you decented, it was considered treasonous or unamerican so better to not rock the boat cause "it's too hard" which is why we get choices like this every four years.....

The real leaders are the behind the scenes power brokers who care only about one thing...."money and power"....empire...

I'm predicting the August/September suprise at the convention will be that Hurricane Cheney steps down due to health reasons and McCain takes his place....and regardless of what happens, it will be four more years of political hell, mud slinging, and unfortunately more bloodshed....I find these very sad times and beleive this is an inflection point in history.....and as improtant as this election is....everything today feels too choreographed and hollow to me...I actually think the outcome is already known...

I will watch and listen to the debates...then wander over to the polls and pray I don't have to vote for Pat Paulson....

Ag

As a complete outsider,it seems to me that the only way that US politics would change much would be when the neo-con sect in Washington is completely removed from power and influence.The entirety of the DoD is populated by them.

How could the disease be eradicated in a short period of time without collapsing the whole department.And they ain't going without a fight.If Kerry is considering such things,perhaps he sees the impossibility of the situation.

CANDIDATES TO PARTICIPATE IN DEBATES PROPOSED BY THE CITIZENS' DEBATE COMMISSION

Washington, DC – Today, civic leaders and elected officials across the country called on President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry to participate in the presidential debates proposed by the genuinely nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission and to reject the presidential debates proposed by the unsuitable Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), after a Federal Court on Thursday ordered the Federal Election Commission to open a full investigation into whether the CPD acted in a “partisan manner” when sponsoring the 2000 presidential debates.

What do ya think? Think it will happen? Think anyone will give a poop?

Why do I have the feeling the two All4MoreWar candidates will worm out of this.

Electoral College

Kerry's winning. Chart showing the trends. Click on "next report" or "previous report" to toggle back-and-forth in time to see the ebb and flow of the votes. Would the life on Mars announcement shift the Electoral College?

Real American leadership would put American principles before those principles we fought against in 1776. The lack of substantive leadership by either party following 9-11 suggests we have a leadership problem in the country, not just in the political machines.

Regardless who wins or what their specific policies are, it's useful to see whether each machine is capable of handling what is most likely to unfold. Thus, we arrive back at the original question: What do they stand for? Still waiting to hear something specific.

There may be no real difference and neither may stand for much; yet, one of them is going to win.

John Pilger rips NWO warmonger Kerry: