US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
Senator Kerry's vote for war revealing in many ways (english)
16 Nov 2002
Modified: 17 Nov 2002
Senator Kerry's vote for war in Iraq shows that peace movement is not sufficiently popular and radical.
Senator Kerry's vote proves that the war-mongers
are on top

One clear indication that the war-mongers start on
top even in Massachusetts is that incumbent
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) felt free to vote for
the war despite the organizing of tens of
thousands of his constituents. His website does not even mention the word
"Iraq" except in one document where he mentions it
only to ask for a bi-partisan approach on Iraq and
other subjects. Kerry won re-election in a
landslide: 81% to 19% for his Libertarian

On his campaign website, Kerry seems to have
forgotten that he posted the following analysis
from the Boston Globe: "On the other hand, Kerry
still faces a vote in the Senate authorizing
military force. If he votes for it-- and at this
point many Democrats indicate they will--all his
earlier questioning could be forgotten, or seen as
empty rhetoric." (1) That's exactly what Kerry
did. As the only presidential candidate for 2004
willing to talk about the "War on Terror" and
"question" the proposed war in Iraq, Kerry showed
his true mettle when it came time to vote. After
all, he did say every time he spoke on foreign
affairs that he supported President Bush.

Kerry's vote is especially embarrassing to the
reformist peace movement, which somehow expected
better, because he had no Republican opponent
boxing him into a corner in his election. Also,
Kerry does not need money and does not really need
to pander to military or oil interests just on
that basis. His wife has the Heinz fortune. The
real reason for Kerry's vote is that the
Amerikkkan labor aristocracy will not vote for
someone who opposes the war and Kerry has made
that conclusion. As an imperialist, Kerry does
have the power to oppose the war and he can even
gain support from his constituents and reformist
activists for so doing, but he turns them away,
because he has predicted that he cannot be elected
president without the labor aristocracy's support.
That means he has calculated that the Amerikkkan
majority is pro- war. That is an implicit poll,
better than many others, and a real statement on
the Amerikkkan population.

For that matter, the Boston Globe--while suspect
for its own war-mongering position--has found
further evidence that Kerry is right about the
population. Even in Massachusetts, George Bush's
approval rating increases the more he talks about
war with Iraq. Prior to recent talk on Iraq,
Bush's approval rating was down below 50%. Now he
is back above it again at 55% approval in
Massachusetts. 59% of Massachusetts people polled
said that Bush made a strong case for war on Iraq.
Only 19% said Bush's case is "very weak." 58% of
Democrats also said Bush had a strong case. Bush's
only problem will be if he cannot line up an
international coalition, because only 17% will
support him then.(2)

As a result of Kerry's actions, the largest number
of protest signs at the Boston rally November 3rd
was for a write-in candidate named Randall
Forsberg running as a Democrat opposed to the war.
The fact that Forsberg is running against Kerry
(another Democrat) shows the whole problem with
the one-party state in Massachusetts.

Ironically, the immediate victim of Kerry's vote
was Democrat Shannon O'Brien who had to sweat out
a closer governor's election than she wanted with
polls showing her in a dead-heat with Mitt Romney.
In fact 0'Brien lost the race. The Green Party
governor candidate Jill Stein who spoke at the
rally drew 4 or 5% in pre-election polls and 3% of
the actual vote.

MIM endorses no candidate, but would like our
readers not to be naive. At the rally, Shannon
O'Brien activists were not highly visible, but
some did hand out leaflets with a xeroxed letter
from former opponent Robert Reich endorsing
O'Brien and saying that the only choice is between
O'Brien and Romney. The Boston Globe also had an
article being handed out by O'Brien written by
Joan Vennochi. Like Reich, Vennochi ran out the
standard stuff that Stein was siphoning off votes
from O'Brien.(3)

It sounds oh-so-shrewd, but it is not. In Vermont,
in some races, the Republican is an afterthought.
In some places in the United $tates, the
Republicans could easily become the third or
weaker party. If the Greens are party number two,
the Republicans cannot be adding any seats in
Congress. One would think that the Democratic
Party would figure out that that outcome is in its
favor in the Congress. Instead, Republicans are
giving money to Greens to run against Democrats in
the West to siphon off votes, while Democrats do
not help Greens in the places where the Greens
could be number two.

Now in Massachusetts, those Democrats who feel
trapped by a Democratic legislature with the power
to override a governor must pull the lever for the
Republicans; even though only 15% of Massachusetts
is really Republican--and probably those, again,
only because there is no choice other than the
Democrats. This means that in some instances,
Democratic success cannot go any further. In
Massachusetts, Democratic success has reached near
its limit, which is why the public has elected
Republican governors in the immediate past and did
so again by electing Romney. So the question
becomes, why not elect a Green governor with a
Democratic Party legislature.

MIM will answer the question. The Democrats do not
want a Green Party candidate for governor with a
real shot, because they have more in common with
Republicans. That's why they give that shot to the
Republicans every time. Each year the Democrats go
to the Greens and say "lesser evil," but if
Democrats were really closer to Greens than
Republicans, there would be no Republican Party to
speak of in Massachusetts.

The stupidity of the narrow-minded Democrats is
dogma. They sing the "lesser evil" song every
time, no matter what. It would take little effort
to split up the Massachusetts Democratic Party and
allow a third party breakaway to leave Republicans
in the dust of third place. Yet it does not
happen, thanks to the chokehold of Big Money on
politics that prevents even the most obvious
political realities from reaching the light of
day. As time wears on, even the only state that
voted for Democrat George McGovern in 1972 has to
listen to Republicans dominate the press day-
after-day as the only "real" alternative to the

The truth is endlessly degraded in electoral
politics, because candidates feel they have to
compete with others also allowed to dodge divisive
issues. As a result, candidates say what people
want to hear and they do not engage with the truth

This is another reason that MIM does not involve
itself in electoral politics. Readers only need
recall that not a single candidate for
Massachusetts governor answered MIM's questions
about Massachusetts prisons. Those candidates
would not be able to get away with that if the
truth were not that the vast majority of
Amerikkkans in Massachusetts do not care that much
about issues. These candidates know that tough
substance is not what the population wants to
hear, which is why Romney's ads are all haircut,
blonde dye, lipstick and his kids jumping off
rafts. We can be sure that millions would not be
spent on such ads if political consultants had not
figured out that a majority likes them.

People stuck in electoral politics become slaves
to "lesser evils" dogmas not to mention fund-
raising with special interests and pulling levers
every couple years as a substitute for real
politics. Playing the game only legitimizes it.

Voters who complain about the process should see
that there are other ways. In plebiscites, there
is no opportunist competition of candidates, only
a thumbs up or down on questions of substance or
the performance of a leader. As we write this
story, voters across the united $tates are
complaining about "negative" political
advertising. Most of that sort of complaint is
rooted in the belief that politics should be
entertainment, not issues. These people are
perturbed that negative ads disturbed their
harmonious music show, their ball game on ESPN or
their porn channel, which may or may not be called
porn. Those people who are not super-powerful but
instead ordinary yet pursue entertainment above
profit or anything else--these people we call the
gender aristocracy, and in the context of a
discussion of political campaigns, we have nothing
further to say about it. It is the people who are
serious about issues but who complain about
negative political ads that concern us.

There is no other way in a system of electoral
opportunism for candidates to show where they
differ from other candidates than by attacking
them. The "negative" ads by-and-large are the most
true part of the electoral process that the united
$tates has. The candidates speak mostly truth
about each other; although they do sometimes
invent it and hope not to be caught. Without those
negative ads, there'd be no discussion of issues
at all within the bourgeois process.

Once people learn what happens to the truth in
electoral campaigns, and once they realize it was
Lenin who said a vanguard party should be
unpopular but speak unvarnished truth, a large
number will turn to communist politics. While we
defend individual liberties, we communists have
seen through electoral politics and the kind of
"majority rule" where one country's majority
decides to bomb another's.

Notes: 1. Anne E. Kornblutt, Boston Globe
16Sep2002. 2. Frank Phillips, Bostong Globe
2Nov2002. 3. "A vote for Stein is a vote for
Romney," Boston Globe, 31Oct2002.
See also:
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.


sorry about write-in votes (english)
17 Nov 2002
Sorry, the story did not include the write-in votes that the mainstream media did not report.