Reply #15: Because he's unthreatening to the Establishment, & won't raise any

[RichM]

questions that strike directly at their interests. For one example among many: Kerry won't say that the war was simply a scheme by US corporations to seize control of Iraq's oil; to convert Iraq into a huge US military base; & to gain the added bonus of the reconstruction-contract ripoff game. He can't say that -- because he voted for the thing himself, & because he's an Establishment politician who wouldn't dare blow the whistle on how corporate desires control US foreign policy.

Rather, Kerry will obediently keep the criticism SAFE and NARROW. He'll say the war was ill-conceived, the president didn't "keep his promises" to Kerry, the president "misled" us about the war. He'll make feisty critical-sounding comments about the "special interests" -- without ever naming them. This way, he'll SOUND like an "opponent" & critic of Bush, but the essential criminality of the whole scheme will be safely excluded from the discussion. Bush will come off as guilty of "errors in judgement" but not of criminality, and the military-corporate role will escape scrutiny altogether.

This is the crux of the matter: whichever party wins, it is essential (from the viewpoint of the media, who are part of the ruling elite) that:
1) the US corporate elite not be portrayed as profoundly & thoroughly corrupt
2) the US political system be portrayed as functioning legitimately, honorably, and fairly; and
3) the domestic credibility of the US government must not be shattered. (If this happens, it's an invitation to "social unrest" -- aka angry uprisings by masses who finally see they've been robbed).

Right now, the system sees the need for someone who appears to oppose Bush, but whose opposition is narrow enough that it won't threaten the underlying workings of the system. That's Kerry. // The system can afford to throw Bush to the wolves, if it needs to. It can't afford to have the underlying truth about itself exposed.