<img class="frame" src="{att_thumb}tmate040321.png" href="{att_link}tmate040321.png" align="left">In a fantasy world where people read and form their own opinions instead of accepting their thoughts from corporations intent on making them better consumers, Bush wouldn't be hard to beat. In this fantasy world, Bush gets as many votes as Nader will in the real world and Nader is a legitimate threat. John Kerry is ignored because he had the gall to think people were dumb enough to simply vote for ABB (Anybody But Bush), regardless of his platform. Instead our choice is restricted to exactly two men. Both exceedingly rich, white men with the same limited political tunnel vision. On one side, we've got Bush, a man whose principles are explified by his latest campaign ad, in which he <iq>accus[es] John Kerry of, among other things, opposing increases in combat pay because he voted against an $87 billion appropriation for Iraq</iq> (<a href="http://pkarchive.org/column/031904.html" author="Paul Krugman">Taken for a Ride</a>). On the other side sits John Kerry, a man whose principles and knowledge of history are best summarized with a quote from his book on the Vietnam War: <iq>I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's time to get over it and recognise it as an exception, not as a ruling example of the US military engagements of the 20th century.</iq> (<a href="http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133205" title="Bush or Kerry: Look Closely and the Danger is the Same" author="John Pilger">Bush or Kerry</a>.) So why is ABB so appealling and gaining so much momentum? ABB is easy. It's so much easier than thinking. You don't even admit the possibility that getting Kerry in there probably won't change a damned thing. At this point, I'm using ABB as a divining rod to suss out whether someone has actually read Kerry's platform and looked at his record. If you're an Anybody-But-Busher, you're letting your anger be directed by the wizards that run this land. These are the people that have been running it from day one, throwing just enough bones to enough people to keep the whole machine creaking along. They search unendingly for the balance point at which one has taken as much advantage as possible of the most people without tipping a revolution. <ul> How much can we get away with? Can we make sure the most pliant candidate gets into the White House, whether he's elected or not? Oops, Bush policies are too much, let's notch it back 10% and try again, see if people still care. </ul> For them, it's impressive how they've managed this experiment over the centuries without losing their grip ... or even coming close. For us, it's tragic how we can be controlled like sheep. They're like cooks refining a recipe. Take away that privilege --- mmmm, not quite right, too much dissension. Give half that privilege back and take away a different one no one cares about from a minority --- then slowly remove it all again when no one's looking. There, that's better. Once you've had a right taken away, you can't really justify getting it back, because the reason for taking it away still stands (Tories! Bolsheviks! Socialists! Communists! Terrorists!). <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner03222004.html" title="Report from New York City: Old and Young Parade for Peace" source="CounterPunch" author="Lenni Brenner">Report from New York City</a> documents the recent march in New York City, in which he warns that: <bq>It is also to be understood that demos are obligatory whenever Kerry comes to town. He was for the invasion of Iraq & now he is pleading with the new Spanish government not to get out. He is solidly behind Sharon, wall or no wall. He isn't saying anything about the immense US involvement in the civil war in Colombia.</bq> ABB. Do it 'cause it's cool to be against Bush. Chicks dig it. Morons. People are shouting so hard that it's got to be ABB that Kerry is just cruising, not sweating, not hard-pressed at all to justify himself. When the Rove press-machine rumbles into town (and no, those paltry few ads are not even considered a precursor), Kerry will be blamed with everything Bush has done, with ample proof. When Kerry attempts to turn tables, Bush will grin that 'punch-me-in-the-face' grin and call him a baby for not being able to "handle the truth". He might even throw in a Jack Nicholson impression. Brenner offers hopeful advice to Kerry supporters, urging them to demonstrate against Kerry's weak points as well. <bq>It will mean that they take all their principles seriously & it will warn Kerry that, <b><i>if he wins & tries to give us a Bush-Lite administration, which, essentially is what he is indeed about</i></b>, that he will face the same kind of committed opposition, from his own supporters, that Bush faces. (emphasis added)</bq> John Pilger makes the same point in his essay, Bush and Kerry (linked above), arguing further that, far from being Bush Lite, Kerry could follow in Clinton's footsteps, a man who <iq>[i]n a league table of death and destruction, ... beats Bush hands down</iq>. He also takes pains to point out that the media's tendency to give approved leader-figures a free ride doesn't stop with Republicans. Kerry, running as a Democrat (which most Americans, through massive indoctrinated ignorance, see as a left-leaning, liberal party), isn't being taken to task for his platform and his record in any serious way. <bq>A myth equal to the fable of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is gaining strength on both sides of the Atlantic. It is that John Kerry offers a world-view different from that of George W Bush.</bq> As a Briton, he draws illuminating comparisons to the Blair-Thatcher issues some British newspapers brought up several years ago. There too, Blair portrayed himself as an alternative (the Labour party is ostensibly left, but not necessarily anti-war and anti-empire, as we've seen), all the while pandering to big business with blather about <iq>his heroine Margaret Thatcher</iq>. Maybe that'll scare the pants off of the ABB crowd: that they're going to elect a <i>Blair</i>. So, let's look at what Pilger has to say about the Democratic hero, Bill Clinton? You'll hear a lot of people saying they wish they could go back, stained dress and all. Well, what did Clinton actually do? Can't remember exactly? Here's a quick refresh: <bq>The truth is that Clinton was little different from Bush, a crypto-fascist. During the Clinton years, the principal welfare safety nets were taken away and poverty in America increased sharply; a multibillion-dollar missile "defence" system known as Star Wars II was instigated; the biggest war and arms budget in history was approved; biological weapons verification was rejected, along with a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, the establishment of an international criminal court and a worldwide ban on landmines. Contrary to a myth that places the blame on Bush, the Clinton administration in effect destroyed the movement to combat global warming.</bq> For those that need to see it in black and white, you'll find no solace here. It's not that Bush is actually excused, as he seems to think when he blames everything on Clinton (with increased frequency of late). It's that Clinton was no better. Many of the issues for which liberals take Bush to task were handled exactly the same by Clinton. This makes only cynics happy in that it means there are no good guys and everybody sucks. Granted, Bush and his adminstration have exceeded Clinton in some areas, but the important difference is that the Bush administration is just much more crass about what it does. Clinton would stand in a soup kitchen for hours while thinking about an anti-welfare bill he signed. Bush swims in a pool full of oil while doing the same thing. That's the only difference, one of image. Switch Clinton with Kerry and you see the problem. When your choice is between someone who says he's going to fuck you and then does and someone who says he won't and then does ... do you go for honesty or comfort?