Fine story Mr Fellman. But there is one more factor, the Boston Red Sox. There are some who say that New Yorkers, in disgust with the loss of the Yankees and to show their displeasure, will vote for Bush and protest Kerry’s allegiance to the Red Sox. I would disagree. I believe that in a year where the Red Sox, have pretty well done the unpredictable and the impossible their win or loss in the world series will be a deciding factor of the election.

If the Red Sox remove the "Curse of the Bambino" (and they are up two games to nill), then Kerry is bound to win, is he not? No curse, no loss.

The mudslinging has to stop. As much as I hope Kerry wins I get pissed off every time I hear the name "Mary Cheney". I think the mere mention of her name is going to turn off some voters.

Tha Geek, it is funny isn't it that Dick Cheney was the first to use his daughter during this campaign. Once he brought her into discussion I believe it was from that point forward fair game. He used her in a discussion about same sex marriage 2 weeks before the vice-presidential debate I believe in a town hall type meeting in I think it was Iowa.

hey yogi bear is more than the average bear, as we all know. Yes the election can be tinkered with look at 2000.Maybe boston wins will effect the outcome,but those new diebold machines will be able to touch the heart of America. Time to think anew do the citizens need a first past the post electoral college when it's widely reported Al Gore got the pop. vote in 2000. Isn't that what democracy is about anyway the one person one vote concept?

Kerry will win no doubt, just like Gore won, but Bush will take it any way they can. I can see it, the day before the election "Osama Captured!"

Bush already got his head start with the electronic voting machines in Florida.

I hope your right , my motto anyone but Bush. I heard a CBC special a few weeks ago that stated They have found republican groups calling themselves America Votes in up to 10 swing states. America votes is a non profit group that registers voters, These bogus groups have been taking advanced votes and then discarding democratic votes. They have moved British troops in some hot zones in Iraq to reduce US Causalities during the run up to the election. This is very dirty folks, any American's you run into ask them how they feel about the draft, whey they look shocked at you , say oh, has that not been reported yet in the US media.

I hope Kerry wins, but I doubt he will. Why? Because Bush's campaign has been all about getting his "base" out. He has concentrated most of his resources in key states. Look at how much support he has among the Latino community in Florida. It blows my mind that they would vote for him. Kerry's campaign has unfortunately been, in my opinion, the wrong message at the wrong time in the wrong place. The democrats need to learn when to hit hard and when to keep their mouth shut. The republicans could teach then a thing or two. Sadly, I predict a Bush win. I hope I don't know what I'm talking about.

There are so many reasons NOT to vote for Bush that it's hard to imagine his getting elected. For the fiscally responsible (usually thought to be Republicans) Bush has taken the country from record surpluses to record deficits so frightening that even some reputable stock analysts are predicting a collapse of the American dollar. For civil libertarians, the Patriot Act has wiped out all kinds of political rights. For those who prefer peace to war and political honesty to lies and chicanery we have all the bogus baloney and subsequent tragedy of Iraq. Bush is a weapon of mass destruction who has tainted nearly everything he has touched. It has been said that democracy is a system in which we get the government we deserve. The trouble with American democracy is that their national power is so pervasive in the rest of the planet that the rest of us get it, too. Bush and his regime have been a crew of deceitful, opportunistic thieves, trading on the fear and gullibility of a credulous populace. However, as one writer put it, whenever there is a credibility gap there is always a gullibility fill. If Bush is a walking credibility gap, I am not particularly confident that Americans won't foolishly continue to fill it, to all our detriment.

I think you and your tea leaves are spot on with this one, Michael Fellman. The university vote will weigh in heavily against Bush and I also think there are a lot of parents (including Republican ones) who in an effort to protect their kids will vote for Kerry out of fear of a draft. This was very evident during that large peace march in New York City in September.

Also, after one of the debates a young Republican student in a discussion forum surprised me with her unexpected answer. She said: "President Bush says he will go and get the nuclear weapons out of the hands of the terrorists. But Senator Kerry says his priority will be to get the nuclear weapons out of Russsia that are being stored there. I just keep thinking that isn't it better to get the weapons first as Senator Kerry says 'before' they fall into the hands of the terrorists? That thought just keeps rolling around in my mind." That those kind of thoughts are now rolling in even some Republican minds may signal a kind of simple hope, that I admit, still has to overcome a lot of treachery.

“All over the world, the warlord is returning. All over the world, reality is defined in his terms. And in America, too, into the political vacuum the warlords have marched. Alongside the corporate executives and the politicians, the generals and admirals – those uneasy cousins within the American elite – have gained and have been given increased power to make and to influence decisions of the gravest consequence.” “… the American elite does not have any real image of peace – other than as an uneasy interlude existing precariously by virtue of the balance of mutual fright. The only seriously accepted plan for ‘peace’ is the fully loaded pistol. In short, war or a high state of war preparedness is felt to be the normal and seemingly permanent condition of the United States.” “In this military world, debate is no more at a premium than persuasion: one obeys and one commands, and matters, even unimportant matters, are not to be decided by voting.” “The Power Elite”, C. Wright Mills, 1956.

I agree that Kerry will reach out to untapped voters, and that will be the source of his victory (at least in the popular vote). I don't think Bush is winning any new voters.

However, it's the electoral college vote that matters, and it's unclear whether new Kerry voters are concentrated enough to make any state change color.

Remember, Howard Dean had the young professional first-time-voter vote. His support was broad, but not deep enough to win in the primaries.

I'll go against the grain and pick Bush to win by 1 to 10 electoral votes with Kerry enjoying a very small 1% or less lead in popular vote.

It doesn't matter that he's not the brightest light in the history of the White House. His base, both the Christian right and the "haves" are not going to flock to Kerry over Iraq. Bush delivers. He doesn't just talk about tax cuts and the Jesus thing, he carries it out come hell or high water.

Besides his supporters are pretty much impervious to logic, just look at the numbers of people that still believe in WMD's and such.

Good point adnuces, even though I try to remain fairly well informed I believed that it was Kerry and Edwards that were using Cheney's daughter. After reading your comments a thought occurred to me, perhaps Dick brought up his daughter's sexuality in order to make it fair game. After that it became fair game and the Dem's started talking about it, now it looks as though they are using it to discredit Dick and they look like dick's in the process.

Bush by 3-5% of the popular vote and a minimum of seven electoral votes.

Bush's base can hardly wait to vote for Bush, Kerry's base can hardly wait to vote against Bush. But, and here I think is the key, no one seems to actively want to vote for Kerry.

Political psychology being what it is, negative motivations will certainly get the Dem's base to the polls; but that base is no larger than 40% of the electorate. And directly, but asymetrically balanced by Bush's. (The asymetry lies in the fact Kerry's base will rack up huge popular vote victories in a half dozen big states thereby ensuring that the Kerry popular vote is electorially inefficient. Bush will win some big states in close races and rack up big votes in a number of small states which, while wasted, will not have the same effect on the Bush campaign.)

You don't have to be Karl Rove to figure the split on the undecideds. Precious few these people are going to be motivated by a strong anti-Bush sentiment - if they were they would not be undecided, they'd be part of the Dems' base. They are going to be people who want to vote for something and there is where, bumbling as the man is, Bush offers something and Kerry's campaign - with a thousand nuanced plans - does not.

Bush has reduced the election to a referendum on a simple question - which man will do everything in his power to ensure the security of the United States. And the polling suggests that when the message is that simple, Bush out performs Kerry. Significantly.

It is difficult to recall a more inept candidate than Johnny Cambodia. The topper came when the poor man referred to terrorism as a nuisance. (And yes, I know that is not precisely what he said; but that was the tag line that stuck.) He was sunk the moment he threw his chest out and - trying to project an aura of competence in national security - saluted and announced he was reporting for duty.

The left in the States already know this. They are hoping the election will be close enough that the pre-emptive whine about election fraud will gain some traction. They are hoping that having 2000 lawyers ready to challenge chads and voter registration and whatever else comes up will overcome the single most imposing defict in the Dems campaign: John Kerry.

I rather doubt letting lose the dogs of law will work because I don't think it will be that close.

As much as Bush's record appals me, I almost hope he wins. His religious/conservative base needs another four years to understand for themselves the true depths of his folly. If Kerry wins, they'll hunt him, like they did Clinton, and they'll blame him for all the disastrous consequences of Bush's whacky domestic and foreign policies.

I'm not convinced that there will be much of a change, even with Kerry winning over the Little Goosestepper. (Though, I concede, it is part of a process that we likely have to go through, on the way to the real solution.) The reality is, the choice U.S. citizens have is much about tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. What is really important is, that there is an underlying US ruling class pressure for Empire, securing U.S. control over the world's resources, especially oil, and reframing capitalism's mores along "traditional" pre-1930s lines, before there were unions, and the prevailing social more was, the working class should do as it is told, and the ruling class should be left to rule. All parties, U.S. or Canada for that matter, fundamentally adhere, or will so, to that ideological imperative.

Bush or Kerry, even Liberal or NDP, are little more than the adminstrators, good cop and bad cop role players, for the decisions that are framed elsewhere, outside the formal democratic processes.

“The Power Elite”, C. Wright Mills, 1956." quoted kwd.

Still amazingly right on, eh wot? It's going to take more than an election to fixed what's fucked up in the current world, and within the social and economic order of it. Might as well.... Where's that open window again? :-)

The Guardian newspaper in Britain has just published a story about Prescott Bush, banker to Adolf Hitler. The New York Times has just published Ron Suskind's description of the new Empire under George W. Bush ("What makes Bush's presidency so radical ..."). There's enough information circulating now, to illuminate U.S. voters before Nov. 2. I wish them well. The world needs no more madmen in charge of big banks and big armies.

"Johnny Cambodia" nice touch Jay Currie, you borrowed that from the old SNL skit no?

Not consciously...I stopped watching television about ten years ago and SNL firve or six years before that.

Like the Canadian election, the polls will not reflect what happens when the votes are counted. Florida remains interesting and will be important, but it will go Democrat. Mobilizing the black vote will be important. You cannot dismiss the Republican attempts to disenfranchise Democratic voters. This Ferdinand-Marcos tactic will come back to slap the Republicans down. The Republican propaganda machine will not succeed. Kerry will win.

They’re almost down to the last hand, and Kerry just turned over two aces.

Hearts: Clinton makes a dramatic return from heart surgery and hits the campaign trail, hard.

Clubs: Eminem drops a new video, smashing Bush straight across the back of the skull.

Top that, Junior.

Hey Uma! I haven't seen you since t-city, nice to see you.

I can't believe that ANYONE is even considering voting for Bush. The fact that almost half the people down there are willing to really tells you something about them and their media. Incredible. Kerry is more ambitious than he is competitive, and he plays the political game despite the fact that he's more of a legislator than a PR guy. Compare Bush's and Kerry's personal and professional histories and the choice is clear. Kerry is very much worth voting for, and I believe that he's going to win for many of the same reasons that Michael Fellman does. If Bush gets another term, things are going to get significantly uglier than they already are. I just know it.

Word, Geek.

I enjoyed the beating you laid out on ol' FMaxwell in the strip search thread. Keep up the good work, champ.

I'm with that 'Osama captured' headline in the days immediately prior to the election...I'm very hopeful that our neighbours to the south can see past that....

BCMary, Unfortunately, anyone voting Bush is already conviced the NY Times is socialist and the Guardian is Pravda. Unless Bill O'Reilly runs the Prescott Bush story they won't hear about it.

Same people that think Hitler was a lefty because of the party name.

Hmm, what do you think the odds are on bin Laden's poisoned corpse, Ron?

Uma, aces can be 1's or 11's.

Clinton's return to the campaign trail will remind Bush's base of all the reasons why it is vital that Slick Willy and his ilk never occupy the White House again.

Eminem will rally the mooks; but this is not a demographic with a terrifically reliable voting record.

OBL, were he to have made his Rovian debut, would have done it by now.

And Frank, couple of days ago the Guardian ran a column which asked where the assassing of Lincoln and Kennedy were now that we need them. Hmmm.

Well, Michael, me old Thesis Advisor, I do believe you've called it right. Everybody who needs to vote Bush to feel good/safe/holy/whatever has been committed for some time. The new folks coming on board are coming on re Kerry. Plus, as you suggest, the "left" Republicans [as I contradict my terms] may well vote Kerry as their best chance to stay in, much less make a difference in, their Party. Cool.

Bush will win, probably by the narrowest of narrow margins, and there will be a lot of questions about counting the votes (according to CBC radio, in Florida there already is). Like Undecided, I think it may be a good thing in the long run. It's not just that Bush needs to be defeated - the Republican base badly needs to be shaken up (smashed is the word I first chose). The Republicans have effectively gerrymandered a majority in the House of Representatives that will last till Doomsday, so it hardly matters whether the President is red or blue. Bush and his courtiers (and his sheep-like supporters among both Republicans and Democrats) have to be held accountable for their disastrous leadership. The only way I see that happening is if Bush continues his policies over the next four years - and the proverbial chickens come home (as they are even now) to roost. Painful for all of us in the short term, but maybe better for democracy in the end.

On the last occasion, Bush was widely suspected of being an idiot, a puppet of his daddy's old CIA buddies, an oil executive being seconded to the government, and involved in a massive vote fraud in the state where his own brother was governor.

Then, New York (read the new Babylon) was attacked, ostensibly by a younger son of his family's hereditary ally in Saudi Arabia, he declared war on somebody else entirely, his family's current greatest enemy. Though no connection could be shown between the two, the American people did what they will always do when attacked. They shook off all differences and stood behind their president right or wrong.

They were distracted in the one precise way guaranteed to trump both reason and sense, and Dubya was off and away, all doubt behind him.

Now, key jurisdictions have replaced paper ballots with unverifiable and highly hackable computers, Bush has established himself as the candidate of the fundamentalist Christians, something they have wanted for decades, thousands of families are committed through their children's service to the war in a way that doesn't permit doubt, and still the opposition is growing again.

My money is on a last minute outrage by generic "tearists", followed by a rousing speech which has probably already been written, and a further putting aside of doubt for a second term.

Coyote and Undecided; There is a huge difference between any Democrat and any Republican, which is so important and terrifying to the right that they will go to any absurd length to undermine whatever Democrat might be elected, from personal espionage to forgery and fraud to destroy him absolutely. We saw it with Clinton and Carter. The Democrats don't do this. It's the best evidence that there is a huge difference between the two parties, even if we can't see clearly exactly what it is.

Hey, Fox: I'll give you 2:1 against osama's corpse pre nov. 2nd, and I consider those odds to be low. As for REAL lines, they're starting to line up with fellman's idea: Kerry is under 2.3:1 across the board and Bush is climbing steadily (now as high as 1.75:1) It looks to me that incumbent status is the only think keeping Bush in the favourite spot. I've been betting even money on with what I thought to be starry eyed dreamers for months now, I didn't think Kerry had a fart's chance in the wind. Now, though, he's peaking at just the right time and I'm busily hedging my bets while the line is still high. Hunter S. Thompson was instrumental in the eventual election of both Carter and Clinton. He's recently re-opened the Rolling Stone National Affairs Desk to crank out a very entertaining and strong endorsement of Sen. Kerry: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6562575?

I'm with Coyote and Undecided. Slight differences in the degree of a campaign’s dirty politics do not a major difference in US worldwide policy make. Anyone who has concerns with effects of current US policies should realize this fact: George Bush is doing such a poor job (two examples: encouraging distrust of the current US 'system' around the world, huge spending deficits) that the US will soon be crippled and unable to continue to walk the walk. As well, as Undecided pointed out, that the US base of Republican noe-con support needs another four years to understand for themselves the true depths of thier folly. Who would have thought, me, a Soviet Canuckistain, agrees with Pat Buchanan regarding why I think Bush should win the election! "Only a Republican victory will force the neoconservatives who encouraged the invasion of Iraq to accept responsibility for the mess they created there, party dissident Pat Buchanan said Monday as he offered a grudging endorsement for U.S. President George W. Bush." (Although I am a little worried that Pat suggests all right wingers ‘come together’ like they did for the war against Canada in 1812!).

now for some real propaganda..... http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/penta gon.php all that aside. Anyone who thinks that Kerry is a shoe in should get with the program. Unfortunately Bush may very well rule the day remember it is not the popular vote but the electoral college who determines the winner of the election. This method is archaic and totally biased as it is not a fair representation of the wishes of the people. Oh and The Geek, it was Cheney who first spoke independantly of his daughter's sexuality, long before any of the debates and as stated previously this makes her fair game for election fodder.

Coyote, I'm a bit surprised you would find some solace in the idea that the American right will learn anything from their own mistakes. That process requires an initial acceptance of wrong, which ain't in Dubya's lexicon other than as a description of anything and everything he doesn't understand. Yes, I'd love to see Shrubby Bush having his face rubbed in his own pile of brown, stinky stuff, but I suspect there may be four to six billion others who would have it flung at them before this still AWOL national guardsman could learn to say 'I'm sorry' without sneering. You are right that the Democrats aren't much better, but then if we had a right-wing government run be Stephan Harper in Canada, Paul Martin might begin to look pretty progressive to many of us. And as pathetic as they may seem, we do have other alternatives.

Hey Braden, I'm inclined to agree with you that no Osama is likelier than a sudden show;I just think that if the Bush league conjures him up at all, it's most likely as a corpse.

Utne has a really good article in its current issue about a scary trend that may just swing the election. It's erlated to the electronic devices that cast the ballots. Two republican companies provided their versions in gubernatorial races that were unpredictably won by republicans, despite polls indicating otherwise (georgia and i forget the other). In Georgia's case the results were erased within 24 hours and this particular device has no paper trail, so it is possible the elections were thrown, since in one state the same company had a manipulation mechanism planted in the cicuitry. It also mentions the mysterious death of an inventor of a electronic voter-verifiable system that was the main competition for the republ'n companies. Worth checking out, as it could provide a truly fraudulent election result.

First, I'm not saying that the ruling classes in either the U.S. or Canada, do not have their differences, like any body of people. Not even that they share the exact same set of class interests. And generally that splits into and explains, the historical evolvement of "liberal" and "conservative" fractions or parties within capitalism.

It also in part explains, if your only choice is between the lesser of evils, why the lower classes "generally" favour the more "liberal" fraction within the ruling class, i.e. the "good cop" over the "bad cop". (Unless, after a long period in power, the "good cop" itself becomes so corrupted and indistinguishable, that it is perceived necessary to make a change, within what is acceptable and available, for the sake of a change itself. (Though there are, for sure, other complicating elements in time of war etc. which may "seem" to dictate the making of other than the "liberal" choice.

Canada, on the other hand, has a "somewhat" different experience within the capitalist system, that produces a "slightly" modified result, compared to the U.S., coming out of the Great Depression of the 1930s and the last Great War. During those years especially, "communist" and "socialist" parties played a much bigger role here in the working class response, and for example, radicalized the trade union movement beyond what the working class in the U.S. was able to achieve. (Which is not to deny the importance of "their" own history in the U.S.)

In any case, a "somewhat" more, as I would describe it, "radical liberal" party did succeed in establishing itself here, some elements with it going so far as to call themselves "socialists", all within "social democratic" trappings. That did develop the "social potential" of capitalism to somewhat further "welfare state" limits-, than say, was achieved within the U.S. (And I call the NDP a fundamentally "radical liberal" phenomena, because it never really did "challenge" or call for in a whisper, the revolutionary or radical transformation of capitalism. It has always basically accepted the capitalist economic base of the system as it found it, and has sought only, during at least its most "radical" phase, rapidly passing, to tweak it, and give capitalism a softer and gentler face. At which it succeeded somewhat, with socialized medicine and a few other "relativelY" important tweaks of the system-, all currently under attack and being rolled back by the new ruling class "neoconservative" ideology being pressed on all "parties of capitalism". Which all have,in these "new", actually a repeat of "old" times, to varying degrees, been falling before and winnowed up into neat rows like mowed fields of ripe wheat.

But what overwhelming distinguishes the current period, and emboldens the ruling class of capitalism, especially its most "radically conservative" fractions, is that there is nowhere in sight, in the U.S., or not even within the NDP or the Greens, any party or fraction, including the entire trade union movement or the larger working class, any body of which it is or need be frightened, or in any way "significantly" challenged, that might call upon or dictate that the ruling class should even "modify" its behaviour or view of the world.

And until that changes, and a new force or forces emerge within status quo society, rooted in the majority working class and its various strata, from intellectuals, to tradesmen and grunts, the poor and homeless, to professsionals, that is prepared to deal with the very issue of the corporate capitalist/ruling class underpinnings of the economic and social system, and to take hold of "power" therein for themselves, through either a Magna Carta kind of "deal" and/or sheer muscle, the retreat of "the mass" of society, and the decline of their interests will continue. That is my wee prediction, at any rate.

And I don't care, who of the current crop you vote for, or whether this one or that one carries a bigger or a smaller stick, or how loud or soft He or She talks.

There is a new "neocon/neofascist" ideology at work within the beating heart of the system and those who really "rule" it, centred in the boardrooms of the economic system. The fact of that new ideology changes everything. The postwar period of endless prosperity is dead, and the willingness of that ruling class to make compromises and cut deals with majority society is also a long ago historical fiction to which everyone is still clinging.

It's time to move on and really deal with the problem of the system. Though I suspect we still have some dancing around the Maypole to do yet, before everyone, or enough of everyone finally gets it. Enter the propped up on their chargers El Cid cadavers of the New Democrats in this country (And Greens), and the Democrats in the U.S.

At least that is the view from here, as a simple demonstration of the complete depths of my arrogance. :-D

Now, I'm going to make some home baked pork and beans, to replenish my depleting supply of flatus.

Of course, you are all too young to have seen the old movie, El Cid, right? Ahhhhhh! Sophia Loren!

Be still, my beating heart.

Uma- "I enjoyed the beating you laid out on Fi Maxwell- keep up the good work, champ"?? What the hell does that mean? Beating?? Nice choice of words considering the topic of that thread.

"Coyote, I'm a bit surprised you would find some solace in the idea that the American right will learn anything from their own mistakes." slanders Allan. :-)

Actually, I think you possibly have me confused with Undecided, with whom I have a "somewhat shifted" opinion, though I do understand what he is saying. And I might choose to focus it a little differently.

Though actually, i doubt certainly I or thee control what will happen in that regard, and we will each have to live with the consequences, regardless.Same vis a vis Campbell and his misguided camp followers.

Though, I do "kind of" say what you suggest, insofar as I think that the coming political and economic period is "most likely", assuming I am right about the direction of capitalist development and what is driving it, going to change a great many peoples "view of the world" and/or "ideology", if you will. And I think that will be true across much of the current so-called "left to right" spectrum-, regardless of who, as I say, occupies what seats in the legislature or parliament. The direction of capitalist development, and an increased "bearing down" on ordinary citizens, especially the working class, and its more marginal strata, the further evolution of the "Empire Quest" coming out of US ruling circles, currently seen in Iraq, and what a highly likely "prolonged" period of imperial wars is going to bring, and with the economic consequences if that is, as I expect, a failed venture, is all going to pile on people over the coming period and change many an "attitude"; right, liberal, green and left.

And I haven't even talked yet about, what I see as the drift towards a new Third World War "potential", in the emerging geo-politics around the Iraq war, with the U.S. attempt to control the oil and the region of the Middle East rubbing abrasively up against rising "competing interests", within global capitalism itself, in Europe and Russia, who each have their own resentments of the U.S. astride their backyard. (Imagine Europe or Russia trying to do in Latin America, what the U.S. is doing in their part of the world.) And China. Watch China, and its growing need for resources the U.S. is attempting to control.

All in all, a truly new world order IS taking shape, post the collapse of the USSR, only not quite the one they planned, that is actually more dangerous, I think, and setting in motion complex and damaging forces that is going to force a major rethink, by ordinary folks, of where their real loyalties and interests might actually better lie, and whether or not their lives and prospects are likely to be improved, twirling about with their thumbs up their arses, and being so bleatingly obedient to their masters.

So, yeah. Even "some" elements on the right may come to actually "learn something" from their mistakes in the evolving future. As for the rest... We'll deal with that when we get there. Right now, it is too far into the mists that shroud the future, where there are too many unknowns and variables.

Like I say, by their actions, they will have something to say about how folks come to see them, and feel they have to deal with them.

I'm always ready to forgive and forget. :-D

It's the voting machines, stupid, the voting machines. It doesn't matter what voters think/do, the U Ass of A will be done in by the Bush(whack) of fraudulent technology. A federal U.S. judge just turned down a petition to demand that a paper record be produced for recounts of computer vote results. Oh, it's just too easy! Cheney takes the Supreme Court judges fishin' and... I've a background in information technology, and you wouldn't believe just how simple the deception regarding the various voting machines is, nor how shocking that "thinking" people let them get away with this. It's like half the country is under some kind of Jonestown spell, with Bush their psychopathic leader. He's the modern-day Charles Manson with a larger following, and nuclear-powered machetes (or should I say nukuleer). The U Ass of A is imploding right in full view of itself, kinda like those twin towers. Problem is, it's taking the rest of the world with it. So, I have to disagree with the author -- Bush will be back, there's no other possibility. I share the opinion/hope that four more years will scare the bejeezus out of the American voter, but four years is a loooong time, and I think we could be in for a very, very rough ride. We may not even recognize our world by then. Mad Max comin' our way?

A technical question -- how do you put spaces in between paragraphs? all my stuff just shows up as one big run-on blurb even though I hit the space bar. Can anyone help me out here?

use html tags, a google search will help you CJ you need to use < and > with things like the letter p in the middle for paragraph.

Hmmmm...after listening to many people claim that voting machines are hackable I did a little research. Check out this link at PCWorld for an in-depth look at voting machines.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115608,pg,1,0 0.asp

Fairly interesting stuff

Try this one instead:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117261,00.asp

To put in a paragraph you have to type "

"

Not to mention the voting machines can easily be set up to favour the people that paid for them. Funny how the companies always claim they have to keep their code secret.

I too believe the right may actually learn something from another 4 years of George Bush. Increased debt, decreased taxes and good jobs and health care, increased work load. No wonder faith is on the rise, it's all they'll have left. And it would be nice if the guy that made the mess got blamed for it, the "it was Clinton" thing is pretty old.

Still, I'd rather see Kerry win. I think it will take longer than 4 years to fix 4 years of Bush but at least the world will seem a little friendlier and the air will stay a little bit more healthy.

"A technical question..." asks CJ

At the end of what you want to be your paragraph, after the period: a space, then < >< >, with each set of these left and right brackets having a P, capitalized, within them.

Hope that helps. It works for me.

Fi, I guess I missed that knockout punch as well. Hey, ignore the small things and keep your chin up as you and your colleagues deal with something worth fighting over.

It's inconsiderate to cross-post, no matter what the opinion.

Please note the The Tyee comment section is not a bulletin board for the announcements of events. There are other mailling lists and announcement boards that can be used for those wishing to post events. The comment section below each Tyee article is offered as a place for readers to discuss the articles. If all readers were to use the comment section to add thier own events the comment sections would become much longer, and less appealing to sort through. In addition, some readers may see uninvited events in the comment section as just another form of SPAM. No one likes SPAM. - thank you.

They're doing it again. In Nevada, a Republican contractor has allegedly ripped up thousands of Democratic registration forms. In Florida, Jeb Bush has purged tens of thousands of legitimate voters -- mostly black, mostly Democratic -- from the rolls because their names are similar to a felon's. In Ohio, the Republican Secretary of State has been so uncooperative that a federal judge said that he "apparently seeks to accomplish the same result in Ohio in 2004 that occurred in Florida in 2000." But there's one big difference between the election of 2000 and the election of 2004: the Democrats are prepared with teams of lawyers responding to each and every instance of voter intimidation, suppression, and fraud. Even in the United States messing with a citizens right to vote is a felony, and the Democrats want to make sure that anyone who does is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I predict you'll be wrong but I hope that you are proven correct on election night.

I pray that you are right. The USA has to get rid of Adolf Bush.

The election will be stolen. Here's what will happen next Tuesday. By various means of holding down Democratic vote counts, especially in the eleven states where such votes might matter, the Republicans will keep it close. Close means we lose, because the paperless voting machines have two built in flaws that deliver votes to Republicans. Neither is by accident. One is that they default to the Republican on national races. If there's a human or digital error, the vote lands on the right. We've already seen this in dozens of stories of early voters in several states saying just that -- any correction entered defaults to Bush. Repeatedly. Two is the AP connection. The Associated Press is the only media organization wired to the paperless voting machines. They hear from the precinct computers in real time. They feed those results out to the world's media organizations. On computers, once connected, there is no such thing as a one-way connection. Via this AP connection, unseen hands will be shaving and downsizing the Democrat percentages over the wires as they come in, tweaking a close election just far enough to throw it to the Republicans at first blush. No amount of street protests, legal or PR campaigns will dislodge the dead weight of Government once it is initially given to the Republican side. The AP has the victory announcement "in the can" already, and will wire it to the world about 11 PM on 11/02. Cheny and Rove, who belong in the Hague along with Slobodan Milosevic, aren't going to give up their jobs just so they can go to prison. They'll cheat. Big Time. As Clinton said of the Election Theft in 2000, "I wasn't surprised. They had the power, and they used it."

If the vote goes the wrong way, which unfortunately I think it will, I won't call you an idiot on November 3, Michael. Cockeyed optimism is the only way to get through this next week.

Did somebody say "Dick CHE(i)caNErY"?

John Kerry will win the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. New voter turnout, Republicans voting for John Kerry, Republicans staying home, Republicans voting for third-party candidates, independents, undecideds, energized Democrats, and overall voter turnout will give John Kerry a victory in 2004. THANK YOU.

.

John Kerry will win the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. New voter turnout, Republicans voting for John Kerry, Republicans staying home, Republicans voting for third-party candidates, independents, undecideds, energized Democrats, and overall voter turnout will give John Kerry a victory in 2004. THANK YOU.

.

Here's the irony of it all. While John Kerry better reflects Canadian values -- compassion, internationalism, human rights, environment -- it is actually George Bush who is BETTER for Canada. As long as Bush continues to destroy his own country, and the world around him, the demand for financial safe-havens like gold and natural gas/oil and natural resources like lumber will continue to go THROUGH THE ROOF. And that means a rising Canadian dollar, a strong Canadian economy, federal and provincial governments drunk on the revenue riches from mining and gas production, etc. So while Canadians might cheer for Kerry with their heart, and I suppose their brain, they might want to cheer for Bush with their wallet.

Not true. Sure, governments get some royalties and workers get short-term jobs. But most of the corporations are foreign owned and they pump the money out of the country at a rate of millions per hour.

I can't believe it but I've been following this website that's updated daily and Kerry actually pulled ahead today on the electoral vote. http://www.electoral-vote.com/

I've been reading some letters Salon.com's published from readers who have never faced an election like this one for acrimony. One lady wants the entire western seaboard and some northern states to secede from the Union and join Canada. Now there's a switch!

" One lady wants the entire western seaboard and some northern states to secede from the Union and join Canada." writes "The Mad Fox".

And "the people" and territories, as distinct from corporate or "official" USA, we should welcome to join Canada, in my view. Though unfortunately, I suspect, if they really think they are going to escape anything, we are actually running just a bit behind in capitalist development from their own "current" country. And they should know that we have a fight of our own taking shape up here, part of which involves Imperial USA. And it has the potential to turn just as nasty as well.

Still, so long as they understand the risks, come on up, where the history of social development does give us a "wee bit" of an edge -, and it would assist the "unravelling" of that war mongering, anti-working folks travesty to our south. Goodness knows, "what is" needs a major shake up.

Hey, George! Bring it on!

I would be very surprised if Kerry wins, there is too much corruption within the system, APress, and those paperless voting machines, for Bush not to win. It will be close, and it may be that Kerry will win the popular vote but Bush will carry the Electoral College. Or it could come down to Colorado, which has a voter initiative on selecting the President by pro-rep. Either way --I predict a fair amount of chaos, street protest, perhaps even violence if Bush gets "elected' judicially again. No doubt legal teams are preparing for varied scenarios, including a constitutional challenge to the validity of Electoral College system etc ad nauseum . Buckle your seat belts...for 'chaos' and uncertaintly will perhaps prevail for quite some time.

While I am one of the 8 in 10 Canadians that would vote for John Kerry if possible, I think many Canadians need to step back and look at the good that has come to Canada during the last 4 years. We need to remember that while Kerry would better represent our interests if he were to lead us, his party and policies will not go into effect in Canada. As much as Bush's policies have changed Canadians' lives in a negative way, from a country wide perspective, keep in mind the following: In the US - a war, a severly polarized populace, a record trade deficit, a record national deficit, near record lows for the USD to the Euro, alienation from the West except for Britian and Australia, daily terror alert levels, the Patriot Act, flu vaccine panic, voter fraud charges, and ...? Now let's look at Canada: A soaring dollar, (what about exports you say?), a huge trade surplus, a huge annual national surplus, no war, massive music and literary growth globally, a renewed - or perhaps new - sense of Canadian identity, and a new and ever growing respect on the world stage as a model country. This respect is growing because we have none of the above listed US problems, yet we share so much with the US in many areas (physically, economic, media). We have a huge amount of economic and social issues, many immediate and pressing, but with many Canadians thumbing up their nose at the US we have, consciously or not, created a global market for ourselves, our products, and our identity and done so without the help of the US. Think about your own feelings as a Canadian right now. Now, think about Ronald Reagan's words in 1984, "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" Well are YOU? I don't want Bush back, but if Canada keeps going this way and they keep going that way, hey, lock the border up from our unsafe drugs and our terrorists, and well, have fun alone in your cesspool of conflict.

Now, I was a wee bit tongue in cheek above, of course, because I am sure the issue is not seriously put.

That said, what I really attempted to demonstrate and speak to, is the need over the coming period, and the time of the world unfolding before us, as a consequence of the extreme "rightist" developments occurring within, especially, US imperialism, but also being transposed up here as well, is that we, Canadians, should be wary of falling into a kind of "narrow" nationalist response ourselves. If one wants to see the end product of that, look no further than our U.S. neighbours, who are the modern definition of "narrow nationalism".

Rather, I think, the times call for the evolution of a very special "cross border" solidarity, at the people to people level, between US citizens and ourselves. We, ourselves or they, really are not islands that can stand entirely alone in the new, I say, neo-fascist, you can call it, neocon political and economic reality, and the dangerous World Order these lunatics are creating. We, again, at the people to people level, are likely to need each other.

And eh, you Campbellite Pinstripe Suit and Tie Goosesteppers, that doesn't mean we have forgotten about you corporatist bootlicks-, not even a smidgen.

" I don't want Bush back, but if Canada keeps going this way and they keep going that way, hey, lock the border up from our unsafe drugs and our terrorists, and well, have fun alone in your cesspool of conflict." writes David G.

I understand what you are saying, David, and I don't even entirely disagree with the sentiment. Feel it myself sometimes. But the point is, we are not escaping it. Klein in Alberta and Campbell here, and Harper in Ottawa are reading and acting from the same PNAC page as their "Bush Baby" mentor. And if you have been reading the articles and posts at all here, about the growing US "security" presence and threat within this country, you should have a clue, at least, that they are NOT going to leave us out of it, or allow us to be left "untouched" by their right wing rot.

Like I say, "narrow nationalism", that would seek as well to separate and isolate us from the rest of the world, in pursuit of our own pristine "nirvana", just isn't on, and will NOT be allowed to occur. THEY need us too much. THEY, over developed, over populated and with a depleting resource base, about to be isolated from the rest of the world, and maybe even its precious oil, and in grave danger of military defeat everywhere, are not going to allow YOU to live in your Fantasy World, untouched and uncorrupted by their HUGE economnic and resource needs.

And I am not saying that we should roll over and play dead. I'm saying, this is one huge, mean and hungry critter, about to be severly wounded "over there", with his dollar tanking and his debt piling up, and an army that is going to be coming home embittered by defeat, willing and able to make a meal out of you-, so you better find the balls/vagina and a realistic strategy to fight this sucker. And your thinking you can sit up here all smug and safe, with a smile on your face, obviously not one of even our own growing body of "have nots", is just going to piss him off. And he's just as like to want to come up here and wipe that fucking self-satisfied smile "off" your face, brother.

This is the real world, not Fairy Land.

Coyote, I live in the real world. Real people in Canada are positive right now compared to their US counterparts. I also believe in positivity as a driving force. I am stating that as a whole, as an overbearing sense both from within and from an exterior global vantage point, Canada has been put in a much more positive light in the last four years. Military, espionage, and police presence in Canada was not my topic. Your argument for this comes from postings on this website, where else? People have been going on for years about rising violent crime, youth crime, etc. It's not. It simply is not. I also believe in rational argument, not name calling, the excessive use of " " around every word, or ignoring other points of view. Balanced, rational rhetoric is hard to find these days. Cynicism is around every corner. I will not help propagate that by "qualifying" every second word and "questioning" absolutely "everything," at least not in writing. Remember, Joe Canadian does not care about the issues you mentioned, ask him - he really does not. I know lots of Joe Canadians and they are just fine. You also cite Klein, Campbell, and Harper as looking to Bush as a mentor. I don't see abortion on the table, I don't see gay rights on the table, I don't see a war here, I don't see a bitterly divided population (divided, but not so much that people move to live near other NDPers or other Liberals). Canadians will always have people like yourself to vocally keep severe right wing policy at bay. I would like to think I can keep Canadians growing in a positive direction, not by ignoring the evils of society, but by balancing those evils with some focus on the positives. I do not make apologies for believing in the good of man. Call me naive or not having any ....s but, I enjoy life thanks.

...yeah, and I have too many good friends who happen to be American...

David, I'm with you and Chretien on this one and, quite frankly, with sentiments running as they are, I think it is a good time to raise public opposition to U.S. intervention tactics such as planting hundreds of spooks in this country. Anything we can do to prolong our country's political independance, in my view, is worth it.

Also, back to the original discussion re: Fellman's assertion. He is right. It will be Kerry, it will be a decent win. Fellman is looking at the static surrounding the polls, or the "z" antecedent variables. Same as was posted above by Sue Clark, the polls will not reflect the outcome. Always look for other determining factors in an outcome. Why CNN and the rest of them talk about the same polls over and over is strange. It is almost as though all the news outlets read the same script!? On Nov. 3 the pundits will bring up cell phone users not polled (7% of the US population), the youth/college vote, the ethnic vote, the tendency of undecided to vote against the incumbent. The Republican vote will not change, 4 more Bush of years would help if this was 2008 and his policies were allowed to come to fruition. The Republican vote will never change until the contradictory information to their views is shown on their media, like as stated above, on the O'Reilly Factor. The media is too fragmented. People tend to watch news and media that validates their belief systems. This was discussed on Larry King Oct 28. Also, pollster John Zogby declared a Kerry win on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Without sarcasm either. He's looking at the trends too.

Yes, Kerry will win. Go to the States and you will see this. The real race is over the Senate now. Kerry needs it to U-Turn their policies.

".s but, I enjoy life thanks." proclaims David.

Good for you, and I as well. :-)

< I suspect here, it is a classic matter of perspectives. You see the glass half full, while I see it half empty. You speak for those "more satisfied" and less "touched" by the new world order, while I those "less satisfied" and "more negatively impacted." Time and further development is the great settler of our differences, generally not logic.

And I agree with those, including David, whose assessment is, that Kerry will win in the US. Coming down to the wire, I think that is the "most likely" outcome-, because most U.S citizens are fundamentally good people with, probably, good intentions-, once their interests are served. They're just paving ours, and everyone else's road to Hell with those good intentions again, right now.

I add the caveat, however, that Kerry's victory is unlikely to mean "squat" in the end; drawing your intention to the historical record, that both Republican and Democrat regimes in the US prosecuted the crime that was Vietnam. Indeed, including the US icon, of "liberal compassion" that was the later assasinated Kennedy. (One theory being, because he had come to want to pull US troops out of Vietnam.) And both Repugs and Dems will likely do so again in Iraq as well. (Kerry just has a better plan for victory.)

And the policy of lean and mean, deunionizarion and corporate globalization being less advanced in the US, for example, which allowed Clinton to look "some" better than the "out of the closet" corporatist Repugs, he nonetheless was a part of that plant closure process, and the exporting of US jobs, that is the real face of globalization in the "advanced" countries. He never bucked it, and for all his talk about public health care for US citizens, they are STILL without it.

The Democrats and Kerry, with some qualifications, are their NDP. They will talk the talk just fine. In the end, they will bend to the new ideology, maybe tweaked and softened around the edges, coming out of the real seats of "power", in the corporate boardrooms.

You heard it here first. :-D

http://www.canadianembassy.org/border/declaration-en.asp

While I don't intend to do your homework for you, David, here is a good place for you to start, in getting a better understanding of the growing "security" cooperation between "official" US and Canada-, that for examples allows their spooks to work unimpeded up here. And I was aware of this long before Tyee ever addressed the issue. (Don't worry. It's the Canadian Embassy site in Washington. Nothing too profane or threatening to your optimism. :-)

And a little "key word" and "key phrase" searching on Google, for example, around this issue, will help begin to make the full scope of what is evolving here, clearer, perhaps, to you.

Actually, my friend, while I try to be real in my assessments, and tend to the "worst case scenarios" life has taught me to expect and prepare for, I am actually quite optimistic as well. The People Survive! In the end, they shall win.

Have a good day.

Sammy: Voting machines is right. I was thinking the way you were untill this bout of recent Democratic momentum. If you think Bush is a lock, now's the time to lay down the money... he's 2:1 some places and seems to be climbing every day. Stay tuned.

A sour economy sank the elder Bush's presidency and the likelihood is great that the same thing will play out for W. America's fattest cats and Republican cronies have done very well under Bush/Cheney, but the middle class has been consistently squeezed, downsized, outsourced and lied to. The lower middle-class and the growing legions of U.S. citizens living in poverty have been studiously ignored by this administration. Let's see whether seething anger translates into votes on Tuesday. I'll bet you it does. Kerry, who's been slammed as a patrician New Englander seems to have tapped into middle-class values and concerns exceedingly well and shows every sign of being a sensitive and responsible manager. Add to the mix a seemingly out of control federal deficit brought on by the godawful Iraq quagmire with so much needless death and destruction, and interestingly, a looming FBI probe of Cheney's Halliburton involvement, and it's Adios Dubya on Tuesday!

The one thing oppressive regimes like Bush and Campbell fail to recognize is that even though a majority of the public may be silenced out of fear of speaking out, the anger is there all the same. The media no longer investigates this silence, it ignores it and lazily "follows" and reflects that "outside mask" that so deceptively camouflages an ever growing public outrage. It is why polls are not as reliable as before... and in the end that unrecognized, unreported, and ignored discontent, indeed seething anger, will be our finest weapons against them.

Mr fellman, I loved your comment that "the republicans have gone to the well of hatred one election too many..." Very apt and well put. Let's also remember that american media and polling is even more hopelessly biased than our own. The rightwing has prospered by manipulating anger and emotion and those very conditions may be what brings them down. I also fear attempted coups and ballot box tampering, however. As lynn says, this time it's the anger of the left and the moderates which may well determine the outcome.

To: Barking Mad Fox Channel Hot Damn! He must have heard us

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/2004102 9/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bin_laden_tape

Sorry Braden ... tried cut-&-pasting that address in my URL box and it went nowhere.

No matter. It's the lead story on Al Jazeera. Try http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

There it is (have to drop a space between the query mark and 'tmpl= ...'. Looks like Osama is rooting for Bush since this late-date appearance is going to whip all the ghouls into a frenzy. Go figure. Bush is the best recruiter Osama ever had.

does seem like i have it easy not being an american,being lied too every time a so-called republican opens his /her mouth. mr. reagan's huge debt and now bush debt legacy should point to an agenda, possibly t-bills? Silverado savings and loan scandal' Ninteen former Enron employees at the Whitehouse' Where is Neil baby?' Does anyone recall that in the 1920's in Indiana that only KKK members were in the "GOP" Well with 16 ,000,000 southern baptists voting for the bush any orangutang can and did win

I think what is interesting about bin laden's timely appearance is the significance about what he is wearing - this time he appears in princely robes and by doing so he is making a statement -that he stands on equal ground (for his own cause) as both Bush and Kerry - with reiteration to the world and fair warning, perhaps, to a possible new president "if you do not attack us, we will not attack you."

I am in no way defending bin laden or terrorist actions but in Kerry's hawkish response you can easily see that though he may be a better step than Bush, nothing will really significantly change. There are too many other things americans want before they want peace and they have become too comfortably ensconced in that last stage of celebrity called "Graceland" where the rest of the world just melts away and no longer exists in any important way for this superstar, other than as useful facilitators in helping them maintain the american dream... like Michael Jackson, like Celine Dion (just to prove egocentrism has no borders), they've got lost in their own delusional mentality. When the United States looks in the world mirror, it sees only itself. What it's now going to take to break that level of vanity is frighteningly unthinkable.

I think Bin Laden is aiming for a book deal. I loved the reference to Dubya being like a middle eastern leader :)

But the reaction to Bin Laden is even better. High-brows who think nothing of bombing kids with smart bombs, who think nothing of interfering in the affaris of other countries are all suddenly mortified that Bin Laden would have the gall to put himself into the US election debate. Hypocrisy.

Right now, Lynn, Kerry enjoys unprecedented support because everyone is so disgusted with Bush. The hawkish response Kerry proposes will probably be adjusted once American families realize that it will require a military draft to enact. The world is not going to jump into that snake pit the Americans dug for themselves in Iraq just because there has been a change of administration. The only support I anticipate he will receive from the world community is for enabling an exit strategy, as in "Leave, now!"

I loved the very astute middle eastern reference as well, Frank. If not a book deal, perhaps a very dark, far, far-off Broadway (like Karachi) morality play. Ragamuffing, I agree, there will be little support in the world community for becomimg embroiled with the US (even under Kerry) but whether Kerry will take his cue from the exit sign is a bigger question...

We may be missing the fact that perhaps for the first significant time shipping jobs overseas is going to play a major part in the vote in a national election in the mid-westers states. The other key factor is how Bush has isolated himself out on a limb from world opinion by saying publicly that American will defend itself. This is something new compared to Rosevelt's line that the US is the arsenal of democracy. Lastly, I also wonder if and how much the silent opinion poll of millions of computers are having on this election. For some reason even though I am a Canadian I am very concerned and more knowledgable about the consequences of a Bush victory. Can democracy survive or will the backroom boys of Cheney and Company impose the Board's Rule on what is good for people in the good old USA? That's is the meat of the question on Tuesday.

Leaving aside the speculative paranoia about the vote being stolen...and there are 2000 Democratic lawyers locked and loaded to file writs and petitions on every conceivable irregularity...what are people on the Left going to do if Bush, er, wins.

Now I realize that people at Indymedia and the DU will simply have their heads explode. But what about the rest of the left.

A couple of thoughts. It might be a good idea for the American left to re-examine how effective their politics have been. Why was Howard Dean defeated. How did the Dems get such a donkey for a candidate? These are pretty key questions because, lets face it, if Bush wins it will almost certainly have been the result of the Dems picking the worst possible candidate.

Second, if Bush wins, it might be a good idea for the left to re-examine its rhetoric. It may well be that further co-opting the writings of noted Pol Pot support Noam Chomsky will help; but I doubt it. It may well be that the Michael Moore trope of "Americans are the stupidist, most ignorant people on Earth" will help; but I doubt it.

There is absolutely no reason for Bush to win this election - except for all of the reasons that John Kerry has given American voters and all the reasons that the hard left, activist base in the Democratic party have given the voters.

Of course, the traditional tactic is to blame the media. But, again, this is a bastion of boomer leftism second only to American universities. From Dan Rather on down, the american media have gone out of their way to vilfy Bush and do the best job they can with the patrician sow's ear the Dems nominated as their candidate. No, the press has pulled its weight.

Ultimately, the left has to make a choice if Bush wins. It can spend four more years crying that the election was stolen or it can get on with the hard work of finding and supporting attractive, competent, canidates. If it opts for the former, Bush will either be succeeded by a Republican or Hilary Clinton. (It is by no means clear which would be worse.) But, by actually dealing with reality, it is possible that the American left will create a Democratic party which really does appeal to the majority coalition which has elected Democratic Presidents.

Jay, are you saying you're another "the left has to move to the right to get elected guy?".

I disagree.

If half the US wants to re-elect Bush after all he's done it says more about them than it does about the left I'm afraid. If the left has to become more like Bush to get elected then we're in tweedle-dum, tweedle-dee land and you may as well stop having elections.

Selecting a candidate for their "likeability" is one of the things wrong with democracy, the left in Canada already went with Jack Layton for that reason and it didn't help.

And unfortunately the media was a part of Kerry becoming the nominee instead of comeone like Howard Dean. Kerry was actually selected due to his electability.

Frank, I completely agree with you. In fact, I think there is a urgency to this than in the past three decades. The trend of the centrist line to move further right is the reaction of a people who are witnessing the fragmentation of their unsustainable societies.

While, I think the left has become much too comfortable in their wishy-washy materialism and have not rallied effectively against the tactics of the extreme right because of this, I have to disagree with you, Jay, in your belief that the media has pulled it's weight. It's interesting because just this morning Anna Maria Tremonte was interviewing Seymour Hersh and he remarked how the press was just as fearful as everyone else after 9/11 and on into the Iraq war, resulting in a proliferation of "happy" heroism stories but no investigation of WMD's or tough questions. That is the true failure of the press these days, it lacks real courage and so it rarely confronts the real issues.

It is most evident in bin laden's latest appearance. It is covered as just another popping up of the boogeyman, and again I am not defending him or acts of terrorism, but no one is really listening to what he is saying - which is an appeal to the people to see the results of corruption and greed as exemplified in the similarities between Bush and the Saudi kings, both passing governance down to their sons, both using the military as soldiers for their own greedy self-interest as they ravage the poor.

Terrorism whether ordered from bin laden against america - or from the Bush regime's incessant bombing of Iraq in the name of so-called freedom is an end of the road for humanity. A horrific one. What is interesting is that three years after 9/11, the press is still afraid to confront the real issue behind terrorism which is what makes a man or a woman so angry, so devoid of hope, so easily held victim of extremist causes and religions, that they are willing to blow themselves and others, indeed the world, to smithereens. So bin laden, for now, remains the boogeyman and when he is gone, another, just like him will pop up.

But that anger, that loss of hope, that religious extremism, that we prefer to think is "over there", is now a western phenomena as well, where we, the many, are called upon more and more to sustain the mushrooming greed of the few. And the press remains as cowardly as ever, still hardly asking a tough question just hours away now from a very precarious US election.

Frank, it is not so much that the left needs to move right, rather it is that the left needs to understand how much "Bush Derangement" hurts it cause.

I disagree with about 90% of what Howard Dean stands for; but he was able to present it in an articulate, reasoned and principled way. With Kerry you can almost see him gaming out his responses based on what his polls are telling him.

Not it is, no doubt, satisfying to wave signs with "Bush=Hitler" and "No Blod for Oil" but it simply issolates the left from the mainstream of american politics. Strategically this is a bad idea.

Stay left by all means, but box smart and run candidates who will challenge the system rather than gazillionaires who are have been creatures of that system for thirty years.

Jay, of course "Bush=Hitler" signs are going to turn some people off. However, the other side carrying signs saying Kerry would legalize Sodom and Gomorah are just as bad but no one is mentioning that, as if that is mainstream. I mean when Pat Robertson is an ally you have to question what you're doing. However, in the US, this actually gains Bush support it seems. Leads me to think there's something wrong with America.

I agree that Kerry panders. Its why I wasn't a fan of his or Lieberman's. But he's better than Bush to me. I'd like to see Jesse Jackson.

Your last statement would require a book in response. Suffice to say, the political system is a monster and you aren't going to be able to run a nice guy from the suburbs to be president. The best the left can hope for in a US presidential election is a modern day Pericles, who came from the wealthy side of the tracks but ruled from the "Athenian left".

Read it here first! BIN LADEN WINS! He succeeded in starting a civil war in the UAssA.

We (Canadians) lose too by the madness inflicted on the world by BUSHCO. Anybody bank with HSBC? Did you get an official document last November asking you to confirm whether you had U.S. income so it could be reported? (Can you say "Patriot Act"?) If you said no, YOU LOSE anyway because the small print said that simply by signing the document (yes OR no) you were agreeing to their customer contract. That customer contract you didn't know you were signing gave the US government the right to collect "personal information" on you. Their stated definition of personal information was the most detailed I've ever seen, including the right to "track your movements." That made the hair stand up on the back of my neck.

Has your world gotten better -- well, has it??? Or is it just that you don't know yet?

Oh yah, and how about that little law the US just passed a couple weeks ago. The one that gives them the right to deport any non-US citizen to ANY other country, regardless of what citizenship they hold. Maher Arar happened to have dual Canadian-Syrian citizenship, so they had some pretext for sending him to a torture "grave" for a year. Now, if you step across the border into the US, they can send you -- a good Canadian who holds no other citizenship -- ANYWHERE they want. They passed a law.

Feeling better? Conspiracy? Heck no, they're doing it right in front of us, it's just that most people are too BUSY watching Survivor s**t and shopping. Don'tcha think that's just they way they want it? Don't think they won't come after Canada, they already are.

I told ya so ... ;-). The democrats could learn a thing or two about running an effective campaign.

space.

next

space.

next