>Why aren't the Democrats fighting
>Bush more openly?
Democrats are screening Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 in Washington, DC.
How much more open do you want the opposition to be?
>Only in almost purely proportional representation
> systems have third parties been able to start from scratch, rather than
as
> factions within a larger bourgois party.
-So the Greens didn't emerge from within the Democratic Party, but many -of the people who now support the Greens used to be Democrats. If the -Green Party grew up independently, all the more reason for it to stick -to its guns and not play footsie with the Democrats.
Which is why the Greens are so marginal a force organizationally and depend on a "name" candidate like Nader to get even a few percentage points. A real third party in the United States would be a coalition of major labor, civil rights, feminist, environmental and other progressive organizations-- which the Greens are not.
> Let's see
> * Kerry is for repealing tax cuts for the wealthy; Bush is for increasing
> them
-Kerry is not opposed to the wealthy. Tax cuts are a small issue. What -will Kerry do to take the class war to the rich?
He won't. Neither will Nader. Next question.
> * Kerry supports expanding labor laws; Bush is for gutting them
-Labor laws? How about coming out and saying that all workers should be
unionized?
Who cares what he says? All he can deliver is legal changes, although he has verbally supported unions repeatedly.
-Will Kerry come out and say that CEOs should make the same wages as line workers?
No. Neither has Nader. Next question.
> * Kerry is for raising the minimum wage to $7 per hour; Bush opposes that
-Why isn't Kerry calling for a living wage of $10/hour?
Because he is a cautious guy and is advocating something that might be able to be passed. Nader is advocating an $8 per hour minimum wage, higher but hardly a revolutionary difference.
> * Kerry is for Roe v. Wage; Bush is against it
-That would be Roe vs. Wade. This is a red herring, because the Democrats
-have been using Roe v. Wade as a "lesser of two evils" argument for the
-l-ast 20 years. In fact, the right wing chipped away at reproductive
rights
-the most under...Bill Clinton!
Not really. See the many executive orders by Clinton on global reproductive rights and other measures, along with his veto of the partial birth abortion law.
> * Kerry is for ending job discirmination for gays; Bush is against new
> legislation
-This is not a bread and butter issue for most people.
Really. Is it just a "gonadal" issue as Nader once said of such issues?
> * Kerry supports expanded health care for most working families; Bush
> opposes that
-Expanded health care? What the fuck happened to universal health care?
It got defeated. So many see the best strategy as incrementally expanding coverage.
> * Kerry is for a $4000 tax credit (refundable) for every college student;
> Bush doesn't
-Only $4000? You know how much college costs these days?
Added to Pell Grants and other financial aid, it's a big change for many families. Not revolutionary, of course, but for a family, it could be a big change financially.
> * Kerry is for earned legalization of immigrants; Bush has no
legalization
> in his immigration proposals
-President Kerry, tear down this border fence!
I wish. But it's a start.
> * Kerry supports DREAM Act to allow undocumented immigrant children to go
> to
> college; Bush doesn't
-You are reaching here.
Why reaching? You can cite issues of agreement, but you are running away from the differences because they don't fit your argument.
--Nathan