What the hell is Kerry doing?????

Why is he so desperate to woo and win over the right wing constituency with his view on judges and skirting around his voting record from everything to the WAR to gas hike increases?

Any seasoned politician should know, you can't get diehard repubs to break rank EVER! Is he is trying to appeal to independent voters, and if so, WHY DOES HE ASSUME that they are all mostly disenchanted rebubs? And most importantly, does he not care that he is alienating his left wing base and maybe even driving them towards Nader, the contributing factor for losing 2000? Will history repeat it's self because of the way he is running (or not running this campaign?) Are our numbers and voices just disregarded by the people running his "I'm all things to all people" campaign?

Sure, I can understand if he might want to distance himself from the "uber left" (a phrase coined here), but why pander to the right?

Who has John Kerry's ear? Whoever it is, is completely off track and will cost Kerry the election.

Why do his handlers assume that all undecided, independent voters lean republican??? This thinking might cost him the election. People need to start dealing with these issues as well as the people that are running his campaign. It's a more serious concern than many of you think.

But I actually want to replace Bush, not have a really spectacular and exciting failed candidacy. So far in our country's history, the field of campaigning is littered with the failed corpses of those who decided to give Americans the benefit of the doubt. The panderers win, the truth-tellers lose. Dean tried half and half and he had a great campaign and a big loss when the votes came up. Kucinich went all values and was marginalized out of existence. You can do this all the way back to Debs without breaking a sweat--pandering and distortion wins national elections; actual people with honest opinions do not.

No moderates, Know defeat
Know moderates, No defeat

Appealing to the moderates is what lost Gore the election.

Appealing to the moderates is why 50% of US voters STAY AT HOME and don't vote.

When the so called left party appeals to the moderates they shirk their base and the base IS NOT MODERATES.

The whole "appealing to the moderates" idea is a canard anyway. It is just new-speak for "we are corporate money whores and this is how we hide the fact that we don't give a shit about you".

nice try though.

If he won why isn't he in the White House?

If you are, I certainly don't have the time to recount all the sordid details of the stolen 2000 election. Go look it up.

:eyes:

I asked why, if Gore won, is Bush in the White House? How come the Democrats rolled over and let Bush take power?

The same Democrats that won't do their constitutionally mandated job of giving over-sight to the President.

The same Democrats who vote, most of the time, with this illegitimate President.


These same Democrats, who are afraid of offending the "moderates", are asking us to vote FOR them this fall.


Anyway, my comment wasn't about who won or lost the election. My comment was about the canard of "appealing to the moderates".

"Appealing to the moderates or the center" is A LOSING IDEA.

Need proof?

Look who is in the White House
Look who runs the House
Look who runs the Senate

The Republicans own our government and the Democrats are more than happy to give them the keys.

Ralph? Is that you?

Seriously, every political strategist disagrees with you. They say it is indeed the center that wins elections. I'm going to go with their assessment.

After all, Kerry can go pretty far to the center, or even to the right of center on some issues, and I venture to guess that you, me, and 95 percent of the people on this board will still vote for him. He has nothing to lose (i.e., he won't lose our votes) and everything to gain (i.e., other people's votes.) Unless you make the assumption that the 50 percent of people in this country who don't vote are all screaming Chomskyites who would get to the polls if we only gave them a candidate that was left enough. I don't buy that for a second.

a tiny fraction of the electorate. Instead of moving to a truly motivating message that resonates and brings folks back into the voting booths. Short term your strategy might work, but its only because of the constant attrition associated with disgust.

Pandering to moderates wins in this country. For example, Clinton won, Bush stole, etc.

really out there for Dean, Kucinich, Nader, Buchanan, LaRouche, whoever.

Get ranked voting into place so people don't feel obligated to vote for one of the Big Two parties out of concern for wasintg a vote and we'll have better numbers that show what the electorate really supports.

Kerry recognizes that there is a significant number of voters who are not on the extreme right or extreme left, who hold differing views on the subject of abortion. One large group, for example, includes voters who are Catholic. You may note that the candidate who "wins" the Catholic vote has won every election since 1960. There are large numbers of Catholic democrats in states like Pennsylvania who are far more likely to vote for Kerry, if they are comfortable that he will at least consider their opinions on abortion. So it's a good move on Kerry's part. We shouldn't let Sean Hannity tell us it has created a crisis.

As far as the disenchanted repubs, there do seem to be a lot that don't view bush as a real conservative. Of course, that's just based on heresay and anecdotal evidence.

Even Clinton didn't do that. He made sure to get Jesse Jackson on his side so that he wouldn't lose the left of center vote.

Kerry needs to stand back and see what he's doing - its political suicide right now.

so he must know what he's doing.

:shrug:

I hope so anyway.

It's called "Winning an election", something you seem to know little about

and thought provoking question about where John Kerry stands on the issues, is exactly what plagues this country right now TODAY, and may cost us this election.

It's way past time for intelligent dem voters to start asking these very questions, and we are way past due for getting the answers from his campaign. I WANT and DESERVE direct answers from John Forbes Winthrop Kohn Kerry himself.

We are not in normal times, it's time for the candidate to step up and tell it like it is.

It's way past time for intelligent dem voters to start asking these very questions

No, intelligent Dem voters have already answered that question, as the responses in this thread show.

I WANT and DESERVE direct answers from John Forbes Winthrop Kohn Kerry himself.

Good luck

:eyes:

and I suspect that beats nomaco's record.

Just a hunch

complete insanity :eyes:

thanks to DU's amazing technology but I can only imagine the vapidity. It's good to see you entertained :)

I can comment on how some poster's incredible sensitivity to criticism is childish, without their knowing about it.

Having lost abysmally in the mid-term elections, with ,by the by, the same cowardly stratagems they force on Kerry now, I fail to note the reasons for such a pompous and onviously wrong assumption.

You're talking to someone who was offended by a picture of slain sheep two years ago when an enlightened poster here wanted to remind the DLC appeasers of what happens to sheep.

Surely you must remember the ruckus that caused?

Baaaaaaaaaaaah Ardee ;)

I know full well this particular posters history as well as that of the coterie of neoconservative democrats who "infest " this site and mangle and distort the message of progressives and liberals, relishing the destruction of the democratic party as long as it is under right wing control.

I answer, not for the poster , but for the rest of this forum who deserve much more than they get from these right wingers..........

votenader.org the place where you will find the thngs being said that SHOULD BE coming from the Democrats.

1) His campaign has Bushevik Moles whispering poison in his ears.

Before I get flamed as :tinfoilhat: I'd like to remind everyone that Lucianne Goldberg did that very thing to the McGivern Campaign.

Does anyone believe that Bushevik Monsters have gottne BETTER or MORE MORAL since then? As we ALL know, quite the opposite is true.

2) Corporate TV Pravda and Freeped Polls (they are ALL Freeped now, it's clear, including elections AND HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON?!?) provide a Lying Fantasy Bubble (a "Matrix", if you will) which keeps Kerry detetched from reality by selling to him and his staff, as it does to the rest of Amerika, by repeating a steady diet of fasbrications, misindofrmation, RNC disinformation, laundered lies, Phony Bloated Bushevik Pundits pretending to be "fair und balanzed" etc. etc.

The combination of these factors is quite a powerful drag on Kerry, as it has been on ANY Democrat for at least the last decade and maybe longer...

... it might be a stretch, but I'm fully expecting Kerry to do his own polls and to ignore the rest of them.

If he's not, then god help us all.

Many of them, in fact, don't even make up their minds until a day or two before, if not right there at the ballot box. These people, for better or for worse, make up a huge voting bloc in national American politics. These are the people who will sway easier, and you have to sell yourself to the public to be President.

Does that automatically mean your soul is on the auction block as well, damn the consequences, just as long as you win? Think about what you just said, it's at the very heart of what I was trying to get at.

Dig it. Politics in America. Dig it, be it, understand it.

If you need a refresher, here are the consequences:

but more importantly it's not about you in particular, but about moral dilemma. It's about voting for someone you feel betrayed and let down by because you know the moral ramifications would be worse. It's about some of us trying to struggle with being put in the unenviable position to vote for the "lesser of two evils" once again and wondering if this is the way our beloved country will always be. It's about moral dilemmas and how some of us are trying to reconcile them.

but I wound the tape to the end. I can't do anything to rehabilitate your perception of Kerry, and I think, neither can he. You're torn between the lesser, in your opinion, of two evils, and it is indeed a moral dilemma. The pictures I showed you are one half of that moral dilemma. For me, the end result of that moral dilemma is as clear as those pictures.

... or could it maybe the consequence of a more fundamental problem with Washington? I think that the 'lesser of two evils' problem is something that spans all politics and parties, not just the Democrats and the Republicans. There are many, many other forces at work in Washington that don't get re-elected every four years. We don't like it, but we can't ignore it, either.

He has a 95% liberal voting record.

Let him get elected first.

Then he will move back..to the left...back... to the left...back...to the left.

n/t

in a country dominated by conservative viewpoints thanks to the mainstream TV media. I accept the premise that he is dealing with a nation that has been, by and large, fucking brainwashed.

What's your plan? Be right on everything (we believe in) and go down in flames? It'll happen, boyo. They didn't chop Dean down because they didn't like his tie. They chopped him down because he said 'Re-regulate the media.'

A righteous death, sure. I don't want Kerry to allow them the chance to chop him down, too. Ergo, 'centrism,' which if you read his policy statements, isn't all that damn centrist as far as I can see.

Reporters are lazy. They report on the perception of the perception of the perception of the talking point they overheard yesterday. I don't see a lot of them reading Kerry's policy statements.

That's the playing field.

By "they" am I to assume that you are including the Democrats who fed this stuff to the media and who financed the "Osama" ad? Which would include Mr. Kerry, whose campaign made a huge deal out of unreleased records and recently tried to pull the same bullshit.
Now, can you explain to me just what Kerry plans to hold the line on? So now he's willing to appoint anti-choice judges (let's not call it by the "pro-life" euphemism)just where is he going to draw the line in the sand? What I can't believe is that people on this board who I used to respect actually fought tooth and nail to ensure that this craven windsock was the Democratic Party nominee.
:puke:

Oh, man. Stifling my guffaw.

Will Pitt's impassioned plea to elect the lesser of two evils somehow fails to motivate or inspire me......

Kerry aint that bad a man, but it is a shame that the public will never know this as he buries himself in me-tooisms and calls himself a kinder ,gentler Bush....

Perhaps it is simply time to refuse to continue the charade of two party politics. Perhaps it is time to realise that regardless of who sits in the WH we all lose. Perhaps it is time to work towards changing the system, beginning by refusing to vote for either the lesser or the greater evil and insisting upon character and honesty.

They didn't chop Dean down because they didn't like his tie. They chopped him down because he said 'Re-regulate the media.'

'They' was quite clearly a reference to the media.

So now he's willing to appoint anti-choice judges (let's not call it by the "pro-life" euphemism)just where is he going to draw the line in the sand?

Um, he said that he wouldn't disqualify them simply because they were anti-choice. That's different.

I'm fully aware that he said "the media" and they had it all spoon-fed to them by the Kerry and other campaigns. Now, I could get over that if Kerry would stop pandering to conservatives.
"Simply" because they are anti-choice?! Yes, that should disqualify them considering that the right-wing is in full-frontal assault on reproductive rights.

reporters ARE reporting Kerry's talking points. Ordinarily that wouldn't be a big deal, but not in these times. No, Will, these are not ordinary times. John Kerry's talking points or lack there of, are superseded by the news of prison abuse scandal, a wedding party of 45 being mowed down, Israel lobbing a couple of bombs on peaceful protesters in the Gaza strip. Where the hell is Kerry's voice on these current, relevant issues? That's what I miss.

You have to sell yourself to convince the person that you are right for the job. And to get the Presidency, you have to convince A LOT of voters that you are the better person for the job. Many of those people share positions with both the Democrats and Republicans.

Presidential politics is not a contest to see who can be the purest know-it-all. We have professors for that. You don't have to become a total political prostitute, but compromises must be made to be competitive.

... Iraq and Israel.

I hate whiners.

i'm confused.

ARE PRO-CHOICE REPUBLICAN WOMEN!!! They are the same ones who voted for Rendell here in Pa.
The rabid pro-lifers are NEVER EVER GOING TO VOTE FOR YOU JOHN!!!

he knows exactly what he's doing.

first the McCain proposal (smart move)

The rule book states "divide n conquer". In this case he's simply making himself acceptable to the moderates (smart move) who are questioning *ush in droves.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

when he can pander to nomaco?

:crazy:

Except that he's not pandering to the center, he's pandering to the minority right.

"Which of the following best represents your views about abortion? The choice on abortion should be left up to the woman and her doctor. Abortion should be legal only in cases in which pregnancy results from rape or incest or when the life of the woman is at risk. OR, Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances."

Woman and Doctor: 53%
Rape, Incest, Life of Woman: 29%
Always Illegal: 15%

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

I could count on you for something enlightening and informative to say. You've shed a lot of light on this thread.

:)

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1634753

Is this just unfortunate political reality, or...what???

:shrug:

that your retort to this thread would be short and without any true substance that would aid in opening up a discussion in regards to the very questions I posed in my original thread.
If we all adapt your brand of tunnel vision and vote for Kerry because he's not bush*, then we would all be cut off and prevented from many meaningful discussions. I know you wouldn't want that, would you?

Since when did it become pandering to expect the presumptive Democratic nominee to have a judicial philosophy which differs from that of the Federalist Society? Since when did it become pandering to expect the presumptive Democratic nominee to describe himself as something *other* than a strict constructionist?

If that's pandering, then our party is already dead.

.

If he was misquoted, then that's one thing. But Kerry supposedly described himself as a strict constructionist- that's not *my* description. :shrug:

.

It's just us peasants who don't "get" his nuances.
:eyes:

to the 1/15th who are anti-abortion and might vote for a democrat who is confusing the voters.

This is just one more symptom of a larger issue though: Kerry's pandering. It's not middle of the road politics, it's spineless and deceptive and he's going to turn off a lot of democrats if he keeps it up.

and others are spinning it to satisfy their own antiKerry lust.

Go read what he said about judges in its entirety.

He has NO intention of endangering Roe v Wade. Only the knee jerks who refuse to even try to comprehend his full statement would conclude otherwise.

People should be informed before making emotional responses. I think it was Ben franklin who said if passions drive, let reason hold the reins. The people attacking Kerry on this issue tend to be uninformed about what he said, and thus are not capable of understanding WHY he said it.

So now he's trying to bring over the middle of the roaders and some conservatives. I don't really see it as alarming , just election year politics.

"KERRY FIGURES HE HAS THE LIBERAL HALF OF THIS COUNTRY" (already sewn up?). Kerry shouldn't be "assuming" that, and those that have his ear should not be telling him that. The ground swell for Nader will grow and we all know what impact that had on 2000. That's all I was saying, and I don't think it should be disregarded. Let me clarify that I am not, nor have I ever been a Nader supporter, but he is appealing to a segment of left wing voters, especially where Kerry's stance on the war is concerned. Kerry needs to address this particular issue with the democratic core of his base and abandon his quest for winning over this imaginary voter block that will never admit that the war was wrong or will go to the polls in November and vote for him.
Kerry has neglected to mend the fences within his own party that seem to be impacting his poll numbers, and til he and his campaign people figure this out, he will be doomed to be just points separating himself from bush* and runs the risk of falling short of enough electoral votes to secure the next election. Been there, done that. What I'm most afraid of is that Kerry may offer up to little too late.

Truly, he does. I've seen a fair portion of the liberal half of the country...or at least solid representations in a lot of places, both red and blue.

The liberal half is way way way way way more ABB than what happens here.

DU is not America.

to incite the discussion I wanted to have, and maybe that's my fault.

Who does John Forbes Kerry and his handlers value the most, the so called "ultra wing" part of this party that knew from day one that this current war in Iraq was bullshit and was all about securing the second largest oil reserve in the world, or pandering to a larger, but albeit, ignorant bunch of people that thought this war was just and about protecting Murika?

I'm sorry, but I have a real problem with the Kerry campaign's agenda, fortunately, not enough to vote for Nader, but also not enough to inspire undying loyalty to the Kerry candidacy either. The stakes are too high this go around. I guess my problem is knowing I feel like my party has me by the cajones and I'm a female that has a hard time relating.

I've always figured our candidates needed to move center after the primaries because my fellow lefties are smart enough to realize what the stakes are, recognize what the differences are, and vote accordingly -- whereas disgruntled Republicans and uninformed fence-sitters might not be so wise. I realize now I've been wrong in thinking that all liberals are smarter than moderates and rightwingers.

People here should remember that DU is almost as fringe as FR.

And anyway, I call what Kerry is doing "uniting, not dividing". Uniting people of different persuasions against Bush. THAT is what is needed, for now.

in this thread thus far. :eyes:

"Why do his handlers assume that all undecided, independent voters lean republican???"

Very good question, nomaco. It's a bad assumption on the part of our party, but one that we will apparently be stuck with for quite some time. Unfortunately, that assumption ignores the 50% of the electorate who doesn't even bother to vote, since we don't give them anything to vote for. Appealing to moderates is one thing- but whoever decided that we should try to woo the RWers should be booted from the party. Since when did describing oneself as a "strict constructionist" become a compliment?!

And I'm not surprised that you haven't gotten a reasoned answer, since all that is expected or desired of you (and other lefties for that matter) is that you fall in line and vote ABB. How dare you expect anything in return!

LLIT states it succinctly. The decision to assume the support of the left and pander strictly to those who lean towards Bush may be the single biggest fiasco in modern politics.The key to rescuing the nation from the right (including the DLC) lies within those who have rejected business as usual, who refuse to participate in a sham and a fraud, who recognise that their votes have been meaningless and their trust in politicians misplaced.

Nader is up to 5% in the latest polls, wonder why?


Remember that 13% of registered democrats voted for Bush in'00 .

fromt he freeken republicazis

By becoming like them? Some savior.

him but this Judge thing is making me crazy. One more item like this and I'll stay home. I mean we already have a right-wing, zealot administration. Do we want another?

Go figure.

and now that bush is focused on the debacle in Iraq, Kerry is trying to quietly undermine the argument that he is a knee-jerk liberal (the argument bushco was crafting a few weeks ago).

Look, we KNOW Kerry is liberal. We KNOW he's pro-choice. I think he's now trying to define himself for those that have a negative gut reaction to NE lefties.

Just let him win, then, and I believe this, if the Senate goes dem, the "liberal" floodgates will open

Just before I found this thread I was on the phone talking about this issue as a result of a couple of news/gossip items....I have such a sinking feeling....


1) the abortion thing. The simple, standard answer is the "no litmust test" thing. Why go any further and cloud things up? Makes me nervous see this sort of pointless comment....I understand the strategy of straddling the middle, going to the center....but this was poorly done.

BIGGER ISSUE

2) The Hill gossip about holding back on VP nominee ...if Cheney drops out,then Kerry can pick a less "attack dog" type of candidate and Edwards chances would improve.
Make me puke. Even if it's true and Cheney were to drop off the planet, we still have a huge problem in Iraq and plenty of issues to deal with. It WOULD NOT make Edwards a better choice, no matter who Rove stuck in there. It's not just the events now, it's all that went before...and what could happen in the future....No Cheney would NOT mean BACKING OFF would be the way to go!

And beyond the occupation problems, we have a bigger problem. That Bush knew all about the torture and waiving all the rules but with a GOP controlled Congress, the SOB can't be touched. But...we still have the issue of what kind of country do you want America to be?? Just because the Republican Congress won't go after the guy, who takes the lead on challenging the type of morality we have in this government??? And the fact that there are no checks and balances and the Patriot Act could be used against our own countrymen/women without any stops. So, do we just become a country of killers and torturers, a la Saddam? Wes Clark addressed this issue about checks and balances and what kind of country we are becoming last week in his brilliant Alabama speech.

Who will deliver that message if Clark isn't the VP nominee? Will Edwards?? Will Kerry????? Or are we just going to let all this slide???
Shouldn't we have someone running for the top offices who will challenge America to heal itself and look at itself before we descend into being a total barbarian state under the delusion fed to us that we are so much better and moral than everyone else in the world??

If Kerry can't address these issues, what good is he??? Dancing around the edges of "comfort issues" isn't cutting it, because even if he wins, he'll be out in 4 years and the mess will just pick up from where they left off. If he commits to a stronger vision about the type of nation we want to be and gets 8 years and doesn't play footsies with the rot in the GOP, maybe we have a chance. But, frankly, I'm beginning to think that Kerry doesn't have this in him. Especially if he doesn't have Clark out there....and maybe, he wouldn't want Clark out there facing down these sorts of questions. In other words, I don't think Kerry has the VISION thing at all unless he gets it from somewhere else....will he dare to do that???

most people to not want to continue with Bush's war.

Therefore it is not necessary to make a committment to anything

the contest is being run on the "either, or"

This is NOT leadership, imo.

Kerry's answer about judges is EXACTLY the answer a president SHOULD give.

Kerry isn't dancing. He's in a dead serious match of stratego. You may not see it or be comfortable with it, but enough of us do and support him every step of the way.

Pandering to right-wingers is going to make it more difficult for us to take the senate. A LEADER who convinces Americans that Democratic principles and policies are good for the country will inspire people to vote dem for other federal offices. A panderer who fails to repudiate republican positions will make it easier for republican candidates to win senatorial and house campaigns.

They certainly do not undersatnd. Nothing personal, but all the Kerry said on abortion, in essence, is that he would appoint competent judges capable of overlooking their own personal preferences in order to uphold the constitution. He DID NOT SAY he would nominate anyone who would use their own personal preference to determine a case, just the opposite!

He will NOT nominate someone who has an agenda but will not overlook a competent nominee because of their personal beliefs as long as those beliefe are kept personal.

Personlly, I don't like abortion. My wife and I went through one and I do not recommend it for anyone save dire circumstances. But I do believe in choice and that the gov't should not regulate who can seek it. If I were a judge, despite my personal experience, I would NEVER vote to restrict choice.

There are many shades of gray on the issue, the main point is that there may be potential nominees that are personally anti-abortion but are able to uphold the constitionality of being pro-choice.

we had drifted beyond the immediate topic and were discussing more the issue of Kerry's style.

who wanted an anti-choice person on the judiciary, knowing full-well that Kerry has made this statement, would you not counsel your potential nominees to keep it under wraps? The only way to know whether someone is going to be able to keep their personal beliefs about an issue like this separate is when they start issuing rulings and by then it's too late.

Face it, this is a very personal issue, I would venture that the majority of DUers would prefer that they nor their SOs ever have an abortion, it is not a decision to be reached lightly. If a friend came to me for counsel, depending upon the circumstance I probably would lean against abortion. That does not mean by any means that I am anti-choice, I am not. A nominee HAS a record and if their record shows they can keep thier personal preferences away from their decisions and fairly adjudicate per the law I have no problem with what they espouse away from the job.

I also believe that Kerry is highlighting this (and other) open mindedness to pose a contrast to bunnypants who wants tp appoint activist judges who WILL use their personal beliefs to promote an agenda.

I am willing to venture that there are MANY good progressives who are personally against abortion but are pro-choice. There are good, honest people of integrity with all sorts of views on all sorts of many issues who are able to put aside persoanl preferences and judge a case independent of those views.

and this is really another approach to the power play--Kerry knows there is no other choice if people want to oust Bush.

So, he is playing a game.

Really, I do not admire this approach.

It is as if Kerry perceives himself as losing, he will try to retain his seat in the Senate. Like Lieberman did.

For some reason I am not convinced that he is committed to the common man and the people of America.

He does not seem committed. He is too entrenched. He is a belt way Washingtonian where playing this game is the gentleman's choice.

Where they compliment each other in the good old boy game--so that they can all be invited to the very best of all the cocktail parties, and mix with all the good old boys--even though they be Republicans.

"He does not seem committed"....and that is why he is uninspiring!
He has no core vision of what the country should be...or if he does, he isn't articulating it. That is why when I heard Clark's Alabama speech, my reaction was "that's a Presidential speech." In his simple, understandable and clear way, Clark in key sections presented a lofty and inspiring view of what America should be trying to be in the future.

Kerry has never inspired me in that way. He better start learning soon...people are tired, confused, fearful, and restive. There is real need for some uplifting and inspirational vision. It would be a very sorry state of affairs if they feel that the crap dished out by Bush in this department is better than what Kerry has to offer....

That is right on!

I don't like it either, but with Nader getting 5% in Pennsylvania, Kerry's got to go where the votes are.

I will concede that abortion, like affirmative action, isn't an issue a Democratic candidate can equivocate on if they are serious about victory.

Nader was a non entity to me and most members of the democratic party until 2000. Nader is not even an option at this point in a life and death fight for this country's survival. Nader has become a joke to those of us that are acutely aware of the current political situation in this country. He has never been a viable candidate, he's a footnote in history for those who wanted to register their entitled right to dissent the politics as usual policy in this country and he was a necessary player back in the day...

Nader became a household word and a pop culture icon and it went to his head. Now Nader cannot be ignored, nor can the dangerous game John Kerry is playing fast and loose with the base of the democratic party this election cycle.

"Nader and his supporters are pushing Kerry to the center." ??!

Damn. Nader & his supporters & Democratic Progressives like me are trying to pull Kerry to the Left (you know the REAL left that is defined by issues like war & occupation), Kerry resists and now it's turned inside out to read that "Nader and his supporters are pushing Kerry to the center."?

Great. Kerry is such an uninspiring flip-flopping centrist standing in the middle of the road that not enough people want to get behind him so the ground-work is already being laid to "blame Nader".

Oh and for your info, I am not, nor have I ever been a Nader supporter but this is getting ridiculous. It's time the Democrats realized what a frigging disaster the entire DLC infiltration has been and told them to go their own merry way.

Let the effing DLC form its own party because too many people aren't buying this NewSpeak.

Thank you for the opportunity to rant. I could just strangle Kerry because he just doesn't know where his bread is buttered.

People who don't like Bush would vote for the devil himself- that is no reason for Kerry to make an alliance with the devil.

in the upcoming election, the blame must fall directly on the shoulders of John Kerry this time.

Hi Tinoire! How are you?

but thanks for asking :)

I just sent a PM to someone about the rapes at Abu Ghaibr, especially those that resulted in pregnancy and where the women are either killing themselves, fleeing to remote villages or being killed by their families.

How will we ever wash all this blood off our hands?

Oh yeah... and to lurking freepers... The Iraqis are our neighbour.

Big exhale, how are you?

blood and misery we have caused the Iraqis or the inhumanities that went unacknowledged in Rwanda, the coup we supported in Haiti and the indifference this country still maintains against Cuba. Until this country comes to grip with the fact that we are not the be all, end all country in the world, we are doomed. I came to terms with that again after the shock of the Abu Graib prison torture pictures were finally reavealed. I knew about the atrocities in January or February and when I told people, they didn't believe me. Fancy that, people in Murika in total denial til they finally saw the photos in glossy color and presented on CNN.

I don't know Tinoire, sometimes I think I've read and seen too much, but I know our generation needs people like us to bear witness to these most troubling, but historic times. If we ignore this history, we are doomed to repeat it.

With Diebold being the modern equivalent to JebKoH of 2000, everything's starting to look like Selection 2000 all over again... Except Nader is massaging the "reform" party and not the Greens and Kerry's "I want to be loved by all attitude" replaces Gore's indolent complacency.

will go out and vote Dem even if they tell us they will call Bush up every day and ask for advice on how to run the country. They probably are correct. They are going after my old homeland "the out of the reality loop Midwest" (lived there for 45 years, so I'm not blowing smoke out my ass)and playing in those key states to the dumb farmers (my relatives) and dumb church people (my relatives) who are just in a tither about the national debt, etc. (to them $500 dollars is just unthinkable). They are trying to win a handful of states and are assuming the rest of the blue world is "in the bag"..........probably so but one never knows when one inadvertently blows one's head off and that seems to be what has happend for a number of years with us Democrats.

. . .Why do his handlers assume that all undecided, independent voters lean republican???

Because anybody who is not totally opposed to *Buashco at this time is either a total idiot, has obviously been drinking some of that Repuke flavored koolaid or has been watching Faux News too much, or all three.

of the democratic party? APATHY. The apathy in the democratic party and those that voted green in the last election must be addressed.

For instance, if you were one of those democrats (and there were many) that got shut out of the last election for whatever reason, you should have made sure your voter's registration card was up to date this time. How many of them did that since 2000, and time is running out.

I'm still relatively middle aged and I assure you, I could find something better to do with my weekends, but I've spent the last 6 months hanging out in libraries and flea markets and anywhere else that people gather in numbers, to sign up 603 voters. I'm tired, and my biggest hope is that these good citizens will get out and vote this year.

And the reason I wasn't so alarmed by the appointing judges remarks was because of how I took them. (IF he fuc*S us over we can vote Nader next time, I'm sure Nader will just keep running until he dies)

My first greatest fear is twisted shrub Jr. winning four more years.

Way down on the list is Kerry being another Clinton.

But that's just me.

I'm wondering if Nader will be around in November as a candidate (I would guess not). More so, I'm wondering if Bush will be around come November.

Bush is doing so badlym his support in the party (public and offical) may erode to the point where it would appear that the reelection effort is lost (I've got to believe we are close to that now).

Questions:

Aside from slogging on in the face of the bleak outlook, what are the party's options?

If Bush drops out before the convention, how does the party find a replacement candidate?

Do the republican convention delegates have the option of nominating someone else regardless of what Bush wants to do?

Personally, I find this administration scary, inept, and dangerous and would be happy to see almost anyone else slide into the presidency...but another part of me might feel like we were too effective in exposing this administration, allowing a more acceptable republican to come in and run a better campaign. In some ways, we couldn't ask for a weaker election opponent. But is he so weak that the party might vacate his candidacy for a stronger opponent?


Wiggs

(sorry for the slight diversion from the main thread, but I'm not yet allowed the keys to the new thread car yet....too new)

giving them an excuse to not vote.