Is Kerry better?

Post Reply
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Is Kerry better?

Post by admin » Thu May 13, 2004 12:42 pm


Reacting to my editorial ( http://haitiforever.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=988 ), a correspondent replied : "Is Kerry better?"

This was my response:

[quote]Marginally (but this may just reflect my own inability to conceive of a worse or even an "equally bad" alternative). Kerry leaves me cold, and that's an unfortunate electoral choice. However, to me, it has become an ethical imperative to Vote Bush Out, based on his callous disregard for international treaties and environmental issues, his misguided anti-terrorism policies which are creating a world that may (or will) explode at any time, his global supremacist vision from which he draws his "God is on our side... you are with us or against us" malevolence towards all other nations that do not slavishly conform to U.S. inter
ests.

The electoral process in the U.S. being what it is, we often are left with the unappetizing choice of voting for "the lesser evil" or not voting at all. In practical terms, the no-vote option usually translates to a vote for "the greater evil". It is vital that we do not go down that road...
[/quote]

What's your opinion?

Jonas
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:53 am

Post by Jonas » Thu May 13, 2004 5:22 pm

In my opinion,
Choosing between Bush and Kerry,is a no-brainer.
Just think about it.
If Bush is reelected,there is no doubt in my mind that he will attack Cuba,he will overthrow Hugo Chavez and we will have a Guatemalan style government in Haiti.
In the Domestic Front,the dismantlement of the safety net ,will continue in earnest.
And don't forget,his brother Jeb is lurking down in Florida.
That could mean 12 more years of the Bushes.
The defeat of G. Bush is imperative in November

JustinFelux

Post by JustinFelux » Thu May 13, 2004 10:14 pm

[quote]Forgive me, I'm from Massachusetts.[/quote]

Being from Texas, I could never forgive you for that :lol:

[quote]What did the two men do AFTER YALE?

Kerry, a young man from the American Aristocracy, volunteered for a combat role in the Navy, right after graduation. In the midst of "the war of his generation": The Viet Nam War.

Bush used every connection he had to avoid a combat role during that same War.[/quote]

I think this reflects better on Bush than it does on Kerry. Fighting in the Vietnam War was not an honorable thing to do. Avoiding a combat role means you aren't killing any Vietnamese revolutionaries. That's a good thing. Kerry had admitted to committing atrocities during the Vietnam War, as many, many soldiers did during that time.

As far as whether or not Kerry is better than Bush, there are a lot of things to consider. Kerry i
s obviously better than Bush on a lot of issues. He is not a progressive by any means, but he is still better than Bush. He will refrain from appointing right-wing judges to the Supreme Court. He will be better on the environment. Etc, etc.

When it comes to foreign policy, however, expect more of the same from Kerry. The Democrats and the Republicans really have very little differences when it comes to foreign policy. In fact, there are some ways in which the Democrats are even worse than the Republicans in that regard.

Gabriel Kolko, one of the world's greatest war historians, has argued that Bush may be the lesser evil in the election because his brazen unilateralism is resulting in the breakdown of historic alliances that have been crucial in maintaining U.S. control over the world. Kerry has made rebuilding America's relationship with its allies a major theme of his campaign. This is NOT good news for poor countries.

Personally, I have no idea who is going to win. It should
have been an easy election for the Democrats, but they nominated someone who has less charisma than a rock, which is sadly very important in the phony, personality-driven elections that our media gives us.

Lakat
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:19 am

Is Kerry Better?

Post by Lakat » Fri May 14, 2004 10:29 am

Hello group. I would like to submit a reply to this question by posting a letter written to BuzzFlash.com about Nader. I think it will put things in perspective and it is exactly my thinking.
May 12, 2004

A Progressive Response to the Nader Campaign
A BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY
by Jeff Cohen

I am ideologically aligned with Ralph Nader, not John Kerry. I agree with Nader on virtually every issue, while agreeing with only about half of Kerry's positions (or what can be deciphered as Kerry's positions). Like other peace and justice activists, I am distressed that Kerry -- who spoke so eloquently decades ago against a war based on racism and lies -- has given support to the current war that is based on racism and lies.

But I'm also distressed by the deception coming from the Nader campaign. We keep being told that Nader will draw
votes away from the Evildoer-in-Chief, George W. Bush; yet poll after poll shows the Nader vote depleting Kerry and helping Bush, and tipping swing states and their electoral votes to Bush.

In my view, Kerry vs. Bush is not Coke vs. Pepsi. It's more like Coke vs. Arsenic (quite literally, in the environmental sense). The Bush/Rumsfeld/Ashcroft regime is far more dangerous than the regimes of Nixon/Kissinger/Mitchell or Reagan/Weinberger/Meese.

There can be no greater imperative for progressives this year than to Vote Bush Out. In the 17 or so competitive states, that means building the Kerry vote to defeat Bush.

But our work doesn't end on Nov. 2. After we mobilize to oust Bush in '04, progressives must stay mobilized in '05 to ensure that our agenda is heard by the Kerry White House. If the Iraq war drags on under the Kerry administration, I'll be in the frontlines of peace protests.

Progressives seemed to demobilize in 1993 after Bill Clinton ended 12 years of Republican ru
le. In the absence of powerful and independent networks of activists, we saw that a Democratic White House was capable of enacting pro-corporate Republican-oriented policies. We won't be fooled again. Thanks to the Internet and the youth-infused antiwar and global justice movements of recent years, it will be easier to sustain progressive activism in '05 and after to hold a Democratic White House accountable.

Progressives need to understand that Franklin Roosevelt was elected president in 1932 on a wishy-washy platform no bolder than the Kerry platform. But powerful social movements, especially militant unions, propelled the New Deal agenda and pushed FDR to being the most progressive president of the last century.

2004 is a crucial juncture in our country's history, with millions of people in our evenly divided country -- especially people of color, labor, feminists, enviros -- yearning for a path to end the national nightmare of George Bush. Progressives need to be a bridge forward, not an
obstruction. Noam Chomsky has described the choice we face: "Help elect Bush, or do something to try to prevent it."

Ralph Nader has long set a standard for public integrity: speaking truth to power no matter what the consequences. But in recent months, he's sounding more like a politician, making promises that he must know he can't deliver on -- like his claim that he will help defeat Bush by pulling "more votes away from Bush than the Democrats." And Nader is being ridiculed as just another politician: "Conservatives for Nader," scoffed Comedy Central's Jon Stewart. "Not a large group. About the same size as 'Retarded Death Row Texans for Bush.'"

This election is not about Kerry. Nor Nader. It's about putting Bush out to pasture before he does any more damage.

Lakat
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:19 am

Is Kerry Better? Reply to Marilyn

Post by Lakat » Fri May 14, 2004 9:09 pm

Marilyn, I also supported Dean as my choice for Democratic Candidate. I also like very much what Dennis Kucinich says about not for profit health care for everyone and many of his other rather radical stances. But I didn't think he had a chance of getting elected, as much for his appearance as anything else. They would have made a huge joke out of him and the American people would just follow along like sheep.

I, too, was bitterly disappointed in what happened in the media to destroy Dean's candidacy. And as you did, I voted for Dean in the California primary, as a message to my party. A fat lot of good it did. We are screaming over here about what Kerry needs to do to beat this group of Machiavellian spin doctors. He needs to heed Dean's passion and get a fire in his belly we can all get heat from to fuel this campaign. This is easy, running against this bungling bunch of evil doers. But yet
Kerry treats Bush like a viable candidate instead of someone who should have been impeached a year ago. What this administration is doing to Haiti is a capital crime (please forgive the pun). I am thinking the best punishment would be to put the whole bunch in Guantanamo...and see how they like what they have wrought. (Even I wouldn't like to see their naked butts in a pyramid in an Iraq prison!)

I came to the conclusion that as much as I liked Dean (especially with a VP of General Wesley Clark), he was not electable either. Ever since television became a household appliance, candidates have had to LOOK presidential, which means tall beats smart any day of the week. I can't see the American people voting for anyone under 6 feet tall. And they can't be the least bit nerdy (do you hear me Ralph???). Kiss of death. I don't agree with the image vs substance way of choosing a president, but I do recognize it as reality for a great many A
mericans.

See how advanced the Haitian population is to have elected someone who is not of noble stature or classic good looks? Of course he is no longer in office so my point is moot. But we can see from who accepted him for what he had to offer them and who took him out and happily ridiculed his looks, who is the most sophisticated and advanced thinking Haitians. (jab jab)

I am voting for Kerry because he is the candidate the Democrats put up and I need Bush and co. out of there. Haiti needs these people out of there. Please God, hear my plea.

Kathy Dorce~

Leonel JB

Misconception of us electoral machine

Post by Leonel JB » Mon May 17, 2004 6:56 am

"Emotions and politics DO NOT MIX".

I've read all your comments about Bush Vs Kerry Although I agree with some of them, something is missing. Some of you failed to realize who will vote in November.

We are talking about the US presidential election. Even though there are more registered Democrats than Republicans, the majority of Democrats most of the time "DO NOT VOTE". Therefore, as a "POLITICIAN", one has to be more appealing to the swing voters (moderate Rep., Independent)...
Remember this, American Society is addicted to TV and believes in their system which they think is FAIR (democracy, liberty for all). As a Presidential candidate, one should be neither too Conservative nor Liberal. Therefore, one has to be Moderate. Which means one has to play the game in order to be the next President of the US of A.

Based on the ticket or slogan the Republicans are going under, "National Sec
urity", Howard Dean would not have got 30% of the votes and that is why since the beginning personally I had to call DNC to let them be aware of the trap that the RNC was betting on (Howard Dean could have beaten WB in november). Howard Dean was pushing the right buttons for us, but realistically not to be president in the USA. Both parties are sleeping with special interest groups. The only difference, the Democratic party "ka bay malere on ti zo pou yo souse".

Why do you think a very left wing man as Bill Clinton was elected president? Well, he had to compromise a lot and stay in the middle as a moderate. Remember, Bill was very smart. Coming from a different background (poor or working class), he had to break the glass ceiling of that electoral machine which is Rich, Conservative, White son of the American Revolution...
Again, being Haitian myself, I get taken most of the time emotionally. One has to know that everywhere Politics is dirty. You have to flip flop from time to time, there is nothin
g wrong with it. If you do not like that game, do not get involved. If I may add one last thing, let's go back home a little bit. As a politician in Haiti, do you think one can rely on the masses alone? Well, you probably know the answer.

Please, do not mix sentiments with Politics?

Furthermore, Democrats or Republicans: "JOBS", AMERICA'S INTERESTS FIRST (MONEY and POWER).

IF WE DO NOT VOTE IN NOVEMBER, WE ARE GOING TO SEE DICK CHENEY, RUMSFELD, ASCHCROFT AND BUSH's real agenda (White Supremacists).

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Mon May 17, 2004 9:29 am


Leonel, good analysis... though certain points you make are not quite clear to me. First of all, let me say that "emotions and politics DO mix" : it depends on whose shoe you are wearing, that of the candidate or the voter. Almost always, people do vote with emotion, the prevalent one being fear of a lurking Bin Laden. Often it is the fear of "the other" (black, gay, foreign, anybody out of your comfort zone). Emotion drove Nixon out of office. Emotion beat the U.S.A.'s Domino Theory (remember the picture of the naked, crying 12-year old girl with horror in her eyes and napalm on her skin). Emotion nearly drove Clinton prematurely out of office (he was impeached, before it all fell apart due to the outrage generated on successive revelations that the accusers were even worse sinners). Emotion is what kept George Wallace the Governor of Alabama for so long. Emotion is what brings most people to the voting
booth. Emotion is what makes the world go round.

Agreed, in order to manipulate emotions in his or her favor a candidate has to be calculating and fairly emotion-less, though he will be called upon to fake specific emotions (such as shock) at any given moment. However, you can't expect everyone in politics to become emotion-less, when so much has been invested in it. If they did, they'd soon do away with the two-party system.

What of America's interests? Are we talking about short-term interests (such as an immediate $600 family tax cut, a multi-billion dollar corporate tax cut) or her long-term interests: the education of her children, peace at home and abroad, fiscal conservation, job productivity, development of alternate sources of energy... Can America's true interests be defined simply as "money and power"? What about Life and Pursuit of Happiness? Furthermore, do Blacks, Whites, Latinos, Native Americans, and diverse immigrant groups envision the same thing when they speak of "A
merica's interests"?

Agreed, we should keep our emotions in check, as they often induce a warped sense of reality: we are "shocked" at Abu Ghraib, but do not look closely at the training of "Military Intelligence" units or what happens behind closed doors at the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia. Latin-American farmers suffer from U.S.-Americans' lack of emotion in that regard. For their own country's sake, U.S.-Americans need to liberate themselves from shock, from fear, from trauma, and open their eyes and see just where their government is driving them, see with clarity what lies down the road.

Emotion may not be our best guide, after all.

But as long as there are politicians, you can bet that they will continue to mix emotions with politics. They are, by definition, the manipulators. We, the voters, cannot be emotion-less (or we would not be human) but we should mix in some rationality and understand when someone else is manipulating our deep-seated fears for thei
r narrow political and financial interests.

I'll finish with a question: how in the world could Clinton be described as "a very left wing man", unless one is talking from a very right wing perspective? I know that you are not, but I truly do not understand the characterization. I think that it is way off the mark (except, maybe, if you are thinking of a specific issue, and I do not venture to guess what that is).

JustinFelux

Post by JustinFelux » Mon May 17, 2004 10:07 am

I don't agree with a lot of what you said, Leonel. The things that jump out the most are the way you describe Howard Dean and Bill Clinton as if they are somehow really liberal. They aren't. For some odd reason, the media decided that they were going to paint Howard Dean as some kind of far-out liberal, which is just totally not true. John Kerry is more liberal than Howard Dean. Bill Clinton was more liberal than Howard Dean.

I'm not saying Clinton and Kerry are liberals.. they are "centrists" at best. On my political scale they are right-wingers, but I'm very far to the left of most Americans. I also disagree with the notion that politicians have to play to the center in order to win. That is the conventional wisdom, yes. We don't know what would happen if someone ran on a really progressive platform, because nobody has ever tried it before. Bush ran what I would consider a very right-wing campaign and he still managed to w
in, even though he had to cheat.

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Mon May 17, 2004 3:04 pm

[quote]We don't know what would happen if someone ran on a really progressive platform, because nobody has ever tried it before.[/quote]Hey, Justin, what about Dennis Kucinich? What about Jerry Brown? What about Jesse Jackson? What about Al Sharpton? What about Ralph Nader? Didn't those guys run on a progressive platform, and if not... then, just what is a progressive platform?

Those guys seemed to have fared even worse than Barry Goldwater and Patrick Buchanan (on the right) or Michael Dukakis and George McGovern (on the left). All of which seems to buttress the point of view that you do need to appear centrist and consequently appeal to the broad center.

Did George Bush run "a very right-wing campaign"? Due to your "far to the left" perspective, you may have been more perceptive than the majority in that regard, but I do think that Bush's "very right-wi
ng" tendencies did come as a surprise to a lot of Americans. Georges Bush did not exactly say that he was going to hack the environment, that he was going to sharply cut federal funds for education, that he was going to dismantle affirmative action, that he was going to retreat from international treaties (Kyoto, ABM missiles, World Court, etc). He did not exactly reveal his plans for world domination. Granted, the signs were there... but he managed to fool a lot of people, precisely because he played the role of a centrist Republican, as opposed to the zealot he turned out to be.

Also, you said that Kerry and Clinton are not true liberals, but that they are more liberal than Howard Dean. I don't intend to challenge that point (though others may) because I was not familiar enough with Howard Dean's agenda by the time he dropped out the race. However, I am curious to find out why you considered him to the right of the two personalities cited above, whom you personally consider to be "right-wing
ers".

By the way, what do you think of Robert M. Bowman and his platform on past (largely unknown) campaigns? If you are not familiar with his views, take a look at http://www.rmbowman.com . Put aside his "United Catholic" views (though, themselves, quite interesting for religious-minded people) and read about his domestic and foreign policy positions. What I think is remarkable is that this is one guy who has clearly spelled out what he stands for on a wide range of issues, much more clearly than any Democratic or Republican candidate that I have known (though one has to dig into his iconoclastic website). he has lots of interesting ideas, yet it does not appear that anyone has ever paid attention to him. Now consider the huge attention that was paid to Ross Pérot who had plenty of sound bytes but not a lot of substance. The difference is obvious: in the United States of America, if you want to run a successful campaign, it's more important to be extremely rich in dollars than in ideas.

S
o, to go back to what you said about someone running a successful campaign on a really progressive platform, I would submit that your candidate would have to be a filthy rich progressive... or is that a contradiction in terms?

JustinFelux

Post by JustinFelux » Mon May 17, 2004 6:06 pm

I meant run with the actual nomination, not in the primaries. I have supported Nader in the past and I support progressive Democrats. I consider Kucinich, Waters, Lee, Feingold, Sanders, et al to be progressive Democrats.

Yes, I think George W. Bush ran a very right-wing campaign. During the primaries he defeated John McCain by appealing to the most awful right-wing elements of the Republican Party. He appealed to the Christian fundamentalist base, his campaign circulated rumors that John McCain might have a black child, etc.

During the general election, he still had a very right-wing platform, he just started to moderate his rhetoric. He never really volunteered very much information during the general election campaign. He just said a bunch of vague, meaningless crap about "restoring honor to the White House" and being a "compassionate conservative," and white people just thought "Hmm, sounds good to me! He seems like a nic
e guy." and voted for him.

With regards to Howard Dean, yeah, he was more to the right than the people he was running against. The media just painted him as some kind of extreme liberal. There are two reasons people say Dean is a liberal: he was against the Iraq war and he supported civil unions while he was governor of Vermont.

Neither one of those is very extreme. A huge majority of all Democrats, as well as many conservatives, were against the Iraq war. The civil unions thing was actually forced upon Dean by a court ruling. If it were up to him, he probably would have avoided the civil unions thing all together rather than get involved in such a controversial issue.

If you'll recall during the Democratic primaries, all of his critics were attacking him from the LEFT, not the right. The only person attacking him from the right was Joe Lieberman. Gephardt was nailing him for supporting the Newt Gingrich health care plan. John Kerry was nailing him for wanting to lower the retire
ment age for Social Security. Howard Dean tried to present himself as some kind of progressive to appeal to the base of the Democratic Party, but in reality he was just as centrist as the next guy.

I'd never heard of Bowman before. He seems like he might be the kind of person I'd vote for judging from a brief overview of his platform. There are lots of minor candidates who I'm sure I'd like but just don't have the money or the connections to make it.

Progressive candidates suffer from a lot of things. Money is a big one, but it isn't the only problem. We nominate people like Ralph Nader. I love Ralph, but he is old and boring. In this media-driven age we need somebody who is good-looking and charismatic in order to get attention and win. We also need money. We also need someone who will appeal to a broad base of people. Nader didn't appeal very much to women or minorities or gays, which are all constituencies that tend to be more progressive than the general population.

M
y dream candidate is actually Michael Eric Dyson.

Leonel JB

Post by Leonel JB » Tue May 18, 2004 12:08 am

Who is Michael Eric Dyson?

Anyway, You guys have a lot of good points...But, remember again. We are talking about US of A. You can have the best programs ever. You can be the most honorable candidate. The decisions are made by a lot of people from the democratic party who are the "Swing voters". They voted Carter out on R Reagan's programs or slogan (A Strong America etc.). These are the same people who are going to vote for a "SECURE AMERICA", whatever the hell that means.

The republican voters are very steady. They will always vote Republican all the way. They are about 40 something percent of the population. G Bush can count on their votes anytime with his "national Security, fight to defend their freedom (very absurd) and America, and the pro life ticket. Now, he only needs 15 percent vote in the swingers and independent. It's easy when you can manipulate the media with some elementary words. For instance, Affirmative Action i
s affirmative access, which is one the most misunderstood words. For,European Americans really think that AA only applies to race instead of gender?

Anyway, Justin and Guy, I really appreciate your comments or opinion. They are really informational. I wish that I had time to debate further on some issues...

Personally, I think four more years of these guys, we will really know what hell means???

Anybody who can beat them is welcome.

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Tue May 18, 2004 8:19 am

[quote]My dream candidate is actually Michael Eric Dyson.[/quote]
Yes, Justin, who is Michael Eric Dyson? Sorry about our ignorance (though I confess that I immediately did a search on the Internet and read a thing or two about him), but perhaps you can tell us why you would endorse him as a candidate.

Sorry about calling you "Justin Felix" before (I edited that, after I realized this morning that your name is Felux, not Felix). You sound so much like a Haitian, you know. And as you must know, "Justin" and "Felix" are very common Haitian names. I bet that most people who have read your comments, here, think that your name is Justin Felix and that you are Haitian. Yet, you say that you are a white man from Texas. Are you sure?

JustinFelux

Post by JustinFelux » Tue May 18, 2004 11:03 am

EVERYBODY accidently spells my name like "Felix." I've learned to just ignore it. The last time I checked, I was still a white guy from south Texas. My last name is Polish. Never heard of a Haitian named "Justin" though. I'm not very fond of my first name because there are so many other people around here with that name. If I'm walking down the street I always hear someone shouting "Hey Justin!" only to find out they're talking to someone else.

Dyson is a writer/activist/academic who has written tons of books about various things. I like him because he doesn't have any of the problems I outlined before about Nader. He's good-looking, very articulate, and he appeals to different groups of people.

Guys like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton appeal to black people, but they don't appeal to white people (with a few exceptions, like myself). Due to the way they talk, their connection to the black church, and their history in
the civil rights movement, they are not treated seriously as candidates. They are treated as "black candidates," like they're just running to make a statement for black people, or just to add a little color to the primary season.

And as I said before, guys like Ralph Nader appeal to white people, but not blacks. We need somebody who can appeal to progressives of all colors, and I think Dyson is the guy. I hate to describe it this way, but he isn't as overtly black as Sharpton or Jackson. He's light-skinned, and he sounds like a white guy when he talks. This means that white people won't be afraid of him and they won't write him off the way they write off guys like Al Sharpton.

But since he is black, black people will be able to relate to him. They know he understands their problems. Even though Nader tries to talk about affirmative action and racism and stuff, I get the feeling that his words ring cold to black people. They feel like he's just trying to pander to them and he doesnt really understand what their reality is like. They're probably right. But I think Dyson has the ability to appeal to both groups. Not that it matters, since I don't think he'll ever run for any kind of elected office. I wish he would though.

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Tue May 18, 2004 1:21 pm


Well, "Felix" is a common Haitian surname and "Justin" may not be as common as I previously suggested, but there are quite a few, believe me. The only thing is that "Justin" in Haitian or French sounds quite different from "Justin" in English. While written exactly the same, audibly they are distinct and very different. It's like the difference between "Guy" (Antoine) and "Guy" (Lombardo). When I walk down the street and someone shouts "Guy", I just run for cover because I know they aren't talking to anyone else.

Anyway, I want to commend you for having the courage to write as you did above, since you touched on a few taboos and run the risk of having your remarks misinterpreted by others who make no such nuances. The reality of your observations, not the observations themselves, is very unfortunate, namely:

1) To be a successful candidate in the U.S.A., you must be or you must look fairly
young, fairly tall, and white. I am not sure that even a light-skinned black like Michael Eric Dyson or a biracial person would qualify.

Antithesis: Very rarely, a dark skinned person manages to infiltrate the white power structure, rise to the top, and will fairly be seen as "white" by a large number of white people. How many race-transcenders of that sort, I don't know... but I can think of at least one, and I know that you will know who I am talking about as well. Simultaneously, a lot of blacks stop regarding him as one of their own and even perceive his supposed Jamaican ancestry as a folk tale just thought up to fill in some quota, just like tales of WMD's thought up to justify a war in front of a United Nations audience.

Now, had he been benevolent, some Haitians would have sworn that he grew up in their village and that they used to call him by name when they saw him walking down the street, but in the current context... I don't think so. For all they care, he can continue to rais
e turtles in Florida and not even think of running for any office, even if position #185 opens up some day.

2) Leaders of minority groups, like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, will continue to appeal only to members of that minority. Actually, they may have some cross-appeal, but would members of the majority ever actually vote for them? Consider the fear factor: if you marry black, you become black; if you vote black, you instantly become black as well. Now, who want to inflict that sort of shock on their families and co-workers?

Conversely, nerdy-looking whites will not appeal to minority groups (they should at least learn to play the sax and to eat some good ol' Southern food).

Antithesis: Well... I, for one, do not mind nerdiness (perhaps because I had a reputation as one, while I was growing up). In any case, I voted for Nader in 2000, and damn proud of it! Granted, Gore carried New Jersey, and if I actually lived in Florida, I would have hung my head in shame.

Synthesis: c
hange your skin if necessary, but make your vote count in November!

Leonel JB

Post by Leonel JB » Tue May 18, 2004 2:52 pm

Sorry Justin, I thought the name was Felix. Anyway, I think all of you participants at Ann Pale forum showed how intelligent discussions and points are made. I am proud of all of you and especially Justin. To tell you the truth, I didn't think you were not haitian even though I am not surprised a bit that you are Caucasian. For, I've met a lot of progressive activists who even spent some time in the most retired places in Haiti to educate our peasants. One of them wrote: "When the hands are too many", Dr Smith. She is very fluent in Creole, we used to make fun of her cause her creole was very "Backroads".
About Ralph Nader, I am sure htat he is a very good guy. But, again I had to be realistic, I voted Gore in NEw jersey. Sorry, Guy, I thought Gore could have beaten the 4 letter word candidate without realizing that he was one also (just kidding).
American voters do not really want a Good or Nice president. Remember in the republican pr
imaries four years ago. Alan Keyes was ultra conservative and shared all the things the party stood for (pro life,defense etc). At first, it seemed that everyone loved him, guess what? I don't think he had 1 % of the votes.

In America, it is not going to be possible in my lifetime for an African descent Man, Caucasian woman to be president. Tell me, if that souded too pessimistic?

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Tue May 18, 2004 4:01 pm


Dr. Smith (Jennie) is a friend of mine. The book receives my highest recommendation. However, the book title is not "When the hands are too many", Leonel. Rather, it's "When the hands are many". Oops, a three-letter word that makes a world of difference.

"When the hands are too many" is a future book from Jafrikayiti.

:-)

or perhaps it will be co-authored by yours truly and Jafrikayiti, and will feature people like Terry Snow and others of the same ilk.

Reference: <a target=_blank href=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... owsonhaiti >When the Hands are Many - Community Organization and Social Change in Rural Haiti</a> by Jennie M. Smith

P.S. Your vote for Gore in New Jersey was cancelled by mine since I voted for Nader. It does not matter since Gore carried that state anyhow. In Florida, it's a different
story... It would have taken all the Nader votes and then some to cancel all the votes stolen by Bush-Bush-Baker-Harris.

JustinFelux

Post by JustinFelux » Tue May 18, 2004 11:19 pm

[quote]
Well, "Felix" is a common Haitian surname and "Justin" may not be as common as I previously suggested, but there are quite a few, believe me. The only thing is that "Justin" in Haitian or French sounds quite different from "Justin" in English.[/quote]

Yeah. There's alot of Spanish-speaking people around here and when they say "Justin" it sounds like "Hoo-steen."

[quote]1) To be a successful candidate in the U.S.A., you must be or you must look fairly young, fairly tall, and white. I am not sure that even a light-skinned black like Michael Eric Dyson or a biracial person would qualify.[/quote]

I wouldn't be surprised if Condoleeza Rice runs for President as a Republican. She could win. The Republicans are good at finding black people to front for them while they stay in the background and pull the strings. Conventional wis
dom is that America is too racist to accept black leadership at this point, but never underestimate the ability of the right-wing to exploit people of color to serve their own agendas. This administration is full of them: Chao, Rice, Powell, Paige, etc.

[quote]Antithesis: Very rarely, a dark skinned person manages to infiltrate the white power structure, rise to the top, and will fairly be seen as "white" by a large number of white people. How many race-transcenders of that sort, I don't know... but I can think of at least one, and I know that you will know who I am talking about as well.[/quote]

What amazes me is the way so many white liberals ADORED Powell. Even after the Gulf War, even after he tried to cover up the My Lai massacre. They absolutely loved the guy. I think it's because he is so soft-spoken and unintimidating. White people like it when black people are soft-spoken and unintimidating. That's why Ruben Studdard won American Idol.

[quote]Leaders of minority groups, like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, will continue to appeal only to members of that minority. Actually, they may have some cross-appeal, but would members of the majority ever actually vote for them? Consider the fear factor: if you marry black, you become black; if you vote black, you instantly become black as well. Now, who want to inflict that sort of shock on their families and co-workers?[/quote]

Most white people absolutely hate guys like Sharpton and Jackson. Even liberals hate them. These are not good times for race relations in America. Ever since the 1970s we have been in a period of "white backlash." It's a reaction to the civil rights movement and the gains made by blacks during that time. Just like after blacks made significant gains during the Reconstruction era, and that was followed by a huge backlash with the rise of the KKK and the establishment of Jim Crow. Hopefully the pendellum will start swinging in the other direction somet
ime soon.

[quote]Antithesis: Well... I, for one, do not mind nerdiness (perhaps because I had a reputation as one, while I was growing up). In any case, I voted for Nader in 2000, and damn proud of it! Granted, Gore carried New Jersey, and if I actually lived in Florida, I would have hung my head in shame.[/quote]

I don't even bother with politics here in Texas.. it feels so futile. There are a few liberal minded folks in the big cities and in Austin, but overall we are vastly outnumbered. If I bothered to vote in national elections I'd probably vote for Nader or someone like that. The Democrats should just instruct all their voters in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, et al to vote for Nader in exchange for votes in the swing states. Of course that would never happen because the reaction to such a scheme would be really negative.. if not for that it would work really well and make everyone happy.

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Wed May 19, 2004 5:05 am

[quote]The Democrats should just instruct all their voters in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, et al to vote for Nader in exchange for votes in the swing states.[/quote]
You lost me there... could you explain that strategy?

[quote]I wouldn't be surprised if Condoleeza Rice runs for President as a Republican. She could win.[/quote]
That is quite sadistic... I have not yet recovered from the Clarence Thomas nightmare.

JustinFelux

Post by JustinFelux » Wed May 19, 2004 10:17 am

[quote][quote]The Democrats should just instruct all their voters in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, et al to vote for Nader in exchange for votes in the swing states.[/quote]
You lost me there... could you explain that strategy?[/quote]

Vote swapping. Al Gore tried it in 2000, but it didn't work very well. People who are planning on voting for Nader in a swing state like Florida "swap votes" with someone in a state where the winner is pretty much guaranteed. For example, since Bush is obviously going to win Texas, a guy from Florida who wants to vote for Nader will get in touch with me, get me to vote for Nader, and in return he votes for Gore in Florida.

[quote][quote]I wouldn't be surprised if Condoleeza Rice runs for President as a Republican. She could win.[/quote]
That is quite sadistic... I have not yet
recovered from the Clarence Thomas nightmare.[/quote]

The word seems to be that Condoleeza Rice will be the candidate they run against Hillary Clinton. The Democrats will break new ground by nominating a woman, the Republicans will one-up them by nominating a black woman. There's already several "Draft Condie" websites out there.

Post Reply