Did You Attend a Vote for Change Concert(s)?

[pprendi]

My name is Patti and I am a graduate student at Fordham University doing research for my thesis on music and politics. I am looking for people who attended a Vote for Change concert(s) who would complete a BRIEF survey about it. The link is http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=59113662048. You can copy and paste the URL in your browser. Your answers are CONFIDENTIAL and will be used only for academic study. I would greatly appreciate your assistance. If you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail me at pprendi@yahoo.com.
 

[Drunkre]

Here's an interesting bit of trivia:

I heard some right wing ideologue on the radio talking about how rock musicians siding with a political candidate, or, barring that, a political movement, inevitably helped the opposite candidate.  As proof, he offered the example of Woodstock in 1969 helping Nixon win the election in 1972.  Forgetting for a moment the sheer stupidity of such an assumption as a mass concert (which occurred throughout this period in history) helping a candidate three years after the fact, let us turn to the similarities between Woodstock and the Vote for Change Concerts, specifically the fact that there are none.

In 1969, at Woodstock, Abbie Hoffman attempted to organize the audience members into taking part in political action, he was forcibly removed from the stage by Pete Townsend of The Who and others.  Meanwhile, the Vote for Change Concerts are specifically aimed at motivating audience members to take part in the political process.  

The Woodstock Generation while admittedly anti-establishment, and anti-American government (this is not to be read as an indictment of any kind...I consider myself the same) were surely not the poster children for politically concerned young people.  Less than 3 years earlier, they had been urged to "tune in, turn on, and (most importantly) drop out" and they did so in record numbers and in astounding capacity.  Any flower child who tells you that their movement ended the war in Vietnam are deluded.  What ended the war in Vietnam was the loss of the ability to any longer profit from such a venture.  Much like the international protests in 2002 and 2003, and the subsequent ignoring of such a movement by some of the most powerful leaders in the world, the "mob" of the people is rarely taken into consideration, or given much more than a modicum of lip service.  The Vote for Change Concerts on the other hand do not intend to spread vestiges of revolution throughout the country, or urge the audience members to oppose everything they have grown comfortable with, instead they're giving "middle America," those voters too timid to take an ideological stand on anything, a springboard for the jump into politics of the simplest sort.

[MMJ_fanatic]

No because I can't stand Move On and George Soros (sp?) both were behind these shows.  I am sorry I missed MMJ tho' :(

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

Why, because they speak the truth?  ;)

[lfish]

I only hope that such a tour can motivate people to express their vote, whether they vote bush or kerry, to arouse any interest in politics... Like this the word "democracy" is not destined to remain a hollow word.

And answering your question: no I haven't attend one of those gigs. Unfortunately 16000km is lying between me and a hell of a rock'n roll show.  :'(

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

that's the plan, really:  to motivate.  of course, folks won't like it that they are rallying for mr. kerry but that's who they identify with.

simple, really.

[MMJ_fanatic]

Why, because they speak the truth?  ;)

I was thinkin just the opposite  ;)

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

ah, the power of the media.  don't believe everything that you hear.  8)

[havibulin]

I went to the show in Madison. great jacket set although it was short. drunk frat boy thought it would be funny to display his bush/cheney shirt while standing on top of his seat yelling obcenities at everyone...fell on a bunch of people, instigated a huge fight and then attacked security as they were trying to escort him out. typical. i bet you he couldnt tell you one thing about either candidate...yet his vote still counts. a small percentage of these close minded people could easily decide the presidency..its a shame.

[Jellyfish]

the Vote for Change Concerts are specifically aimed at motivating audience members to take part in the political process.  

Lets call this what it is,a vote for Kerry tour.

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

Lets call this what it is,a vote for Kerry tour.

Okay then!  :)

[Garth69]

Exactly. The same with Fahrenheit 911. I saw Michael Moore on Charlie Rose and he said his goal WAS NOT to get Bush out of office, but to 'present questions' and he 'didn't have the answers'. Bullshit. Maybe he's been more honest in other interviews but I lost a lot of respect for him then. Same with this tour: just admit you want to get Bush out of office. It's okay. I agree, but it sucks knowing that we can only pick between two guys, both of whom are full of shit. Still I'll vote but it's disappointing. Check out the Onion last week for a funny take-off of this tour.

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

Why does everyone listen to Michael Moore?  Even those that disagree with him pay so much attention to him...very confusing.

As for the tour, it is obvious that the participants are doing something positive to promote John Kerry's run, I'm sure anyone can see that is implied here.

And as for the choice we have, it is a clearly definitive difference between the two candidates.  I can't imagine why there is even a question about the so-called "quality" problem after watching the debates.  Let's face facts:  Ralph Nader nor any third party candidate is ever going to muster enough money (sorry, fact of life), votes (face it, it just helps one side win over the other), or mainstream support to win.  If say, Dabney Coleman were the Republican nominee, I could see rallying around a third party person to offer an alternative.

But the fact is that the other nominee is clearly a bad choice for the job.  We have two choices:  one clearly a bad one, and one clearly a marginally better than bad one.  You decide which is worse.  We can't change the process in the middle of it, so we need to make a change after it is over.

Change can't happen overnight, esp. in something so complicated as our political process.  If the third party movement were serious about this, they would have been building since 2000 (or even before) to make a difference:  quite frankly, they haven't.

[Drunkre]

Why does everyone listen to Michael Moore?  Even those that disagree with him pay so much attention to him...very confusing.

As for the tour, it is obvious that the participants are doing something positive to promote John Kerry's run, I'm sure anyone can see that is implied here.

And as for the choice we have, it is a clearly definitive difference between the two candidates.  I can't imagine why there is even a question about the so-called "quality" problem after watching the debates.

Although I respect Mr. Conaway, I will have to respectfully disagree.  One only has to read a little bit to see that Mr. Kerry is essentially a "lite" version of Bush.  Their policies do not differ to such a degree that the workers in the trenches are going to notice much of a difference.  To anyone interested, I would highly recommend the book "A Dime's Worth of Difference" by Alexander Cockburn, at the least visit the website Counterpunch.com (or maybe .net).

But the fact is that the other nominee is clearly a bad choice for the job.  We have two choices:  one clearly a bad one, and one clearly a marginally better than bad one.  You decide which is worse.

I feel such a revulsion at statements such as the one above.  We live in a supposed democracy.  We have many more than "two choices."  And the day we allow our political choices to be dictated by "you decide which is worse" is the day we sacrifice what little dignity we have left.
 

We can't change the process in the middle of it, so we need to make a change after it is over.

I defy anyone to define how we can change the process after it has already taken place.  If Bush wins, we find ourselves at the mercy of the same right wing ideologues we have been under for the last four years.  If Kerry wins, we lose the momentum.  A large majority of the people that could be organized due to the pain and suffering of the Bush administration will become complacent and you will find yourself in the same position you were in in 1996 and 2000, when Clinton's presidency had lulled the masses into a false sense of security.

Change can't happen overnight, esp. in something so complicated as our political process.  If the third party movement were serious about this, they would have been building since 2000 (or even before) to make a difference:  quite frankly, they haven't.

No one is asking for overnight change, but when we constantly capitulate to the business interests and the large duopoly that rules our country, we push any chance of change further and further away.  The third party movement has been growing for as long as I can remember.  We've had fringe political groups for as long as we've had elections.  Nader himself ran in 1996, 2000, and now again in 2004.  Just because the media pays no attention to these truly democratic movements doesn't mean they don't exist, or haven't been trying to effect some change.  I'm sure the newspapers didn't report too much on the Populist Movement either (until they started winning).

[marktwain]

Drunkre, I really do sympathize with you.  But there ARE only 2 viable choices for president this year.  Nader has no chance of being elected.

I voted for Ralph in 2000 because both candidates were so hellbent on demonstrating how "moderate" they were, that I wanted to help establish another choice.  For my trouble I got Bush.  

Now, though Kerry may only be marginally better than Bush, I truly believe if he had been in Bush's place these past few years we would NOT be in Iraq, the idiotic new tax cuts would not be in place, the USA PATRIOT Act would not have been the unconstitutional mess it is (had it passed at all), and we would not be talking about a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriages and civil unions.

Those are enough reasons for me to vote for Kerry, despite the fact that my world view is much more liberal than his.  I know that a vote for Nader is a vote taken away from Kerry, and thus it is a vote for Bush.  I won't help elect Bush again.

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

As a liberal, I agree.

As a realist, I respectfully disagree.  If the third party movement has been building as you describe, where are the signatures required to put their candidates on the ballots?  Where are the three necessary elements to a successful run-money, votes, and mainstream support?  They don't exist in a critical mass that will affect change.  We have two choices in this election-that's reality.

Just because the media doesn't highlight the third party does not mean there aren't other outlets.  Surely a little ol thing called the internet would be an effective vehicle for such exposure.  

Until the process itself is changed, those rules will always apply and the candidate with the most of all three usually wins.  As I have stated before, if the third party were so serious about its goals, they would be pursuing the accumulation of said elements, and they have not.  Also, why should it matter if we have a Democrat in the White House?  Isn't the third party's beef with both mainstream parties?  Why take a vacation during a Kerry presidency when they could be building their so-called movement to affect change?  Why did they take a vacation during the Clinton years? This does not afford them a lot of credibility in my view or the minds of the hundreds of millions of voters in the United States-remember, we still have to get the most votes to win, not the most rhetoric or most hyperbole.  Doing so requires a critical mass of the three elements I described.  Just because we are revolted at how it works does not mean it doesn't work-clearly it has for the past 200 years.  

[marktwain]

 Also, why should it matter if we have a Democrat in the White House?  Isn't the third party's beef with both mainstream parties?  Why take a vacation during a Kerry presidency when they could be building their so-called movement to affect change?    

I think that the problem here is that it is easier to organize people who are utterly disgusted with the state of the country, and so now is seen as the perfect time.  If Kerry is elected, presumeably the people who would support a liberal third party will be less unhappy, and less likely to turn their frustration into action.

I believe this is true;  the worse things are, the more likely people are to protest and organize, bringing about a quicker change.  This means, though, that we should allow Bush to be a lame duck president and do whatever the hell he wants without fearing the political consequences, because then things will get a lot worse and it will be easier for Nader, or whomever, the next time around.  

I can't stomach that.  I would rather get Bush out now, than for things to get worse before they get better.


By the way, I left out the environment as something that would have been better off had Bush not been elected.  It's disgusting how Bush and his cronies have ignored global warming and facilitated pollution, all the while touting bills with names like "Clean Air" and "Clean Water."  It's like signing a bill supporting infanticide and calling it the "We Love Babies Act."

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

that's just my point exactly.  it shouldn't matter who the president is-if this movement is so dedicated to making a shift from a two party system, then whatever the climate or whatever the candidate should go ahead and affect that change.  it is entirely disingenious to believe that just because a democrat is the president that the core issues they harp on-no choice between the two, both parties are sold out to the corporations, kerry is bush-lite, the process is flawed-somehow lose traction during a democrat's presidency.  I call that a copout. if it's a real movement for change, it will proceed with or without a Bush or a Kerry.  

anyhoo, i respect everyone here's opinion and don't wish to piss anyone off about these things.  the 2000 election still gives me heartburn every time i see Bush smirking like he just stole the last cookie, or i hear the body count for the day, or watch a beheading or two on TV.  i'm just trying to put my points out there so that maybe that won't happen again.

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

Just to illustrate, the 1992 election (with Ross Perot as the 3rd party candidate) was an electoral landslide for Clinton, but a bit closer in the popular vote.  Nowhere on here do you see Perot's numbers as they didn't have an impact on many states (but for to take votes away from Bush)

[marktwain]

anyhoo, i respect everyone here's opinion and don't wish to piss anyone off about these things.  

same here.  But I get so pissed off at what is being done in my name that I get overzealous sometimes.  

By the way, I am so tired of hearing the false outrage over Kerry mentioning Cheney's daughter in a positive way.  How about a little authentic outrage over the war in Iraq, the Sudan, etc (take your pick).