VOTE FOR CHANGE TOUR
Tim Herrick
By ELYSA GARDNER
USA TODAY
Aug 8 2004
Speaking out can cost an entertainer some fans, but Bruce Springsteen and
others are doing so together.
Vote for Change/The Associated Press - Several of the recording artists who
make up 'Vote for Change' are shown in this photo released Tuesday in New York.
Members of the group will perform in a series of fund-raising concerts in
nine swing states before the presidential election in an effort to unseat
President Bush. From left are Pearl Jam's Stone Gossard; Boyd Tinsley of the Dave
Matthews Band; Jackson Browne; Martie Maguire of the Dixie Chicks; Steven Van
Zandt from Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band; Dave Matthews; Bruce
Springsteen; Emily Robison of the Dixie Chicks; Patti Scialfa of Bruce Springsteen and
the E Street Band; Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam; Bonnie Raitt; Ben Gibbard of
Death Cab for Cutie; John Mellencamp; Nick Harmer of Death Cab for Cutie; and
R.E.M's Mike Mills.
Today's Headlines
New post office opens
Medina woman wounded; in critical condition
Convicted killer back in custody
St. Luke's church welcomes interim rector during transition period
McDonald's worker to serve at Olympics
Meeting to give update on city projects
FAA probing ultra-light crash in Lexington
Briefly
Memphis councilman apologizes for turning away Iraqis
Cabbage Patch Kids await adoption by new generation
Portraits, personal messages say thanks to our troops serving overseas
On Wednesday, Bruce Springsteen, the Dixie Chicks, R.E.M., John Mellencamp
and other pop stars announced a series of concerts addressing ''the need to make
a change in the direction of this country.''
The Vote for Change tour, as it's called, is the latest salvo fired by a
music community galvanized by debate over Iraq and an election that promises to be
among the most feverishly scrutinized in history.
Other musician-supported initiatives range from P. Diddy's nonpartisan ''Vote
or Die'' campaign and similar efforts in concerts by many bands, including
Bush-supporting Christian rock band Third Day, to Nashville's Music Row
Democrats, who have staged regular ''Kerry-oke'' shows.
Many more musicians - The Roots, Nellie McKay, the Beastie Boys, Merle
Haggard, Green Day, Kanye West and some of the artists involved in Vote for Change -
have literally put their dissent on the record.
So far, though, the closest successor to Vietnam-era radio hits such as Barry
McGuire's ''Eve of Destruction'' (No. 1, 1965), Edwin Starr's ''War'' (No. 1,
1970) and Marvin Gaye's ''What's Going On'' (No. 2, 1971) has been the Black
Eyed Peas' 2003 top 10 single ''Where Is the Love'', which featured such
passages as ''We still got terrorists here livin' in the USA/The big CIA ...''
Rapper Jadakiss' ''Why'' - which asks, ''Why did Bush knock down the
Towers?,'' a lyric that, as he explains it, hyperbolically condemns a leader who
''wasn't there for us as much as he could have been'' - has yet to become a top-40
staple.
At a recent concert benefiting Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign,
Mellencamp unveiled a new tune about Bush, ''Texas Bandito,'' featuring lyrics such
as, ''What's a life to him if he can get some oil dug?'' But the
Indiana-based rocker, whose last CD featured the similarly biting track ''To Washington,''
has no illusions about how ''Bandito'' might fare if released as a single.
''Recording artists are discouraged from doing things like that,'' he says. ''In
today's world, where are all the protest songs?''
He's not the only one asking. Musicians and industry insiders point to a
confluence of factors, from decisions made at radio and record companies to the
performers themselves.
It could be argued that many of the dissenting artists - the folkies, the
over-40s and the edgier rockers - would have a tough time cracking pop playlists
regardless of their political perspective. They're just not considered
commercial enough.
Radio conformity
''My job is to play hit records,'' says Dan Mason, program director for the
Cleveland-based top 40 station WAKS-FM. ''If lyrics are anti-Bush, that's not a
consideration.''
The current fragmented landscape of radio breeds narrowly targeted formats
playing music that sounds alike - and often espouses a consistent worldview.
Anti-establishment sentiments have found a home in modern-rock formats, while
urban radio (where Jadakiss' ''Why'' is No. 11 this week) ''has been most open to
dissent on Iraq,'' according to Sean Ross of Edison Media Research. Patriotic
and, last year, pro-war songs such as Darryl Worley's ''Have You Forgotten''
have thrived on country radio. Few songs cross into other formats, and artists
challenge the dominant viewpoint at their own risk.
The Dixie Chicks learned that the hard way, of course, when country fans and
radio stations boycotted the group after singer Natalie Maines dissed
President Bush in London last year. Despite the presence of other liberal voices in
Nashville, there have yet to be any major ''left-leaning'' country hits, says
consultant Joel Raab. ''Fans wouldn't tolerate it.''
Some who support the president worry about the ramifications of speaking or
singing their minds. ''Endorsing Bush is not necessarily fashionable,'' says
Tai Anderson, Third Day's bassist. ''People want to label us, like, 'You're just
a right-wing, fundamentalist bigot.' More liberal programmers may not want to
play us.''
Many artists worry that media behemoths such as Clear Channel and Cumulus may
be wary of drawing fire from the Federal Communications Commission - which
cracked down on ''indecent'' material after Janet Jackson's Super Bowl reveal -
if they venture into edgy territory.
''During Vietnam, any guy with a privately owned station could play ''Masters
of War,' '' says Mellencamp. ''Now the companies who own all these stations
can't afford to offend listeners and advertisers.''
Says Don Henley: ''This is one of the most shallow, trivial times that I can
remember in pop music. And part of that is a function of corporate-owned
radio.''
Adam Horovitz of the Beastie Boys worries about how ridding the airwaves of
''indecency'' could stifle freedom of expression. But, he points out, ''people
who never cared about Howard Stern before are now defending his right to free
speech.''
Snger/songwriter Steve Earle has a track called ''F the CC'' on his new CD -
a self-described ''anti-war record'' called ''The Revolution Starts ... Now'',
due Aug. 24. Earle says the commission has helped create a climate in which
''basic freedoms are being questioned for the first time since the Vietnam
War.''
A spokesman for FCC chief Michael Powell, a Republican, says that Powell
''has on many occasions expressed concerns about radio consolidation.'' But
Commissioner Michael J. Copps, one of two Democrats on the five-member FCC, thinks
there is reason to worry: ''Consolidation ... is endangering diversity.
Broadcasting should encourage conflicting opinions and antagonistic points of view.
To the extent that we sacrifice that, we endanger democracy.''
On the corporate side, Clear Channel spokeswoman Lisa Dollinger and Cumulus
executive John Dickey maintain their companies encourage artists to, in
Dollinger's words, ''freely express themselves.'' But Dickey adds that those who
espouse controversial views must ''expect to have their popularity and the
purchasing of their products affected. The free market will speak, and if artists are
interested in protecting their revenue streams, they'll respond. If not,
they'll suffer the consequences.''
Gun-shy labels
Jenny Toomey, director of the political action group Air Traffic Control,
believes these concerns have had ''a chilling effect'' on the recording industry.
''Artists now face covert and overt pressure'' not to be too provocative, she
says.
That shows in sometimes subtle ways. George Michael's ''Shoot the Dog,'' a
song condemning British Prime Minister Tony Blair for ''dancing with Dubya,''
was omitted from the American version of the singer's recent CD. And edited
copies of Jadakiss' ''Why,'' with the reference to the president deleted, were
made available to radio, though most stations are playing the original version.
Some artists, and those who back them, revel in courting controversy. Jimmy
Iovine, chairman of Interscope Geffen A&M Records, whose roster includes
Jadakiss and Black Eyed Peas, insists that he had no reservations about releasing
either ''Where Is the Love'' or ''Why,'' and intends to push the latter as a pop
single.
''Poetry needs to be pointed and barbed to get its message across,'' he says.
That appears to be the philosophy behind Green Day's possible future single,
''Holiday'', which boasts this lyric: ''Zieg heil to the president
gasman/Bombs away is your punishment.''
Controversy also can put a nearly forgotten artist back on the map. Artemis
Records chairman and CEO Danny Goldberg, who works with such politically
outspoken artists as Earle and Rickie Lee Jones, says that when Linda Ronstadt
recently upset fans and management at Las Vegas' Aladdin Hotel by praising Michael
Moore's ''Fahrenheit 9/11,'' ''It was the best press she's gotten in years.
I'd love to put out a Linda Ronstadt album now. She's contemporary again.''
Freedom of Internet
For artists wary of various corporate constraints, the Internet can be a
refuge.
Public Enemy teamed up with Moby for the downloadable single ''Make Love F---
War'', also available in profanity-free form on ''Unity - The Official Athens
2004 Olympics Games Album.''
Jackson Browne says he will ''probably put out stuff for free on the
Internet, because I don't have time to resolve (issues) with the record company.''
R.E.M. bassist Mike Mills cites the Web's ''immediacy'' as the reason his
band put ''Final Straw'' online last year (the song will appear on the band's new
album Oct. 5), before giving radio another protest song, the nonhit ''Bad
Day.''
Ultimately, says Pearl Jam's Stone Gossard, ''It's up to artists to do what
they want to do. Sign with a label that will be true to you and your ideals.
There is a lot of corporate influence out there funneling people into tighter
and tighter regimens. But I hope artists will just be more inspired to write
great songs, songs that are so powerful that their messages can't be denied.''
Gannett News Service
Political hip-hop legends Public Enemy recently decided to bypass store
distribution entirely. Their collaboration with electronica star Moby, the
incindiary EP 'Make Love F--- War,' sells for 99 cents a track at Apple's iTunes
store.
Dennis Gramza
nothing to further their career--but only to offend half of their fans.
And, worst of all, they are backing a candidate who hasn't yet given
them--or anyone else--a clue as to what he plans to do, how he would do it,
or taken any pemanent stands on any positions. Are these rock and roller's
still on dope.. or what?
I care less about their opinions than I wish to hear John Kerry or George
Bush sing "Born In The USA".
When given a microphone, one owes it to his audience to use it to do what
one does best. Singers sing... and politicians...whatever!
"Vote for Change"..does that mean to vote for a guy who is prone to change
his mind?
When these artists perform they will need teleprompters to stay updated on
Kerry's messages.
Dream on! Cable news has killed the protest song market. Who needs to buy
that drivel, when 24/7 protests are available to anyone who wants to listen.
Adding music and making words rhyme is cute, but does anyone care? Dylan
figured that out real quick.
"Tim Herrick" <TIM...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8e.11eef30...@aol.com...
GW
can
> remember in pop music. And part of that is a function of corporate-owned
> radio.''
And partly of a function of "me, too"; there's so many similarly outraged
songs that it's likely that none of them will make much impact. As soon as
Dylan saw the copycats coming he moved on down the road. The biggest issue
is that there is no draft, and without a draft the outrage isn't very
widespread. Plus Kerry's got people thoroughly confused. Sometimes it
seems like he's just donkey Bush.
"Dennis Gramza" <sa...@triton.net> wrote in message
news:75d66$413e253c$d1ac0b26$12...@allthenewsgroups.com...
JLamm
thinks artists should keep their opinions to themselves. Bob would be
singing "Froggie Went a Courtin' " a lot.
Just to pick one of the easy arguments, let me say that everyone who goes to
the Vote for Change shows knows that they're getting politics with their
music, and they're willing to spend $77 for it. And everyone who just wants
singers to shut up can stay home, safe and forewarned.
jls
wrote:
>I'm disappointed in these artists, many of whom I once admired. This can do
>nothing to further their career--but only to offend half of their fans.
>And, worst of all, they are backing a candidate who hasn't yet given
>them--or anyone else--a clue as to what he plans to do, how he would do it,
>or taken any pemanent stands on any positions. Are these rock and roller's
>still on dope.. or what?
It appears that you have access to the internet. You can get a big,
huge, giant clue by going to www.johnkerry.com. Look on the left hand
side of the page and you will find exactly what John Kerry stands for
on the issues of: National Security, Economy and Jobs, Health Care,
Energy Independence, Homeland Security, Education, the Environment,
and more. After you read all of that, if you still don't understand
what he stands for, then I think you should probably just unplug your
computer as it must be way too difficult for you to use effectively.
janet
Dennis Gramza
many regard Dylan as one who tries to use his influence to change one's
viewpoint these days. The material he does now is just plain great
songwriting. He has no peers. It doesn't appear that he feels the need
anymore to use the mic to editorialize. He seems to have figured it out.
It's not that artists aren't entitled to opinions and to be able to express
them. It is the delusion they seem to have that they can take the stage and
people will be as concerned about their views as they are about what their
favorite color is--or their astrological sign. I'm there to see them
perform and entertain. They can write a book (like everyone else) if they
want to change the world.
These actors and artists look stupid. They come out in support of a
candidate, not because of his ideals and his vision for the country, but
simply because they don't like his opponent. This is absurd! Who would
they not support in a race against Bush? Where would they draw the line?
Would they support...Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein?
Maybe it's just a gig for them and they need the money. They are done
getting any more of mine.
"JLamm" <jlamme...@thisouttwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:IVr%c.15962$2s....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
hantayo
"Dennis Gramza" wrote:
> >I'm disappointed in these artists, many of whom I once admired. This can
do
> >nothing to further their career--but only to offend half of their fans.
> >And, worst of all, they are backing a candidate who hasn't yet given
> >them--or anyone else--a clue as to what he plans to do, how he would do
it,
> >or taken any pemanent stands on any positions. Are these rock and
roller's
> >still on dope.. or what?
"jls" wrote
> It appears that you have access to the internet. You can get a big,
> huge, giant clue by going to www.johnkerry.com. Look on the left hand
> side of the page and you will find exactly what John Kerry stands for
> on the issues of: National Security, Economy and Jobs, Health Care,
> Energy Independence, Homeland Security, Education, the Environment,
> and more. After you read all of that, if you still don't understand
> what he stands for, then I think you should probably just unplug your
> computer as it must be way too difficult for you to use effectively.
>
> janet
Well said...:-)
Kat
Dennis Gramza
"jls" <jscot...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:788uj05kr4eqfqm7u...@4ax.com...
OK Visited his site. Let's take his stand on national security-- a hot
issue with me. I read it and I see only rhetoric. Proves my point above.
I've pasted it here because I'm betting you haven't read it:
"Launch And Lead A New Era Of Alliances
The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize
every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike at us.
As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able - because no
force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies."
I hate to have to dissect this to make my point, but here goes:
"The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize
every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike at
us." .... General statement--we all agree. I think Bush said that, too.
"As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able" .. More
alliances are better than fewer alliances. Bush found a "coalition of the
willing". Kerry will find a "coalition of the able"??? On Mars? All of
our allies are able, but only some are willing. He offers no clue here if
he will transform them into the willing or will he just draft them?
Help me out, here! What new incentive will his cause his "allies" to
participate, when they know that the USA already has the tools, the desire,
and the ability to chase the terrorists until they run out of gas? They
can stay home on the couch because they know we are committed to this
mission with the allies we have.
"No force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies". Who
can disagree with that? And I think Bush might have said that, too. But
where does John Kerry say who those alliances will be? Germany? France?
We have all of the allies were gonna get.
Not only is he adjusting his positions, Kerry offers boilerplate rhetoric,
and no clues as to how he will get anything done. The rest of his stuff,
there is much the same. He's just filling up space with words. That's the
whole problem.
Geez, give me a reason to vote for him.
Nate Smith
> Help me out, here! What new incentive will his cause his "allies" to
> participate..[]..? They can stay home on the couch
> because they know we are committed to this
> mission with the allies we have. []
kerry will have a much more level-headed way to talk
to the allies and get them to join up. it's not just
soldiers, it's communications, intelligence, diplomacy....
it's the whole tone of voice. we need some measured
reason here, some WISDOM.
bush has alienated most of the world with his attitude.
bush is like the school bully getting his way with your
lunch money. bush could have grown up, but it's too
late now - his whole body posture is that of a smug little
whiny bully. no, i dont want to have a beer with him.
another problem bush has is the smell of graft - it looks
like he is funnelling billions into his cronies coffers
while he is sending thousands to their coffins. hell, it
doesnt just look like it, it positively reeks of it.
kerry is to be stuck with the stinky job of cleaning up all
this horrendous crapola bush has dropped on the world.
>
> "No force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies". Who
> can disagree with that? And I think Bush might have said that, too. But
> where does John Kerry say who those alliances will be? Germany? France?
> We have all of the allies were gonna get.
this is the problem with bush.
he cannot get any more allies with his threatening posture.
recently, reluctantly, he has backed off some & asked for
some help from the UN, but after the way he treated them,
it's no surprise he is having trouble getting more allies.
and it's not just your germany & france & russia.
> Geez, give me a reason to vote for him.
>
>
kerry wont turn off the more civilized participants.
let's vote for civilization!
let's vote for kerry!
let arnold go make his body-building videos for
his girlie-men fans and maria schriver.
- nate
John Howells
<OK Visited his site. Let's take his stand on national security-- a hot
<issue with me. I read it and I see only rhetoric. Proves my point above.
<I've pasted it here because I'm betting you haven't read it:
<"Launch And Lead A New Era Of Alliances
<The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize
<every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike at us.
<As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able - because no
<force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies."
<I hate to have to dissect this to make my point, but here goes:
<"The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize
<every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike at
<us." .... General statement--we all agree. I think Bush said that, too.
And then did the exact opposite.
<"As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able" .. More
<alliances are better than fewer alliances. Bush found a "coalition of the
<willing". Kerry will find a "coalition of the able"??? On Mars? All of
<our allies are able, but only some are willing. He offers no clue here if
<he will transform them into the willing or will he just draft them?
What he means is: allies like France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Spain,
and others who actually have a standing army and are capable of
actually helping us. Instead, Bush's "coalition of the willing"
consists largely of countries like Costa Rica, which doesn't even
have an army, and Afghanistan, whose army consists almost entirely
of our own occupying forces. Instead, Bush arrogantly told many of
our major allies, who *could* have helped us if we had given a good
reason, to go fuck off.
<Help me out, here! What new incentive will his cause his "allies" to
<participate, when they know that the USA already has the tools, the desire,
<and the ability to chase the terrorists until they run out of gas? They
<can stay home on the couch because they know we are committed to this
<mission with the allies we have.
There is no incentive, and this is what will make Kerry's task so
difficult. Bush won't even try.
<"No force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies". Who
<can disagree with that? And I think Bush might have said that, too.
Oh really? Give me a quote. Show me where Bush ever gave two fucks about
our allies.
<But
<where does John Kerry say who those alliances will be? Germany? France?
<We have all of the allies were gonna get.
Under Bush, yes. Under Kerry, we have a chance of getting those major
players involved. Any other capable president would have no problem
getting Germany and France on board with us. Even the barely competent
daddy Bush was able to put together an impressive world wide coalition
of the willing AND the able to wage Gulf War I.
<Not only is he adjusting his positions, Kerry offers boilerplate rhetoric,
<and no clues as to how he will get anything done. The rest of his stuff,
<there is much the same. He's just filling up space with words. That's the
<whole problem.
And what is Bush offering? What, exactly, has Bush accomplished in his
four years in office? It seems to me his major "accomplishment" is
reacting to a crisis that probably wouldn't have occurred if he had
been paying attention in the first place.
<Geez, give me a reason to vote for him.
Here's one: He is not Bush.
--
John Howells
how...@punkhart.com
http://www.punkhart.com
Dennis Gramza
> to the allies and get them to join up.
C'mon really?? What you are saying is that Bush was not level-headed
enough after terrorists declared war on us, 3,000 of our people were
killed, and Saddam Hussein was on a course to increase his WMD's. If I
recall, Bush did everything possible to avoid going to Iraq, and going
alone. Kerry, a "level-headed guy", wants us to believe he would have been
able to get more support from our allies? How? Would Kerry still be
standing pat, trying to muster up the support today, while fearing that
Saddam was preparing to do the unthinkable?
Our allies make their decisions based upon their politcal landscapes first.
Talk from the US, whether level-headed or not, would not convince a
president of another country to put his job on the line---even if he
believes in the cause. They just hope a 9/11 doesn't happen on their soil.
You echo Kerry's worn out lines, speaking of Bush "alienating the rest of
the world." That's just campaign rhetoric. Do you really think that Bush
or we, the citizens, are concerned whether we are alienating anyone while we
fight for our personal safety? I don't care if we alienate the planet, if
it prevents another 9/11. Do you?
Though there is not a worldwide coalition helping us, I see no alienation,
no protest (even with cable news reporters with their ear to the ground)
from the rest of the civilized world as to how the US is dealing with the
problems. That silence speaks volumes. Because they know that the US will
fix the problem--with or without them, and we'd also come to their country
to help.
The protests are coming from those here; who seem intent upon voting for a
party--and not a leader.
If John Kerry is elected and, despite his all of his "level-headedness and
sensitivity", he somehow still fails to get the additional support from
some new allies, will he keep the fight going? Or will he bail and give the
terrorists a rest? Does anybody know yet?
.
"Nate Smith" <grey...@NET1Plus.com> wrote in message
news:uKKdnSvVE6v...@net1plus.com...
Dennis Gramza
including yourself, believes that Bush didn't do everything he could to get
help. Neither Kerry--or anybody else can create allies, because noone
wants to get involved. They think that the US will fix this anyway.
> Instead, Bush arrogantly told many of our major allies, who *could* have
helped us if we had given >a good reason, to go fuck off.
If retaliation for 9/11, stamping out terrorism, and stopping another
"Hitler in the making' was not a good reason for our "allies" to get
involved, what would have been?
> <Kerry will find a "coalition of the able"??? On Mars? All of
> <our allies are able, but only some are willing. He offers no clue here
if
> <he will transform them into the willing or will he just draft them?
> What he means is: allies like France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Spain,
> and others who actually have a standing army and are capable of
> actually helping us.
Capable-- but willing??? Like JK is going to say some "secret word" and
France, Russia, and all, are gonna launch their armies! Like they really do
want to help the good people of Iraq to have an opportunity to live in
freedom,--but they won't because they just don't like Bush. Where do you
get the idea that these countries have held out this long only because they
dislike Bush more than they dislike terrorrists threatening the world.
C'mon!.
>It seems to me his major "accomplishment" is
> reacting to a crisis that probably wouldn't have occurred if he had
> been paying attention in the first place.
You must have more insight than the 9/11 Commission Report.
> <Geez, give me a reason to vote for him.
>
> Here's one: He is not Bush.
That's seems to be the best thing anybody can say about Kerry, darn it!.
He's gonna need more than that to win.
"John Howells" <how...@punkhart.com> wrote in message
news:DLQ%c.6240$NC6...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
John Howells
<> Instead, Bush arrogantly told many of our major allies, who *could* have
<helped us if we had given >a good reason, to go fuck off.
<If retaliation for 9/11, stamping out terrorism, and stopping another
<"Hitler in the making' was not a good reason for our "allies" to get
<involved, what would have been?
You seem to be under the impression that Iraq had something to do
with 9/11. Your mind is made up. No need in carrying this conversation
any further. Vote for Bush. You probably deserve him.
<> <Geez, give me a reason to vote for him.
<>
<> Here's one: He is not Bush.
<That's seems to be the best thing anybody can say about Kerry, darn it!.
<He's gonna need more than that to win.
Hopefully, that's ALL he's going to need.
jls
wrote:
>C'mon really?? What you are saying is that Bush was not level-headed
>enough after terrorists declared war on us, 3,000 of our people were
>killed, and Saddam Hussein was on a course to increase his WMD's. If I
>recall, Bush did everything possible to avoid going to Iraq, and going
>alone.
Then your memory is not very good. He did not work hard enough to get
other countries involved, and the did not bother to either listen to
or wait for the UN inspection team to do its job. That is not doing
everything possible to avoid going to Iraq.
Kerry, a "level-headed guy", wants us to believe he would have been
>able to get more support from our allies? How?
Like maybe he would have traveled to meet them on their turf -- that
makes a big difference. Like maybe he would have had more press
conferences here in the US to help clarify and answer all questions.
Would Kerry still be
>standing pat, trying to muster up the support today, while fearing that
>Saddam was preparing to do the unthinkable?
>
>Our allies make their decisions based upon their politcal landscapes first.
>Talk from the US, whether level-headed or not, would not convince a
>president of another country to put his job on the line---even if he
>believes in the cause. They just hope a 9/11 doesn't happen on their soil.
>
>You echo Kerry's worn out lines, speaking of Bush "alienating the rest of
>the world." That's just campaign rhetoric.
Just because it's repeated on the campaign trail doesn't mean it isn't
true.
Do you really think that Bush
>or we, the citizens, are concerned whether we are alienating anyone while we
>fight for our personal safety? I don't care if we alienate the planet, if
>it prevents another 9/11. Do you?
yup, I do. It's a small world and we are all safer if we try and work
together. I think I learned that in pre-school, but it could have
been kindergarten.
>
>Though there is not a worldwide coalition helping us, I see no alienation,
>no protest (even with cable news reporters with their ear to the ground)
>from the rest of the civilized world as to how the US is dealing with the
>problems. That silence speaks volumes. Because they know that the US will
>fix the problem--with or without them, and we'd also come to their country
>to help.
You must have been on vacation when they had the European protests
with hundreds of thousands protesting the Iraq war.
>
>The protests are coming from those here; who seem intent upon voting for a
>party--and not a leader.
>
>If John Kerry is elected and, despite his all of his "level-headedness and
>sensitivity", he somehow still fails to get the additional support from
>some new allies, will he keep the fight going? Or will he bail and give the
>terrorists a rest? Does anybody know yet?
You are confusing the war with Iraq with the war on terror. Read the
911 commission report, it may help you figure it out.
j
JLamm
They're volunteering. They don't need money. And it'll cost them customers.
frinjdwelr
> Bob does a lot of "Froggie.." stuff. Despite his early songs, I doubt
> many regard Dylan as one who tries to use his influence to change one's
> viewpoint these days. The material he does now is just plain great
> songwriting. He has no peers. It doesn't appear that he feels the need
> anymore to use the mic to editorialize. He seems to have figured it out.
You've got to be kidding. Do you even listen to his songs, early and
recent? He still stands by virtually all his early stuff besides extending
and expanding it even yet. His songwriting is great prcisely because it
does express a viewpoint and a unique personal vision. You think he's up
there just tra, la la-ing some ear candy? If he has no peers it's because
in contrast to the vapid "froggie" pop that clogs the airwaves, his stuff
has depth and meaning. Of course he editorializes - every time he
approaches that mike.
>
> It's not that artists aren't entitled to opinions and to be able to
express
> them. It is the delusion they seem to have that they can take the stage
and
> people will be as concerned about their views as they are about what their
> favorite color is--or their astrological sign. I'm there to see them
> perform and entertain.
As Bob once said, some people expect their artists to be like wallpaper.
Heaven forbid that you're not "entertained." But if you think these artists
are so delusional about people paying attention to their views, what are you
worried about?
>They can write a book (like everyone else) if they
> want to change the world.
Only books can change the world? Gee, maybe that's what Bob's up to with
his. But I don't think so.
>
> These actors and artists look stupid. They come out in support of a
> candidate, not because of his ideals and his vision for the country, but
> simply because they don't like his opponent. This is absurd! Who would
> they not support in a race against Bush? Where would they draw the line?
> Would they support...Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein?
>
Oh yeah, you clearly know all about their ideals, visions and motivations.
> Maybe it's just a gig for them and they need the money. They are done
> getting any more of mine.
>
>
Ummm. The whole point is that the money goes to the campaign. But I bet
they'll be all broken up about losing your support.
Joe...@ao1.com
>... You can get a big,
>huge, giant clue by going to www.johnkerry.com. Look on the left hand
>side of the page and you will find exactly what John Kerry stands for
>on the issues [snip]
I did exactly that some days ago. Went to Kerry's site not to find promises
for the future but mainly to look for 2 things.
1- A record of accomplishments for his 3 senate terms (18 years)
Found: A sorry lack of anything impressive.
2- A response to the charge that he missed 70% of the public intelligence
committee meetings and 100% of the classified meetings and tried to reduce
the intelligence budget.
Found: Nothing
He voted against the Gulf war. The guy looks like a wimp because he is a
wimp.
raven
Dennis Gramza wrote:
>
> Geez, give me a reason to vote for him.
the Supreme Court
the Constitution
the Economy
the Deficits
Health care
Jobs
Ron
controlled radio. If those stations weren't so hell bent on playing the
Eagles greatest hits every hour, there might be room for some quality
new stuff to get through, or even some sadly neglected older stuff. When
was the last time you heard a Dylan song on the radio that wasn't LARS,
P4S, RDW, LLL, KOHD, or TUIB?
GW
reason to vote for him is as follows: the invasion of Iraq occurred because
the Bush administration is either 1) incompetent, or 2) cynical. If the
Bush administration believed their intelligence about WMD when they were
paying frauds for it, then they were and are incompetent. If the Bush
administration privately dismissed or even doubted that intelligence but
publically justified the invasion of another nation based on that evidence
(most plausible rationale per Wolfowitz), then they are far too cynical to
entrust another term. Incompetence wrecks alliances and cynicism should not
be rewarded at the polls, especially when soldiers are being sacrificed.
"Dennis Gramza" <sa...@triton.net> wrote in message
news:2c116$413f652b$d1ac0b26$31...@allthenewsgroups.com...
Dennis Gramza
to the ear of the beholder.
I hear finely-crafted poetry.
> > These actors and artists look stupid. They come out in support of a
> > candidate, not because of his ideals and his vision for the country,
but
> > simply because they don't like his opponent. This is absurd! Who
would
> > they not support in a race against Bush? Where would they draw the
line?
> > Would they support...Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein?
> >
> Oh yeah, you clearly know all about their ideals, visions and
motivations.
I'm not pretending to know these artitsts' ideals, visions and motivations.
I just wonder how they
know that theirs are in line with a candidate who has, in the past few
weeks, taken every available position re: our involvement in Iraq.
1. Voted for the UN resolution
2. Voted for funding the war, then against it.
3. Said war was necessary with Iraq
4. Said war was justified, even if WMD's had not yet been found
5. Said it's the wrong war at the wrong time.
What positon is left? Can you honestly say that this guy would be a
decisive leader?
I think Kerry watches too much cable news.
"frinjdwelr" <frinj...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10jvko5...@corp.supernews.com...
Dennis Gramza
> You seem to be under the impression that Iraq had something to do
> with 9/11.
Our government must have felt there was good reason to believe that Saddam
was harboring terrorists, selling weapons to terrorists, or providing
refuge for terrorists driven out of Afghanistan.
I've yet to see where anyone shows that Hitler had anything to do with Pearl
Harbor. But we became involved
in removing that insane dictator.
We hired the goverment to protect us. Whatdayagonna do...second guess them
now?
> <> <Geez, give me a reason to vote for him.
> <>
> <> Here's one: He is not Bush.
> <That's seems to be the best thing anybody can say about Kerry, darn it!.
> <He's gonna need more than that to win.
>
> Hopefully, that's ALL he's going to need.
Well Kerry should have helped himself a bit, lately--now that he has taken
every available position on our involvement in Iraq.
"John Howells" <how...@punkhart.com> wrote in message
news:%LS%c.6263$NC6....@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
Nate Smith
> 1. Voted for the UN resolution
of course
> 2. Voted for funding the war,
when it was going to funded by suspending
the bush tax cuts....
then against it.
when bush said "no way", i.e. his money he
saved from the tax cuts was more important.
apparently bush wants to fund it with
voodoo economics.
it's called "making sure to read the fine print".
you dont want a guy who just signs off on stuff
without looking at it, do you?
> 3. Said war was necessary with Iraq
meaning the authority was necessary to help
craft a coalition with allies.
> 4. Said war was justified, even if WMD's had not yet been found
the *authority* of the resolution, the ability
to use it as a threat to support a case in the UN.
> 5. Said it's the wrong war at the wrong time.
see, then bush ignored all good wisdom and plowed ahead
with his john wayne full steam ahead anyway.
>
> What positon is left? Can you honestly say that this guy would be a
> decisive leader?
kerry has been extremely consistent. i dont agree with his
position (he would take 4 long years to get us out of this
mess), but he has been consistent with his explanations.
the other guy has also been consistent (oops, we'll take
his "cant win it/will win it as meaning that you can never
exterminate terrorism, but you can put it down in the noise)
- consistent in doing it Wrong.
- nate
Nate Smith
> We hired the goverment to protect us. Whatdayagonna
> do...second guess them now?
this isnt take any guess work at all.
he fucked it up.
he deserves not only to lose the election,
but to go to jail for sending our troops over
there. crime: high treason
- nate, against capital punishment even in this case
Dennis Gramza
anyone ever gets around to it.
Right now they're having a field day, as he locks down every available
postion re: our involvement in Iraq.... and you want to vote for this
"decisive leader"? Does he think he can go to one town and say one thing,
and then to another and say the opposite?
I don't know about you, but this kind of flip-flopping scares me. What's
with his "reliving the 60's" motif, anyway?
If Bush had done nothing in Iraq, and Saddam committed, or was a part of any
atrocity against us, (as EVERYBODY feared), then you'd be able to say Bush
was incompetent, too.
You're just complaining.
"GW" <g...@xyz.xyz> wrote in message
news:ljY%c.85274$cT6....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
John Howells
Bush's flip flops
by kos
Sun Mar 7th, 2004 at 21:37:53 GMT
Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against
them again.
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict;
then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing
the constitution.
Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police,
emergency), then he doesn't.
Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts
benefits
Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I
don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts
drilling on Padre Island.
Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting
funding.
Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to
sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not
call for a vote
Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush
later admits it was his advance team.
Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US.
Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.
Delia
>
> > You seem to be under the impression that Iraq had something to do
> > with 9/11.
>
> Our government must have felt there was good reason to believe that Saddam
> was harboring terrorists, selling weapons to terrorists, or providing
> refuge for terrorists driven out of Afghanistan.
>
> I've yet to see where anyone shows that Hitler had anything to do with
Pearl
> Harbor. But we became involved
> in removing that insane dictator.
The reason we became involved in the European theater of the war after Pearl
Harbor is because Hitler declared war on *us*. Certainly that's what
Churchill wanted. Certainly that's what Roosevelt wanted to encourage. But
Congress and the US population were pretty isolationist and would have been
happy to just deal with the Asian theater if they had been given the chance.
As for the German High Command, they were shocked and appalled by Der
Fuehrer's action. By that time they pretty much felt they had their hands
full as it was and they really wanted to leave the Americans to the
Japanese.
Hope this helps.
--
Delia
frinjdwelr
> >
> >Though there is not a worldwide coalition helping us, I see no
alienation,
> >no protest (even with cable news reporters with their ear to the ground)
> >from the rest of the civilized world as to how the US is dealing with
the
> >problems. That silence speaks volumes. Because they know that the US
will
> >fix the problem--with or without them, and we'd also come to their
country
> >to help.
>
> You must have been on vacation when they had the European protests
> with hundreds of thousands protesting the Iraq war.
> >
study/poll that found 4 out of every 5 non US inhabitants thinks Bush has
made the world less safe and want to see him defeated.
frinjdwelr
"Dennis Gramza" <sa...@triton.net> wrote in message
news:5672$4140bc00$d1ac0b26$18...@allthenewsgroups.com...
>
> > with 9/11.
>
> Our government must have felt there was good reason to believe that Saddam
> was harboring terrorists, selling weapons to terrorists, or providing
> refuge for terrorists driven out of Afghanistan.
>
>
them
> now?
>
>
it a lot during Nixon's campaign for re-election. Then it came up again
during interviews with delegates to the latest Republican convention.
"We have to just trust our government. The president has inside information
and knows more than we do. We need to have faith that he'll do the right
thing."
Oh yeah. Riiiiiight.
J Buck
study/poll that found 4 out of every 5 non US inhabitants thinks Bush
has made the world less safe and want to see him defeated>
I would love to see the details of that, i.e., sample size, what
countries were actually polled, etc.
John Howells
J Buck
<countries were actually polled, etc.>
Thanks for the links.
.
----------------------------------
Published on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 by the International Herald
Tribune
Global Poll Shows a Kerry Landslide
Poll finds him preferred around world
by Thomas Crampton
PARIS -- If the world could cast a vote in the United States
presidential election, John Kerry would beat George W. Bush by a landslide,
according to a poll released on Wednesday that is described as the largest
sample of global opinion on the race.
"It is absolutely clear that John Kerry would win handily if the
people of the world could vote," said Steve Kull, director of The Program on
International Policy Attitudes of the University of Maryland, a co-sponsor
of the survey. "It is rather striking that just one in five people surveyed
around the world support the re-election of President Bush."
People with higher education and more income were more strongly
in favor of Kerry..."Those at the top of world society are more negative
towards Bush than those at the bottom. The most likely common link is that
those who have the most access to information tend be more negative towards
Bush than those with less access to information."
The poll of 34,330 people older than 15 from all regions of the world
found that the majority or plurality of people from 32 countries prefer
Kerry to Bush.
Asia was the region showing the most mixed results, although Kerry
still did better than Bush. Kerry won clear majorities in China, Indonesia
and Japan, but slipped past Bush by only a slight margin in Thailand and
India.
The most negative attitude toward the U.S. came from France, Germany
and Mexico, where roughly 80 percent of those surveyed thought that the
foreign policies of President Bush had made them feel worse about the United
States.
In addition to presidential preferences, the poll also inquired about
people's views on U.S. foreign policy.
"We found an unusually low level of support for U.S. foreign policy,"
Kull said. "This runs in line with trends from recent attitude surveys by
the Pew Research Center and may have implications when the U.S. wants to
move forward on issues with its closest allies."
The polling in a total of 35 countries was conducted by The Program on
International Policy Attitudes and the polling company GlobeScan
Incorporated during a period ranging from several days to several weeks,
starting in mid-May and running through early September.
Most traditional U.S. allies came out strongly favoring Kerry, while
only those polled in Nigeria, Poland and the Philippines preferred Bush.
"Even where the president does beat John Kerry, there is no enthusiasm
apparent from the numbers," Kull said. "Those countries that support him for
re-election also tend not to like his foreign policy."
The only country where Bush received support from more than half of
those polled was the Philippines, where 57 percent supported his election,
compared with 32 percent who supported Kerry. About one third of those
polled in Nigeria and Poland gave their support to Bush, while support for
Kerry ran at a margin of about five percentage points lower.
Norway and Germany tied - at 74 percent - as the countries where those
polled most strongly support Kerry. Canadians preferred Kerry by a ratio of
61 percent to 16 percent for Bush.
The sample size, running from 500 to 1,800 people per country polled
through a variety of means including face-to-face interviews, telephone or
Internet was a fair measure of public sentiment, Kull said. Even when
adjusted by weight of population in each country, results remained nearly
identical, Kull said.
"Our average sample size per country of about 1,000 people is nearly
double the number used by Gallup International for their annual
Voice-of-the-People Poll," Kull said. "With numbers this robust it would be
difficult to conclude anything but a broad feeling of dissatisfaction with
Bush and his foreign policy."
Another pattern that became apparent in studying the data was that
those people with higher education and more income were more strongly in
favor of Kerry, Kull said.
"Those at the top of world society are more negative towards Bush than
those at the bottom," Kull said. "The most likely common link is that those
who have the most access to information tend be more negative towards Bush
than those with less access to information." Overall, only 20 percent of
those surveyed supported Bush for a second term, while just under half
support Kerry and one third did not express a preference.
"Keep in mind that most people probably know very little about John
Kerry," Kull said. "In that way, you can really count the one third who do
not support either candidate as holding back their support from Bush." Of
the one third responding to the poll who expressed no preference between the
candidates, roughly half said that it would make no difference who was
elected.
Polling among some traditional U.S. allies found strongly negative
attitudes toward Bush.
In Germany, France, Norway, Italy and the Netherlands, the portion
polled as supporting Bush amounted to 14 percent or lower, while more than
half in each country supported Kerry.
In Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair has been the foreign
leader most closely allied to U.S. policy in Iraq, those polled preferred
Kerry by a margin of 30 percentage points. Of the 1,001 Britons polled by
telephone across the country, 47 percent preferred Kerry, while 16 percent
preferred Bush.
Among the 12 countries that took part in the war in Iraq as what Bush
has termed the "coalition of the willing," only in the Philippines did the
majority of those polled prefer Bush. More than half of those polled in
seven "coalition of the willing" countries said that U.S. foreign policy was
worse under Bush.
The only country in Europe that supported Bush was Poland, where he
was preferred by 31 percent, compared with 26 percent for Kerry. But 41
percent of those polled in Poland said that the foreign policy led by Bush
had made them feel worse about the United States.
In the Czech Republic, a new ally and member of the Iraq coalition, 42
percent supported Kerry while 18 percent supported Bush.
All 11 Latin American countries polled supported Kerry. While Kerry
received support from a bit more than 50 percent of those polled in two
countries in the region - Brazil and the Dominican Republic - the spread was
wider in other countries. In Venezuela, for example, Kerry received support
from 48 percent of those polled while Bush received 22 percent.
© Copyright 2004 International Herald Tribune
"J Buck" <jbu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21525-414...@storefull-3136.bay.webtv.net...
Delia
--
Delia
"John Howells" <how...@punkhart.com> wrote in message
news:lIa0d.6314$NC6...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
tmon
Dennis Gramza
> study/poll that found 4 out of every 5 non US inhabitants thinks Bush has
> made the world less safe and want to see him defeated.
It's probably a good idea to believe everything you hear on the radio.
But I can top that. I heard a poll that 5 out of every 6 Democrats want to
see Bush defeated, too.
Hey!!! This land is your land, this land is my land. From California to
the New York island....WG.
With those kind of numbers, too bad Kerry can't bring the rest of world in
on the USA election.
I just read a study of nudie show patrons.... It concluded that men go bald
from sitting in the front rows.
Can provide the link if anybody wants to read it.
"frinjdwelr" <frinj...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10k21jh...@corp.supernews.com...
Dennis Gramza
the big chair for 4 years, and while he's there he has the luxury to
reconsider and change his positions. That's part of being a good manager.
Of those statements you make below, none of them appear to be the result of
Bushe's reactions to polls, voter sentiments, or concerns over re-election.
It's like saying one day Bush ate steak, and the next day he ate chicken.
Gimme a break.
Kerry's not in the chair. He's in the race. He can't afford to change his
positons during the race. He owes it to his supporters to have a firm
stance for only a few short months so voters can figure out who he is.
Hasn't done it.
And he should show us some capability of having vision.
What was he thinking? Take his well-crafted election game plan of coming
out playing the Vietnam War hero cards. Is he so caught up with himself
that he forgot what draft-dodger incumbent Clinton did to WWII hero Dole 2
elections ago? Where did he get the idea anybody cares about what he did
in Vietnam 35 years ago? Or, heaven forbid, did he believe his war record
outshined his Senate record? Vision??? Scary.
"John Howells" <how...@punkhart.com> wrote in message
news:lIa0d.6314$NC6...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...