Not-Bush for President


Richard Moore

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:56:34 -0700
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
From: Larry Tesler <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: The Politics of Empire: Globalisation in Crisis


Even if Kerry and Bush were indistinguishable on issues of
globalization, oil and war (which I think they are not), I
think it would be unconscionable to do anything but vote for
Kerry in the upcoming election.

Who will appoint the next Attorney General? The next Supreme

Will the massive transfer of wealth from poor to rich via the
tax system continue for another four years?

Will public health and the environment continue to be

Back in '68, I voted for Cleaver because Humphrey did not
share all of my views. That was the most wasted vote I ever
cast. I and fools like me put Nixon and Cheney into power and
started us down the fast lane to our current plight.

To refuse to vote for Kerry because you think he would be only
the lesser of two evils around globalization would be to throw
the baby out with the bath water. The world cannot afford four
more years. Nothing else we could do in the next 90 days would
send a message as strong as bouncing the scoundrel out of
office. And we need the defeat to be so decisive that it
cannot be overturned in court.

Please help. Every vote matters.

Larry Tesler

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 03:59:34 -0700
From: Anita Sands <•••@••.•••>
Subject: how many light bulbs 

How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to
replace a lightbulb?

The Answer is TEN:

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed

2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says
the light bulb needs to be changed

3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb

4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either: "For 
changing the light bulb or for darkness"

5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Haliburton for the 
new light bulb

6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, 
standing on a stepladder under the banner "Light Bulb Change 

7. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting 
in detail how Bush was literally "in the dark"

8. One to viciously smear #7

9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush 
has had a strong light bulb-changing policy all along

10. And finally one to confuse Americans about the difference between 
screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.

At 6:29 AM -0700 17/10/2004, t r u t h o u t wrote:
New York Times | John Kerry for President

  John Kerry for President
 The New York Times | Endorsement

 Sunday 17 October 2004

Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that
is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to
his own candidacy. But over the last year we have come to know
Mr. Kerry as more than just an alternative to the status quo.
We like what we've seen. He has qualities that could be the
basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest
improvement on the incumbent.

We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and
clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he
was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly
willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. And
while Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam was first over-promoted
and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to
public service, from the war to a series of elected offices.
He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.


There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's
disastrous tenure. Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme
Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office
amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of
a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned
the government over to the radical right.

Mr. Bush installed John Ashcroft, a favorite of the far right
with a history of insensitivity to civil liberties, as
attorney general. He sent the Senate one ideological, activist
judicial nominee after another. He moved quickly to implement
a far-reaching anti-choice agenda including censorship of
government Web sites and a clampdown on embryonic stem cell
research. He threw the government's weight against efforts by
the University of Michigan to give minority students an edge
in admission, as it did for students from rural areas or the
offspring of alumni.

When the nation fell into recession, the president remained
fixated not on generating jobs but rather on fighting the
right wing's war against taxing the wealthy. As a result,
money that could have been used to strengthen Social Security
evaporated, as did the chance to provide adequate funding for
programs the president himself had backed. No Child Left
Behind, his signature domestic program, imposed higher
standards on local school systems without providing enough
money to meet them.

If Mr. Bush had wanted to make a mark on an issue on which
Republicans and Democrats have long made common cause, he
could have picked the environment. Christie Whitman, the
former New Jersey governor chosen to run the Environmental
Protection Agency, came from that bipartisan tradition. Yet
she left after three years of futile struggle against the
ideologues and industry lobbyists Mr. Bush and Vice President
Dick Cheney had installed in every other important
environmental post. The result has been a systematic weakening
of regulatory safeguards across the entire spectrum of
environmental issues, from clean air to wilderness protection.


The president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on
Sept. 11, 2001. With the grieving country united behind him,
Mr. Bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any
shared sacrifice. The only limit was his imagination.

He asked for another tax cut and the war against Iraq.

The president's refusal to drop his tax-cutting agenda when
the nation was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking
example of his inability to change his priorities in the face
of drastically altered circumstances. Mr. Bush did not just
starve the government of the money it needed for his own
education initiative or the Medicare drug bill. He also made
tax cuts a higher priority than doing what was needed for
America's security; 90 percent of the cargo unloaded every day
in the nation's ports still goes uninspected.

Along with the invasion of Afghanistan, which had near
unanimous international and domestic support, Mr. Bush and his
attorney general put in place a strategy for a domestic
antiterror war that had all the hallmarks of the
administration's normal method of doing business: a Nixonian
obsession with secrecy, disrespect for civil liberties and
inept management.

American citizens were detained for long periods without
access to lawyers or family members. Immigrants were rounded
up and forced to languish in what the Justice Department's own
inspector general found were often "unduly harsh" conditions.
Men captured in the Afghan war were held incommunicado with no
right to challenge their confinement. The Justice Department
became a cheerleader for skirting decades-old international
laws and treaties forbidding the brutal treatment of prisoners
taken during wartime.

Mr. Ashcroft appeared on TV time and again to announce
sensational arrests of people who turned out to be either
innocent, harmless braggarts or extremely low-level
sympathizers of Osama bin Laden who, while perhaps wishing to
do something terrible, lacked the means. The Justice
Department cannot claim one major successful terrorism
prosecution, and has squandered much of the trust and patience
the American people freely gave in 2001. Other nations,
perceiving that the vast bulk of the prisoners held for so
long at Guantánamo Bay came from the same line of ineffectual
incompetents or unlucky innocents, and seeing the awful
photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, were
shocked that the nation that was supposed to be setting the
world standard for human rights could behave that way.


Like the tax cuts, Mr. Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein
seemed closer to zealotry than mere policy. He sold the war to
the American people, and to Congress, as an antiterrorist
campaign even though Iraq had no known working relationship
with Al Qaeda. His most frightening allegation was that Saddam
Hussein was close to getting nuclear weapons. It was based on
two pieces of evidence. One was a story about attempts to
purchase critical materials from Niger, and it was the product
of rumor and forgery. The other evidence, the purchase of
aluminum tubes that the administration said were meant for a
nuclear centrifuge, was concocted by one low-level analyst and
had been thoroughly debunked by administration investigators
and international vetting. Top members of the administration
knew this, but the selling went on anyway. None of the
president's chief advisers have ever been held accountable for
their misrepresentations to the American people or for their
mismanagement of the war that followed.

The international outrage over the American invasion is now
joined by a sense of disdain for the incompetence of the
effort. Moderate Arab leaders who have attempted to introduce
a modicum of democracy are tainted by their connection to an
administration that is now radioactive in the Muslim world.
Heads of rogue states, including Iran and North Korea, have
been taught decisively that the best protection against a
pre-emptive American strike is to acquire nuclear weapons


We have specific fears about what would happen in a second
Bush term, particularly regarding the Supreme Court. The
record so far gives us plenty of cause for worry. Thanks to
Mr. Bush, Jay Bybee, the author of an infamous Justice
Department memo justifying the use of torture as an
interrogation technique, is now a federal appeals court judge.
Another Bush selection, J. Leon Holmes, a federal judge in
Arkansas, has written that wives must be subordinate to their
husbands and compared abortion rights activists to Nazis.

Mr. Bush remains enamored of tax cuts but he has never stopped
Republican lawmakers from passing massive spending, even for
projects he dislikes, like increased farm aid.

If he wins re-election, domestic and foreign financial markets
will know the fiscal recklessness will continue. Along with
record trade imbalances, that increases the chances of a
financial crisis, like an uncontrolled decline of the dollar,
and higher long-term interest rates.

The Bush White House has always given us the worst aspects of
the American right without any of the advantages. We get the
radical goals but not the efficient management. The Department
of Education's handling of the No Child Left Behind Act has
been heavily politicized and inept. The Department of Homeland
Security is famous for its useless alerts and its inability to
distribute antiterrorism aid according to actual threats.
Without providing enough troops to properly secure Iraq, the
administration has managed to so strain the resources of our
armed forces that the nation is unprepared to respond to a
crisis anywhere else in the world.


Mr. Kerry has the capacity to do far, far better. He has a
willingness - sorely missing in Washington these days - to
reach across the aisle. We are relieved that he is a strong
defender of civil rights, that he would remove unnecessary
restrictions on stem cell research and that he understands the
concept of separation of church and state. We appreciate his
sensible plan to provide health coverage for most of the
people who currently do without.

Mr. Kerry has an aggressive and in some cases innovative
package of ideas about energy, aimed at addressing global
warming and oil dependency. He is a longtime advocate of
deficit reduction. In the Senate, he worked with John McCain
in restoring relations between the United States and Vietnam,
and led investigations of the way the international financial
system has been gamed to permit the laundering of drug and
terror money. He has always understood that America's
appropriate role in world affairs is as leader of a willing
community of nations, not in my-way-or-the-highway domination.

We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly
breaking, both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the
opportunities so casually wasted. Time and again, history
invited George W. Bush to play a heroic role, and time and
again he chose the wrong course. We believe that with John
Kerry as president, the nation will do better.

Voting for president is a leap of faith. A candidate can
explain his positions in minute detail and wind up governing
with a hostile Congress that refuses to let him deliver. A
disaster can upend the best-laid plans. All citizens can do is
mix guesswork and hope, examining what the candidates have
done in the past, their apparent priorities and their general
character. It's on those three grounds that we
enthusiastically endorse John Kerry for president.


If you find this material useful, you might want to check out our website
( or try out our low-traffic, moderated email 
list by sending a message to:

You are encouraged to forward any material from the lists or the website,
provided it is for non-commercial use and you include the source and
this disclaimer.

Richard Moore (rkm)
Wexford, Ireland

"Global Transformation: Whey We Need It And How We Can Achieve It", current 
    "...the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the
      suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the
      Reichstag fire."  
      - Srdja Trifkovic

    There is not a problem with the system.
    The system is the problem.

    Faith in ourselves - not gods, ideologies, leaders, or programs.
"Zen of Global Transformation" home page:

QuayLargo discussion forum:

cj list archives:

newslog list archives:
Informative links: