Go to previous topic
Go to next topic
Last Post 8/6/2004 10:52 AM by  Rev Jules
THE BOSS VERSUS BUSH
 28 Replies
Author Messages
Rev Jules
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1041


--
8/6/2004 10:52 AM
    The following article was re-printed in today's Guardian after an initial publication in The New York Times on August 5th 2004. It represents the first explicit political statement that Sringsteen has ever made in the public arena. Until now, Bruce has, "always stayed one step away from partisan politics". It is a fascinating document and should be read by all who are interested in music or politics or both. CHORDS FOR CHANGE By BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN published in The New York Times, August 5, 2004 A nation's artists and musicians have a particular place in its social and political life. Over the years I've tried to think long and hard about what it means to be American: about the distinctive identity and position we have in the world, and how that position is best carried. I've tried to write songs that speak to our pride and criticize our failures. These questions are at the heart of this election: who we are, what we stand for, why we fight. Personally, for the last 25 years I have always stayed one step away from partisan politics. Instead, I have been partisan about a set of ideals: economic justice, civil rights, a humane foreign policy, freedom and a decent life for all of our citizens. This year, however, for many of us the stakes have risen too high to sit this election out. Through my work, I've always tried to ask hard questions. Why is it that the wealthiest nation in the world finds it so hard to keep its promise and faith with its weakest citizens? Why do we continue to find it so difficult to see beyond the veil of race? How do we conduct ourselves during difficult times without killing the things we hold dear? Why does the fulfillment of our promise as a people always seem to be just within grasp yet forever out of reach? I don't think John Kerry and John Edwards have all the answers. I do believe they are sincerely interested in asking the right questions and working their way toward honest solutions. They understand that we need an administration that places a priority on fairness, curiosity, openness, humility, concern for all America's citizens, courage and faith. People have different notions of these values, and they live them out in different ways. I've tried to sing about some of them in my songs. But I have my own ideas about what they mean, too. That is why I plan to join with many fellow artists, including the Dave Matthews Band, Pearl Jam, R.E.M., the Dixie Chicks, Jurassic 5, James Taylor and Jackson Browne, in touring the country this October. We will be performing under the umbrella of a new group called Vote for Change. Our goal is to change the direction of the government and change the current administration come November. Like many others, in the aftermath of 9/11, I felt the country's unity. I don't remember anything quite like it. I supported the decision to enter Afghanistan and I hoped that the seriousness of the times would bring forth strength, humility and wisdom in our leaders. Instead, we dived headlong into an unnecessary war in Iraq, offering up the lives of our young men and women under circumstances that are now discredited. We ran record deficits, while simultaneously cutting and squeezing services like afterschool programs. We granted tax cuts to the richest 1 percent (corporate bigwigs, well-to-do guitar players), increasing the division of wealth that threatens to destroy our social contract with one another and render mute the promise of "one nation indivisible." It is through the truthful exercising of the best of human qualities - respect for others, honesty about ourselves, faith in our ideals - that we come to life in God's eyes. It is how our soul, as a nation and as individuals, is revealed. Our American government has strayed too far from American values. It is time to pick up the pieces and move forward. The country we carry in our hearts is waiting.
    Gar
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1676


    --
    8/6/2004 11:05 AM
    Very honest and nicely written piece. The main thing though is...what a line-up for that concert.
    mutch
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:392


    --
    8/6/2004 12:07 PM
    great stuff.
    eoghan
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:331


    --
    8/6/2004 1:40 PM
    I have to say this blew me away when I read yesterday on the NYT's website. I too meant to start a thread on it but Jules (good man!) beat me to it. Yeah, we've been getting rock / pop stars / whatever mouthing off about politicians on a regular enough basis over the years. So you learn to take it with a pinch of salt, if you bother to listen at all. Springsteen however is another kettle of fish. He has spent a remarkable 30 year career avoiding direct statements and positions on politicians throughout his career, be it in song or in interview. The fact struck me particularly around the time he released the Rising. In interviews he did to promote the album he weaved an incredibly skilful - and obviously deliberate - path around politicising September 11th and what the Rising might stand for in terms of politics or policy. He kept his words – like the album - focused on the human side of the story. For him to now come out in this fashion against Bush and his team’s policies is a very powerful statement. And it stands for an awful lot more than it might seem at an initial glance. To be truthful, shivers went up my spine when yesterday I got to the paragraph where he announces his intention to go tour with other artists. I could see it coming as I read down but didn’t think he actually go ahead and do something on that scale. This is one very telling gesture that will resonate. What the article doesn’t say is that the tour is only visiting the 7 or so ‘swing’ states where the vote is a dead heat between Kerry and Bush. eoghan
    Rev Jules
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1041


    --
    8/12/2004 6:14 PM
    I've been giving Bruce's article a great deal of thought over the last week. Springsteen is one of America's greatest authors. His unique artistic vision of his country has shaped it's cultural image as surely as any Spielberg movie, John Steinbeck novel or Walt Whitman poem. He writes in NYT, "I supported the decision to enter Afghanistan and I hoped that the seriousness of the times would bring forth strength, humility and wisdom in our leaders. Instead, we dived headlong into an unnecessary war in Iraq, offering up the lives of our young men and women under circumstances that are now discredited". He claims that, "I don't think John Kerry and John Edwards have all the answers. I do believe they are sincerely interested in asking the right questions and working their way toward honest solutions". And yet, and yet... I couldn't put my finger on what was off for quite a while then yesterday morning I heard Jimmy Cliff's song 'Vietnam' on the radio and it all made sense...John Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam in 1966 AFTER opposition to the war began in the colleges of America in 1965. He was the kind of guy that Jimmy Cliff was pleading with to STOP that war. He is the kind of guy that Springsteen was addressing in the 1980's during concerts when he warned that, 'Blind faith in your leaders or in anything will get you killed' before he launched into the song 'War' which says that, 'War ain't nothin' but a heartbreaker...War is the enemy of all mankind'. If John Kerry was a young man today, would he be signing up to go to fight in Iraq with the words, 'Send me' ? It blows my mind that Springsteen would support ANY war. What makes war waged in Afghanistan any different from that waged in Iraq ? Did Afghanistan give to anybody but the undertaker ? For Springsteen to endorse an old war horse like Kerry, well, I don't know. And I don't see any honour or distinguishment in volunteering to go fight in an immoral, illegal war like Vietnam. In fact, when I saw Kerry give his, 'I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty' schtick in Boston I thought of the final scenes in Born On The 4th of July where Cruise's character screams at the police about the Vietnamese people's proud tradition of defending themselves against foreign agression.
    mutch
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:392


    --
    8/12/2004 6:42 PM
    "For Springsteen to endorse Kerry in any way, well, I don't know." How about lesser of two evils then? It's not my country involved but alot of all our interests are at stake as USA is pretty big in terms of jobs and global environmental impact, in which case I reckon Kerry might not be as owned by the oil cartels..etc as the present "Government" in USA. Sorry to any American's that read this, but I've read some Michael Moore and thus feel I can go "tut tut" from my high horse in the corruption free Island that we (mostly) have here off the coast of Europe...{Big fan of Irish TD's so I am. All those sick priests, so many blind eyes...what a nation we are!} As I said, it's not my country, so I wont tell anyone what to do, I think I would prefer the worlds most powerful nation to at least try to be seen not to endorse what in 500 years time will be seen as nepotism. Plus in fairness Kerry kinda looks like he might make some awfully silly public mistakes that we could relish in, he just seems kinda goofy or something, rather than plain ignorant and seemingly hellbent on ruining everything he touches! heh. I've said too much now cos I am in danger of sounding like I know what the feck I'm on about.
    Rev Jules
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1041


    --
    8/12/2004 6:56 PM
    quote:
    Originally posted by mutch
    I've read some Michael Moore and thus feel I can go "tut tut" from my high horse in the corruption free Island that we (mostly) have here off the coast of Europe
    Ahh, Michael Moore, the 'Dude, Where's my coherant argument' guy ? The fellow who does this cheap shot stuff by asking congressmen whether they would send their sons to war. C'mon Michael, what responsible parent would ? When Springsteen told his own father that he had failed the draft, his father's response was a simple, "Good". Gimme a break here. Enough with the fat, male, millionaire, white, liberals.
    mutch
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:392


    --
    8/12/2004 7:09 PM
    auh, as reinaer wolfcastle once said " dat was th joooohke", still though you gotta admit its good to have someone giving out, stirring it up, most people (myself for one) wouldnt know much about the details of the last election were it not for his book, I know theres probably more even handed people writing about similar topics in a more responsible/professional way, but thats not gonna get the attention of the majority who are fed CNN/SKY/Bloomberg and are over worked or too stoned or whatever to go search for better information. Having said that he is pretty self righteous, but he's not as self righteous as most of the green party and alot of the left have become here in Europe. And begorah isnt he Irish to boot! hah. Ireland strikes again!
    Rev Jules
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1041


    --
    8/12/2004 9:02 PM
    quote:
    Originally posted by mutch
    auh, as reinaer wolfcastle once said " dat was th joooohke",
    Its cool Mutch, I wasn't having a go at you. Its just that I was in contact with an American Professor recently who had writtten an open letter to Bruce in the US political magazine Counter Punch and he wrote the following to me, "I see Kerry as very similar to Bush on Iraq, and am afraid that if/when he wins many voting for him will be bitterly disappointed by his determination to retain and expand the fruits of victory in the region".
    mutch
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:392


    --
    8/13/2004 8:50 AM
    I stand corrected Jules, theres an old saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" that applies to me here...
    qorian
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:29


    --
    8/15/2004 7:17 AM
    As an American, (and born and bred NYC resident) let me be (among) the first to say that the US gov't is close, dangerously close, to being in complete disrepair. What we have now in our offices, in our electoral process, in our media "watchdogs" is nothing like democracy, checks/balances, etc. It is actively upsetting that i should be a position where i must pick between the lesser of two evils to run my country. But that's exactly the position I'm in. Yes, Kerry is deceptive in his image as being entirely anti-war. That said, The Boss is right when he says that at the very least, Kerry and Edwards want CHANGE for the u.s., and not simply more of the backwards, self-serving, downright deception that Bush has given me and mine. It's worth noting, too, that even if he's not entirely anti-war (though i wish he were), I trust Kerry to make more sound decisions because he (unlike Bush) knows what war is actually like. Someone asked Kerry once why he's against the death penalty and he simply replied "because I've killed." Can't argue with that as far as I'm concerned. If there's going to be a war (and i wish there wasn't) i'd much prefer it be led by someone who didn't spend his formative years boozing and snorting cocaine and dodging his stints in the army reserve, but rather by someone who knows just how horrible war can be. Point Blank: I cannot deal with another four years of Bush/Cheney in charge, and i applaude Springsteen and the rest for voicing the same sentiment (especially considering the tasty tax breaks they must've recieved from Bush's policies) (Worth mentioning what the hell i'm doing on this message board in the first place- I studied in Dublin miss it terribly and thus cling desperately to my love of the irish music scene via a few friends and this website) That said, i'm fascinated about all your thoughts. keep em coming! x, -h.
    El Duderino
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:179


    --
    8/16/2004 7:46 AM
    I can't help but see Bush as the lesser of 2 evils in the presidential race. Domestically the Americans would be better off with Kerry 'cause he might help sort out some of the mess Bush made, however on an international front Bush is somewhat isolated and held in disregard. As long as Bush is incharge, France and Germany are unlikely to get involved in Iraq or anyother follow on actions against an imaginary "axis of evil". However if a smooth operator (dunno if that describes Kerry?) does take over and gets Europe involved on a major scale we are gonna reap the consequences first hand. Which ever way it goes a chain of events has already begun and no new president could turn it totally around at this stage. Kerry, by merely running for president, is showing that he isn't opposed to war as there is no way the Americans can pull out of there in the foreseeable future. Empire building is a long hard slog
    Rev Jules
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1041


    --
    8/16/2004 11:41 AM
    Before I continue, I should say that I didn't post up Bruce's speech to take Cluas out of the arena of music related discussion into a purely political areana. And I am also conscious that a number of our readers are American. However, considering that the election is such a hot topic in music circle in America and that Quorian has expressed an interest in hearing a number of different views. Here goes. 1) I agree with El Duderino that America will be not able to leave Iraq anytime soon. Hell, it still has forces stationed in Germany. America will be in Iraq for a very long time and a president that sees it as military situation as opposed to a policing, rebuilding situation is going to find themselves in a lot of hot water. 2) I disagree that Kerry is better qualified just because he is ex military. Military service did not help Carter, Bush Snr or Nixon avoid American involvement in hostilities overseas. Being a former soldier does not automatically make you more peaceable. Kerry went looking for a fight in Vietnam and he has made that aspect of his life story a feature of his campaign profile. 3) I wonder how can Kerry provide affordable health care when he is intent on increasing defence spending. President Clinton left office with a federal surplus of over 5.8 trillion dollars, which he had hoped would be used to provide for care for America's elderly (RTE interview july 2004). That money is now gone. How does Kerry plan to pay for his ideas ? Clinton was many things but, as president, he was first and foremost a fiscal genius. If you look at his 2004 Democratic Convention speech it is full of financial, yet easily grasped, detail. If you want to understand the financial implications of what Quorian is saying, have a look at that speech. http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0726.html Sadly, it is exactly the kind of detail which is entirely lacking in Kerry's own address. 4) I often wonder at musicians like Bruce who sit in the shadows during a presidency and then come out at election time. I feel that they are politically naive in a way which musicians like Bono aren't. If you look at the way Bono handled Bush, no different then if he was his local TD, he used his fame to walk into his office and then asked for money to help the weakest in global society. Did Bush tell him to get lost, nope, he wrote him a cheque. If guys like Springsteen did that, used their influence properly, and not just to tell people which way to vote...P Diddy and Eminem are telling people to register so that they have a vote in the first place...then you might have a more equitable government. 5) The other thing I wonder about is Bruce's phrase, "we need an administration that places a priority on fairness, curiosity, openness, humility, concern for all America's citizens". There is an arguement to be made that America's global influence is now so great, and the number of countries its foreign policy affects directly so numerous, that this election is not truly democratic. That American voters are now an elite, choosing a leader whose decisions affect people far beyond the national boundaries who do not have the vote. Clinton understood this. He talked about a 'global economy' in his 1998 state of the union address. He knew that the world had shrunk. He realised that future american presidents had to take into consideration not just the citizens of America but the citizens of the world or as he says, "we live in an interdependent world". I do not believe in the lesser of two evils. I do not believe in negative voting, voting for someone just because you are against someone else and I do not believe in keeping schtum until election time comes around. Democracy doesn't end when the polls close, it begins. Kerry is no Clinton. Clinton's presidency focused on taking people out of poverty and rising them up into the financial middle class. Kerry seems intent on simply preserving the middle class. There is a big difference. I don't believe that Kerry will win this election. I think that by voting for him as their candidate in preference for John Edwards the Democrats have made a bigger mistake than they did in 2000 when they failed to ask for a full recount. A mistake that has haunted Al Gore since. Edwards reminds me of a young LBJ when he says that, "From the time I was very young, I saw the ugly face of segregation and discrimination. I saw young African-American kids sent upstairs in movie theaters. I saw white only signs on restaurant doors and luncheon counters. I feel such an enormous responsibility when it comes to issues of race and equality and civil rights". If it was John Edwards for President, well, maybe that's what Bruce is really trying to say. Bruce asks the most pertinent of questions in his article, "Why is it that the wealthiest nation in the world finds it so hard to keep its promise and faith with its weakest citizens?". Maybe its time The Boss walked into the Oval office, poked The Chief in the chest and asked for a big cheque for those same citizens.
    El Duderino
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:179


    --
    8/16/2004 1:19 PM
    quote:
    Originally posted by Rev Jules
    I do not believe in the lesser of two evils
    This is a good point but that statement in itself describes the state that American politics is in. It's outdated partizan politics that represents a minority of the American populace that prevails in the States today. The fact that no party really represents America's ethnic minorities is something that I find hard to comprehend, mostly due to the fact that these groups are being largely ignored by presidents/parties once they get into power. I'm still not convinced about musicians getting involved in politics. I know Bono can raise money and the profile of a campaign, but once the glitz and glamour get invovled in the mechanisms of these campaigns the campaign finds it very hard to keep on going under its own steam when a trendier issue comes along. Plus, nothing annoys me more than someone saying all the right things but really knowing nothing about what they are talking about. Anyway, that's a bit off the subject. In my opinion America needs to sort out it's own domestic problems before it starts extending its influence by hook or by crook. This isn't intended as an attack on American citizens. Some of my favourite people are American
    Rev Jules
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1041


    --
    8/16/2004 1:31 PM
    quote:
    Originally posted by El Duderino
    The fact that no party really represents America's ethnic minorities is something that I find hard to comprehend, mostly due to the fact that these groups are being largely ignored by presidents/parties once they get into power.
    Interesting point here. I was recently in Houston to visit friends of mine and one of the points they made was that, whils't they were utterly opposed to Bush as Democrats, they did admire the way that he has promoted Americans of colour (Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice) into very high positions within his administration. I'm not saying this for partisan reasons, just throwing it out for discussion.
    El Duderino
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:179


    --
    8/16/2004 2:09 PM
    I never really looked at it like that before. I suppose it is admirable that Bush has taken in Colin Powell and Condoleza Rice, however, I still don't think that either the republicans or democrats really represent ethnic minorities. It could be argued that this was a step in the right direction by Bush but, there are still millions of people, largely from African or hispanic etc. descent(not only ethnic minorties are poor, i know) in America living in poverty. But I can't really say that Ireland is much better when it comes to politicians representing the down trodden. During the last election there were no Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, PDs, Greens etc. posters up in less well to do areas. The "nicer" the area the more big party posters you'd see. A very worrying trend if you ask me
    qorian
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:29


    --
    8/18/2004 9:27 AM
    okay, okay, back it up a second... 1) Why is it so hard to believe that Kerry is not simply an ‘old war horse’? That, perhaps, he joined up for war and, having gone and lived it, came out more even-handed, proud of his service to his country, but wary to war-mongers like bush who throw people into battle unjustifiably. By the same token, regardless of whether Kerry is across-the-board anti-war, it IS possible for one to be wholeheartedly against THIS war. And, as we've all said, it's not as though forces can simply pick up and leave, so a commitment to rebuilding and leaving as efficiently as possible is far better an anti-war statement than allowing Bush to continue or than simply not running at all, right? 2) I love Clinton too, always have, but I find the world’s worship of him a little silly. Yes, he understood global responsibility, great man, fiscal genius, and I do wish he could serve another term. But he can’t. So breathe. Sigh. Get over it. That said, ANY democrat’s fiscal policy will be closer to Clinton’s model than Bush’s policies. Bush cut taxes for the wealthiest, he has run mind-blowing deficits, cut funding for schooling when, if you didn’t know, Americans university-level education costs between $2,000-$40,000 (yes forty, not four) PER YEAR before financial aid. He even tried to change the dates of some fiscal quarters to try to make it seem as though some economic benefits generated by Clinton were the work of his administration. (Bush also has one of the worst records on job creation in American history…but now I’m just complaining…) 3) I think that NONE of us are in any position to decide how much Springsteen does or does not know about politics. Is it any more fair to discredit him for being rich that it would be to discredit someone for being poor? 4) A few blunt statements- yes, Kerry’s no Clinton, yes, negative voting is awful, but the reality is that have only two possible options to vote for in November. I’ll be the first to ride idealism when I see enough involvement from Americans that there might be any hope for change. Until then, I’m going to be a realist and vote for whoever’s closest to the mark. 5) To maybe try and bring this all together, i offer this- At the end of the day, i am in support of ANY group which encourages Americans to vote. The thing everyone here seems to agree on is that too few American people wield too much power (whether it's rich over poor, Bush over americans, americans over the world etc). The more Americans come out and vote, the more people are represented in the decision, the better off the country will be. (By the same token it is my belief/hope that the majority of americans are decent people, and that if they were being represented right now with a properly executed 200 election, we would not be in this mess.) SO: Turning things back to the Boss, (and to musicians in general) i think ANY effort to encourage voting is commendable. If groups for change are speaking louder than groups encouraging bush, so be it. All the better.
    Eric
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:179


    --
    8/18/2004 10:18 AM
    Interesting ... I read an article in the Irish Times saying that Bush should have a good election campaign based on his economic performance this year, creating 1 mil jobs from March to May. I found this hard to beleive because the bush administration has been so focued on 'Foreign Affairs' over the last year. Its hard to know to beleive when you read the papers these days so I decided to check out on the internet. Again this could be horse but its interesting anyway...www.musicforamerica.com/node/view/1323
    mutch
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:392


    --
    8/18/2004 12:34 PM
    FROM: http://www.nme.com/news/109529.htm POSTED TODAY "BOYCOTT THE BOSS! BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN’s efforts to run PRESIDENT BUSH from the WHITE HOUSE has seen him incur the wrath of a conservative NEW YORK politician who has launched a ‘BOYCOTT THE BOSS’ television campaign. US senate hopeful Marilyn O’Grady is using the commercial as part of her election campaign. "He thinks making millions with a song-and-dance routine allows him to tell you how to vote," she said in her ad. "Here's my vote: boycott The Boss. If you don't buy his politics, don't buy his music." According to Billboard, O’Grady added: " has a right to say what he thinks, but we have an equal right to speak. Now that he's moved onto the political stage to bash my President, it is entirely fair to respond." Springsteen and REM are leading a host of prominent musicians in a series of anti-Bush fundraising concerts around the US this autumn, ahead of the November presidential elections. The ‘Vote For Change’ shows take in 28 cities in October. The star is also closely tied to Democratic candidate John Kerry’s election push – his ‘No Surrender’ has become the anthem of Kerry campaign."
    mutch
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:392


    --
    8/18/2004 12:42 PM
    this is gonna make great reading in a book that someone will write about all this stuff. Could this create a rift in america between left and right (ignoring far left and far right, they're mostly crazies, yeah?...) i.e. wearing a boss t-shirt marks you out as democrat, wearing a ted "the phucking nuge!" nugent t-shirt (may) mark you out as having bad taste in music AND being a conservative type? phuck blur and oasis, 2pac and Biggie, and whatever norweigan metal has to offer in the line of musicians disputes, this could be serious rivallry about to go down in the USA!!!
    Rev Jules
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1041


    --
    8/19/2004 1:22 PM
    There is an old saw that there is no surer way of falling out with people than discussing politics and religion but I do feel I should set the record straight Quorian because you appear to have taken me up the wrong way. First of all, I never mentioned Springsteen's wealth. What I did make reference to was his influence on public opinion and the platform which that influence gives him in the media. Not everyone gets to put their political views across in an article in the New York Times. Springsteen is a public figure speaking out on public issues in the public arena and it is therefore fair and right to question those views and to ask how much he knows about politics on the occasions when he chooses to write about it...especially when he is not a professional politician. Secondly, John Kerry has built his public profile around his military service from 1966 on and his subsequent stance as an vocal opponent of the Vietnam war after he was demobbed in 1970. US opposition to the war began in 1965 with the teach-ins but John Kerry said, 'Send me'. In '66 veterans from World Wars I and II, along with veterans from the Korean war staged a protest rally in New York City. Discharge and separation papers were burned in protest of US involvement in Vietnam by retired SOLDIERS but John Kerry said, 'Send me'. Martin Luther King spoke out against the war in 1967 but John Kerry said, 'Send me'. The My Lai massacre took place in 1968 and news of it reached the USA in 1969 but John Kerry said, 'Send me'. So you have all these people back in America who believe that the war is wrong and are voicing their feelings about it but the penny only drops with Kerry in 1970 when he said, 'Send me home' ? I watched the 2004 Democratic Convention with rapt attention, hoping to get a positive feel for Kerry, instead this guy walks onto the podium and acts like he is still in the Navy. Any question he is asked he waves his medals in the air and says, 'I know what it means to kill'. Now how would that look if 'Born In The USA' was blaring away in the background instead of 'No Surrender' ? For the record, this is what Ron Kovic said about the Vietnam War when he addressed the 1976 Democratic convention, "I am the living death / The memorial day on wheels / I am your Yankee Doodle Dandy / Your John Wayne come home / Your fourth of July firecracker / exploding in the grave". Not a lot of, 'proud to be of service to my country' stuff to be found there. I agree that, given the relatively low number of people who are registered voters in the USA, it is wonderful when those in the public eye take it upon themselves to encourage people to vote. What we shouldn't forget however is that a person's vote is their own and they should be left alone to choose the person they feel is best for the job, whether that be Kerry, Bush or whoever. That is the democratic process. To encourage people to vote but to demand that they vote in a particular way only harks back to Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall.
    fiddlechick
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:63


    --
    8/28/2004 1:09 AM
    I thought the article was pretty crap to be honest. I love the Boss - have all his CDs, 10 or so bootlegs and all his DVDs. But I also love W! I hated Clinton. Am glad to see that people here agree that Kerry is no Clinton - listening to the glowing welcomes Clinton has just received and the references to W I thought that lots of people couldn't see the difference. I thought the last paragraph was truly awful - "It is through the truthful exercising of the best of human qualities - respect for others, honesty about ourselves, faith in our ideals - that we come to life in God's eyes. It is how our soul, as a nation and as individuals, is revealed. Our American government has strayed too far from American values. It is time to pick up the pieces and move forward. The country we carry in our hearts is waiting." Bruce is a fantastic songwriter - one of the best ever and then comes out with "the country we carry in our hearts is waiting" - woeful! Really Bush could argue quite convincingly that he's doing just that - bringing America to her full potiental as the greatest superpower in the world, committed to real improvement of all people of the world. His administration has shown an admirable committment to freedom, democracy and tangible efforts to tackle humanitarian problems. Under the Bush admin the USA spends more money on treating AIDS in the third world than all other countries combined. Being a rabid right-winger - I disagree with some of his "big government" domestic policies - he's no Reagan (my political hero!) but he is ten thousand times better than Kerry. As for musicians and celebrities pontificating on politics - in reality they have no more right, knowledge or experience than your average Joe on the street and it's a sad reflection on our culture that we afford them so respect in this area. I will continue to buy Bruce's music and attend his concerts in the same way I bought Kris Kristofferson's live album after he really annoyed me 2 nights in the Point with his monologues on Iraq. We're all entitled to our opinions on politics and the freedom to say them but Bruce, John Mellencamp, the Dixie Chicks et al had better come with more substanial reasons for Kerry as the "vote for change" pretty soon.
    fiddlechick
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:63


    --
    8/28/2004 1:11 AM
    Also, Bruce mentions how bad he feels with his tax cut from W. Bill Clinton talked about this at the democratic convention too. It is possible in the USA to pay as much tax as you want. Why don't Bill and Bruce get together and return some funds to the IRS???
    Gar
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1676


    --
    8/28/2004 2:29 AM
    Here's a bigger question, more music related, why the hell is Steve Earle not on that mini tour? He has been the most outspoken artist against the Bush adminsitration. With a cracking new album out, he should be on that bill.
    Rev Jules
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1041


    --
    8/28/2004 11:57 AM
    quote:
    Originally posted by Gar
    Here's a bigger question, more music related, why the hell is Steve Earle not on that mini tour?
    Actually, thats a smaller question Gar and Earle might possibly say that politics and music inter relate. He is not on the tour because he is touring with another group of musicians led by Billy Bragg which is campaigning against the consolidation of media outlets in the United States. To educate yourself, log on to http://www.tellusthetruth.org/
    Binokular
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1665


    --
    8/28/2004 12:46 PM
    All you need know a bout politics in one short animation: http://www.weebl.jolt.co.uk/politics.htm (needs sound, keep watching after it says END, theres a little bit after it)
    qorian
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:29


    --
    8/30/2004 7:40 AM
    I know this is a music board, but I'm sitting in NYC on the eve of the republican national convention (which will be here for the rest of the week) so i feel like i have to share some things. Jules- no hard feelings. I still think kerry could come back from war wiser than when he said 'send me' but if we agree to disagree, all's well. We'll argue about country sometime too, eh? fiddlechick: in response to your contention that "Bush could argue quite convincingly that he's doing just that - bringing America to her full potiental as the greatest superpower in the world, committed to real improvement of all people of the world. His administration has shown an admirable committment to freedom, democracy and tangible efforts to tackle humanitarian problems." I offer you the following: (Note: the following is exceprtped from http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0434/barrett.php which offers up a number of ways Bush has hurt nyc. I've offered the most far-reaching and/or compelling examples here) *"There are actually 5,879 fewer city cops than in 2000, partly due to the nearly 90 percent Bush cuts in Bill Clinton's COPS programs. Even with the post-9-11 invention of homeland security funding, NYC is getting $61 million less in federal public-safety subsidies than it did before our cops became America's front line. Bush's 2005 budget proposes even more cuts...Of course, should anything catastrophic happen there during convention week, the firefighters whose brothers died on 9-11 will still be communicating on the same, reprogrammed, radios that cost lives three years ago, thanks to a president who refused to pony up the $120 million needed for new ones. Bush has also de-funded the SAFER program even after Congress passed it—blocking NYC from hiring more firefighters—and limited equipment purchases under the FIRE program to a puny cap of $750,000, putting NY's allocation on a par with Poland, Ohio's, with Montana getting $9 per capita for federal firefighter aid and NYC nine cents…In fact, delegates from Cheney's Wyoming, for example, will have reason to be jittery, leaving a state that gets $40 per capita in homeland security funding to visit a state that gets $10, especially since they will have entered a twilight zone on orange alert for the last 1,080 days or so. *He opposed an extension of the commission's deadline. He deleted its funding altogether from one supplemental budget request and ultimately funded it at one-fourth the cost of Ken Starr's probe of a dress stain. His wholly owned cable network and NY tabloid derided it repeatedly. *The press, always seeking balance, has apparently decided that if Bill Clinton was out to lunch on Al Qaeda, then Dubya's vacationing vacillation is not news. But Clinton is not seeking four more years. With CIA director George Tenet telling the commission that "the system was blinking red," the White House appears in the report as glazed as it did the first seven minutes after the second plane hit. *No one will mention the 40 bin Laden articles in Presidential Daily Briefings from January 20 to September 10, 2001; the first day of vacation's August 6 wake-up PDB headline of "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S.," and the fishing trip that ensued; the failure to even convene a principals' meeting on terrorism until September 4, 2001; the president's uncertainty about whether he ever discussed the August 6 PDB with Justice officials; the acting FBI director's sworn recollection that AG Ashcroft told him he didn't want to hear about the Al Qaeda threats anymore; and the telling testimony of senior counterterrorism staff that they considered resigning during it all to "go public with their concerns." *Congressman Anthony Weiner has calculated that the administration has shortchanged the city by $2.5 billion through cuts in the five key education programs funded under the Bush schools initiative, No Child Left Behind. NCLB hasn't just hurt the pocketbook, it's also forced traumatic overcrowding by widening parental choice, damaging high-performing schools and emptying low-performing ones…Bush has proposed a $107 million cut in NY's Section 8 housing vouchers. If passed, it will be the first time this voucher program has ever been reduced. The administration is also trying to recapture $50 million in subsidies the city already got. Since Bush took office, the city's housing authority, which is home to one in every 12 NYers, has taken, according to Maloney, Weiner, and other House Democrats, a $175 million drop in federal funding. *Earlier this month in Geneva, the U.S. reversed Clinton's support of a U.N. agreement banning the production and supply of highly enriched uranium essential to building nukes. Strongly supported by allies like Britain, the fissile material cut-off treaty, as it's called, would've reduced the chances of terror groups acquiring a nuclear capability. In 2001, Bush did the same to scuttle a biological-weapons convention, though 55 nations had signed on after seven years of negotiation. Elisa Harris, who oversaw proliferation issues for Clinton's NSC, said that the Bush administration was sending "a very dangerous message," acting on the neoconservative distrust of any binding restraints on America First policy. " So to those with different political views than mine, fine. but don't you DARE call Bush a humanitarian, and don't you dare say he's committed to my country when i see every day how he treats my city. (and i do apologize if this isn't necessarily the place for this, but i've got a long week ahead and i had to vent...)
    Rev Jules
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1041


    --
    8/31/2004 11:12 AM
    quote:
    Originally posted by qorian
    Jules- no hard feelings. I still think kerry could come back from war wiser than when he said 'send me' but if we agree to disagree, all's well. We'll argue about country sometime too, eh?
    Hey, we're cool I look forward to jousting with you about country music some time Freedom of speech is safe as long as we exercise our right to it by saying what we think and feel and thats what the discussion boards are for
    Rev Jules
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1041


    --
    11/4/2004 6:40 PM
    quote:
    Originally posted by Rev Jules
    I don't believe that Kerry will win this election.
    I hate to say, 'I told you so', but... Now that the vote is in and the dust has settled I thought I would revisit this topic one last time. Many factors came together to help Bush to a decisive victory. One of those factors was the Roman Catholic Irish American vote. Although commentators are still shifting through the mass of information thrown up by this campaign, it is certainly becoming apparent that Kerry's support of issues such as same sex marriage, abortion and his tax plan to penalise American firms who invest in countries like Ireland resulted in the powerful Irish American lobby abandoning both him and their traditional links to the Democratic Party to side with the Republicans. Ironic considering that some of Kerry's staunchest supporters, such as Ted Kennedy and Bruce Springsteen are Roman Catholics of Irish heritage (In Springsteen's case, Irish on his mother's side). The way that Roman Catholic clergy in the USA opposed Kerry is also reminiscent of Ireland in the 1950s where no political candidate could aspire to office without at least the support of their local parish priest, so great was the power of the pulpit. We have now moved into an age of Theocracy where major world faiths such as Islam, Judaism and Christianity each work to roll back the separation of Church and State, a separation that Kerry supported, in order to once again become political forces. Many in Ireland opposed the re-election of George W Bush and would have welcomed John Kerry instead but, on his tax plan alone, Kerry would not have been good news for Ireland. Tip O'Neill once famously remarked that all politics is local. It seems that, for the Irish lobby, Kerry as President would have been too local for comfort.


    ---