Dissident Voice

May 17, 2003

The Democratic Primaries are speeding up quickly. NPR is already running little snippets of the candidates platforms in the mornings. But are any of these candidates worth voting for? Has the Bush administration so brought us to our knees, that we now have no option but to support whom ever the DLC puts their dollars behind? I’ve heard Terry McAuliffe and Karl Rove have been seen swimming at the same DC athletic club. Perhaps there swapping campaign notes in the locker room.

Granted it is still early, much will unfold in the upcoming months. We’ve already seen quite a stir that's been getting little to no coverage -- that being Rep. Kucinich’s stance on free trade and preventive war. No Democratic hopeful has ever made the claim that the US should repeal NAFTA and exit the WTO. There are a few other anti-war folks seeking the presidential bid, but none have any radical or dramatic proposals to change our foreign policy in the long run. Kucinich truly has an uphill battle.

His campaign’s bank account is evaporating, and his name recognition is right up there with my own. So is their hope of a viable alternative? Not likely with the Dem’s, even with Kucinich’s valiant drive.

Green Party steering members have recently told me the Greens are waiting to see what they can do. Currently all state delegations have names of their potential candidates, but there will be no decision until after the fall’s Democratic primaries. There is even rumors they won't put up a candidate at all. Nothing's for sure this early.

So with that said, is our only alternative to Bush (Karl Rove’s puppet) a Lieberman-like-coward (McAuliffe’s puppet)? What sort of joke is our democracy with these sort of options? No real progressive will ever make it through the quagmire of AM radio and cable TV. So what's the use?

Even though it’s early, the 2004 elections will probably break down as follows. The Dem’s will put up a shadowy character who is DLC bred and groomed. His only real qualms with Bush will come with the economy. But that may not do too hot. In November of 2002 they couldn’t put together a critique and lost control of the senate. Why should '04 be any different? Rove already has that one handled anyway. Bush can’t lose on the economic front - provided no new terrorist attacks Dubya will be viewed as a great hero that’s saving America from terror. It wont be easy to disrobe a president so tightly wrapped in the American flag. And Bush is a patriotic prostitute.

The good ol’ Greens will probably put up a moral candidate. Especially if Dean and Kucinich fall short. It may be Nader, but regardless who it is he or she will have a tough time getting on state ballots. Let alone televised debates.

So ultimately it will come down to us. People like you and I. Who shall we vote for? The democrat alternative to warmonger Bush, or not? I mean he’s sure made his enemies. Bush has alienated the international community. He has inflamed many Arab nations. He’s rolled back environmental safeguards while raping social services. He's given his rich friends tax relief. Plus he’s dumb as an ox. MBA degree or nothing -- the guys a dope. So do we vote Dem? Just because we hate Junior?

Will we really be moving forward if we support the other demagogue instead?

Perhaps. Good thing we’ve got over a year to sit on it. Until then keep your fingers crossed in hopes McAuliffe and Rove have a meeting of the minds. Maybe they'll decide they are better at synchronized swimming and put of a show for us all. Not that that would change anything anyway. But it’d probably be more fun to watch that what they’ll give us in 2004.

Josh Frank is a journalist living in Portland Oregon, his work appears frequently in Impact Press and online at Counterpunch. He can be reached at frank_joshua@hotmail.com