Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
100716HenryKissingerNosePicking
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.

Day12Fixed

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
cp-store

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

You Can't Blame It All on Bob Shrum Why is Kerry Running Such a Lame Campaign?

Why is Kerry Running Such a Lame Campaign?

by ALAN MAASS

GEORGE W. BUSH should be struggling to explain the disastrous invasion of Iraq and an economy that’s still sputtering three years after the end of a recession. But for the past month and a half, it’s John Kerry who has been on the defensive. Now, even those liberals most devoted to rounding up votes for Kerry–such as Michael Moore and Rev. Jesse Jackson–are beginning to express their frustration with the Democrats’ lame campaign.

Incredibly, even as the occupation of Iraq descends deeper into chaos, Bush is gaining support on this issue, according to opinion polls. For example, the percentage of Americans who said it was "a mistake" to send troops to fight in Iraq fell to 38 percent in an early September CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, down from 54 percent about only two months before.

Kerry’s liberal supporters blame this disaster on ineptitude–and desperately hope that Kerry’s advisers will get a clue before it’s too late. But there are more important factors at work.

Above all, Kerry and his chief advisers share a common political outlook that makes it hard to really take the offensive against Republican policies. Why? Because they largely agree with the Republicans on most issues.

Kerry’s staff has been through several well-publicized shakeups. But no matter who’s on top from one day to the other, the campaign remains in the hands of professional political operatives who came to prominence not because of any commitment to a political issue or agenda, but because of their skills in manipulating the media and crafting noncommittal sound bites, based on focus groups and polling information.

These high-powered strategists come from the same social strata as their Republican counterparts–which predisposes them toward pro-business policies and encourages the same condescending attitude toward voters. For the past year, the main figure in the Kerry campaign has been Bob Shrum, a well-known Democratic consultant who has grown rich off running the campaigns of well-funded candidates.

He has had a hand in dozens of campaigns, including the losing presidential bids of Ted Kennedy, Dick Gephardt, Bob Kerrey and Al Gore. But Shrum, it turns out, doesn’t discriminate–he also worked for Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger.

By all accounts, Shrum was primarily responsible for the tone set at the Democrats’ convention in Boston–above all, the refusal to criticize Bush directly. Since Kerry started dropping in the polls, Shrum has apparently been shuffled off to the sidelines, while several new players–most veterans of the Clinton White House–have taken on prominent new roles.

Anyone hoping that the Kerry campaign would take a more populist turn was disappointed. "[T]he hires are typical of the revolving door that exists between those who run campaigns and those who lobby," one political analyst told the Washington Post.

Michael Whouley is one of the new strategists. When he’s not running campaigns for Democrats who claim to have the interests of working people at heart, Whouley is raking in big bucks as a lobbyist, with General Motors, AT&T, the insurance industry and Microsoft on his client list.

Two Clinton administration vets, Joe Lockhart and Howard Wolfson, caused a stir among Washington insiders when they signed on with Kerry. The two are partners in a lobbying firm that works for drug giant Pfizer, Fannie Mae and the trade group representing regional telephone companies.

"With all these Kerry-hired hacks supping at the corporate trough, is it any wonder that the only slogan they’ve come up with so far is the oh-so-feeble ‘W stands for Wrong’?" concluded Doug Ireland, a progressive writer who supports Kerry and heaps abuse on independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader.

Kerry and this bunch may not be "trying to lose." But they certainly don’t want to win so badly that they are willing to upset the Washington status quo.

As Steve Perry, CounterPunch contributor and editor of City Pages put it, "Given the choice between winning what might prove an unruly victory and running yet another me-too campaign that will likely lose (but without upsetting their real base, which consists largely of the same funding sources as the Republicans), they take the second path every time. The Democrats are not stupid. They are cynical. They have no interest in changing the rules of the game, and toward that end, they are even more loath than Republicans to invite new people into the ‘process.’"

ALAN MAASS is the editor of Socialist Worker. He can be reached at: alanmaass@sbcglobal.net