[Chat] Clinton and Kerry

[Crystal]

It's too bad that Kerry isn't Clinton. But, if things
hold steady under Kerry, that by itself will be better
than continuing the rapid downward slide that we've
been on. NOT endorsing Bush's degradation of the whole
country in the eyes of the rest of the world will at
least be a start toward regaining credibility and
respect. It was only slightly embarrassing to be
overseas during the Monica scandal, but now it could
be deadly, depending on who you happen to run into.

Last Friday I bought a copy of Bill Clinton's book and
I've only read a few pages of it because so many
people keep coming up to me and asking about it. I've
had literally dozens of good conversations with
people. I'm thinking of carrying the book around with
me even after I finish reading it, just to keep giving
folks an excuse to come up to me and starting talking.


>From the few pages that I've read so far, it meets my
expectations -- it's just a story about how one person
was born, survived bullies, made friends, got through
hardships with family, made mistakes, had successes,
etc. Nothing earth shattering, no major secret
sharing, no deep philosophical treatments of economic
policy, etc. 

Also, Wednesday is a critical day for reporting
contributions prior to the Democratic Party
Convention. So, make a contribution now to have the
greatest impact on building momentum for November! You
can donate through
http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/member/147804, which is
my own home page for Kerry. When the system updates,
it'll show that I've contributed $1,000 already by
credit card. Don't worry if you can't be that
generous. Every single dollar helps. During the Bake
Sale for Democracy $1 cookies and $2 brownies added up
to more than $500. 

Thank you!!!

Crystal

--- WeinsteinM at aol.com wrote:
> I think there are legitimate, principled reasons to
> vote for a third party 
> candidate such as Nader or the Green candidate,
> especially in a state like 
> Maryland where such a vote will not help reelect
> Bush.   But to say that there is 
> no difference between the Democrats and Republicans
> is just simply not true.   
> Here are a few differences I can think of off the
> top of my head:
> 
> 1) Taxes, income, and wealth: Democrats raise taxes
> on those who can afford 
> it and cut taxes on those struggling to make it into
> the middle class.   
> Republicans do the opposite.   Clinton raised taxes
> on the wealthy and expanded the 
> EITC (last year it provided over $36 billion to 20
> million low-income families
> ).   Reagan and the Bushes cut taxes on the wealthy
> and raised taxes on 
> everyone else.   Now Greenspan is saying that the
> only way to finance Bush's tax 
> cuts for the wealthy is to cut Social Security --
> after he oversaw the raising of 
> the Social Security tax in the 80s, which made
> possible the surplus that is 
> financing Bush's tax cuts -- and Bush appears
> willing to go along.   
> 
> 2) Education: Democrats like Clinton pour money into
> education, including to 
> raise teacher pay and cut class sizes and expand
> access to higher education.   
> Republicans support privatization and vouchers to
> undermine public education 
> and they seek to raise tuition, reducing access.
> 
> 3) Health Care: Clinton passed CHIP, which gave
> coverage to millions of 
> children previously uninsured.   He also tried to
> enact a universal national health 
> insurance system. The Republicans want to privatize
> Medicare and Medicaid and 
> have no qualms about the fact that 43 million
> Americans have no health 
> coverage.   Bush passed a phony prescription drug
> benefit that benefits his campaign 
> contributors more than the elderly.   
> 
> 4) Environment: Clinton may have let his campaign
> contributors sleep in the 
> Lincoln Bedroom, but that's because he would not let
> them do what the 
> Republicans do: Let them rewrite the nation's
> pollution laws and provide the personnel 
> to oversee the enforcement (or nonenforcement) of
> the laws that remain.
> 
> 5) Use of US military power: Clinton used the US
> military to restore 
> democracy in Haiti and end genocide in the Balkans. 
>  He also tried to stop war and 
> starvation in Africa and to go after Al Qaeda.  
> Reagan and the Bushes used the 
> military to undermine democracy in Central America
> and of course the current 
> despicable situation in Iraq.  Yet Kerry is right
> that we have to send more 
> troops.   Why?   Because we broke Iraq, so we own
> it, and we have to fix what we 
> broke and be willing to expend the resources to do
> it.   That's something 
> Republicans never seem to understand as they refuse
> to spend the money needed even 
> in Afghanistan where they are squandering the gains
> we made there when we got 
> rid of the Taliban.   
> 
> Even the good things the Republicans say they want
> to do, like helping 
> Afghanistan not be a base for radical Islamic
> terrorism, are less important to them 
> than tax cuts and more tax cuts for the wealthy,
> feeding an ethos of 
> selfishness, short-sightedness, and instant
> gratification that has changed America for 
> the worse since 1980.   
> 
> I could go on and talk about Clinton accomplishments
> like Motor Voter, Family 
> and Medical Leave, homeownership promotion,
> AmeriCorps, the Brady Bill, Head 
> Start expansion, etc., but I think these examples
> are enough to show that 
> there are real differences even when the Dems put up
> moderate candidates like 
> Clinton and Kerry.   Not to say that it's enough,
> not to say that anyone should be 
> satisfied, but the fact remains that there are real
> differences that save 
> lives and make America a more just and free society
> and a more positive force in 
> the world.   
> 
> -Matthew
> 
> In a message dated 6/28/04 11:58:36 AM,
> kikodawgz at riseup.net writes:
> 
> 
> > Okay; let's look at the practical aspects of Kerry
> for a second. As much as
> > George Dubya is a fascist bastard, I fail to see
> how Kerry is *any* better,
> > or even how he would at least "suck less" if
> elected to office.
> > 
> > 1) Kerry wants to send forty-someodd thousand more
> troops to Iraq
> > immediately, and possibly institute the draft
> later. Far from ending or
> > lessening the war, Kerry appears to want to
> intensify it, just like Dubya.
> > 
> > 2) While on his tirades against Dubya for losing
> jobs from the economy,
> > mostly in manufacturing, to overseas plants and
> foreign competitors, Kerry
> > never says he's going to institute laws to bring
> those jobs back or to make
> > new ones. The furthest he'll go, according to his
> campaign website, is to
> > say that a stiff penalty-- amounting to, in real
> terms, no more than a slap
> > on the wrist-- will be issued to companies who
> move their operations
> > overseas in the future, and that their tax
> loopholes will be closed (also
> > another mere slap, affected profitability
> minimally, even if it works). So,
> > given that, and the fact that presidents don't
> create jobs anyway, the U.S.
> > probably won't *gain* well-paying jobs under Kerry
> any more than it has
> > under Dubya. Most it'll do under Kerry is remain
> steady.
> > 
> > 3) The Democratic Party has not condemned any
> significant part of the War on
> > Terror, the war in Iraq, or the war in
> Afghanistan. The most they've done in
> > terms of Iraq is tell us that the timing and the
> circumstances were off, not
> > that we shouldn't have invaded, or even that the
> invasion was about oil and
> > control (which it was). They haven't offered
> anything in the way of
> > party-wide condemnation on Guantanamo Bay, the Abu
> Gharib scandal, the
> > civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the
> support of
> > historically-proven thugs in the Northern
> Alliance, the Karzai government,
> > or the interim Iraqi government. Come to think of
> it, I haven't heard much
> > from individual high-ranking Democrats on these
> things, either.
> > 
> > If the Democrats were a party of the people, or
> offered even the slighest
> > hope with their candidate of offering us a better
> situation than the one we
> > have under Bush, they'd at least do one of the
> things I listed in order to
> > appease people's anger. But they haven't.
> > 
> > I'd really like to hear about how Kerry and the
> Democrats would suck less,
> > or how things wouldn't get worse under them, given
> the above. Surely you all
> > have stuff to say about this.


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail