I read that phrase (or something very much like it) daily on DU, and it scares the hell out of me.

I wonder if any of the people saying it have considered what it really means.

Is winning really more important than anything else? Are out to make a better America or just out to win? Do we want to improve our country or just be able to gloat at the Republicans?

It is certain that we need to elect a better President.

It is just as certain that we need to choose our candidate carefully. It would be much easier than most people here think to elect someone who claimed to be liberal but turned out to be as bad as Bush. Being on "our side", having a "D" next to their name on a ballot does not guarantee that they are a better man that Bush. Party affiliation is not an absolute testament of character.

Consider that Bush claimed to be a "compassionate conservative". Over the past 3 years, we have seen that he is neither compassionate nor conservative. Many people who voted for him have since tuned away from him for this reason. I live in Texas, and I know a hell of a lot of dedicated conservatives (both GOP members and Independents) who are disgusted by him. They all voted for him, and they are learning first hand that simply winning is not everything.

Next time you are considering a candidate, think about what "at all costs" might mean. Never forget that the GOP was dedicated to victory at all costs in 2000, and look where it got them. A President that cannot string two words together and is a national joke. A never-ending war. A bloodied economy. Lost jobs. Lost industry. A party overrun with fascists. The erosion of civil liberties.

Do you want to pay the price they paid? Do you really want to win "at all costs?"

good thing. Anything to get these neo-con fascists out of power would be just peachy keen for the rest of the world right now.

Fudd supported war authorization and doesn't know how to eat a cheesesteak!

Porky Pig in '04

as he has decided to wetire and spend more time with his family.

Elmer would attract valuable swing votes, especially among wascaly wabbit hunters in the South and West.

Personally, I'd rather see Elmer as a VP choice with Daffy at the top of the ticket.

I think Americanth are finally ready to elect a little black duck as Prethident. It'th the 21thst Thentury, after all!

Foghorn Leghorn is the man.

... of being a "manly", ah say MANLY Southerner...

Have you ever seen Foghorn Leghorn and Phil Graham together? I thought not.

Foghorn Leghorn is Phil Graham in a chicken suit. Remember Graham avoided the draft during Vietnam. He's a chicken hawk. Dressing up in a chicken suit gives him tittilation.

:think:

...with all due respect, the esteemed Mr. Leghorn would be a poor choice to nominate for president of our great cartoon nation. After all, the little pipsqueak Chickenhawk always got the better of him...

Unless Bugs Bunny decides to pull himself out of the hat and toss it in the ring, I'm voting for Tweety Pie. Road Runner is too evasive, Yosemite Sam is seen as soft on defense, Wile E. Coyote relies too much on corporations to solve problems. Porky Pig is perceived as a proponent of pork barrel spending. Daffy Duck is a great source for quotes, but as a black feathered candidate is not taken seriously by most and therefore gets shuttled to the back of the bus. As foreign born citizens, Pepe Le Pew, Speedy Gonzalez, and the Tasmanian Devil are ineligible to run for president, although they can run for various governorships.Therefore the only viable candidate left is the revered Mr./Ms Pie, who can be counted on to deliver the short, yellow, and bird voting blocs, in no various pecking order.

The esteemed Mr. Coyote could easily be seen as a tool of special interests due to his reliance on one particular corporation at the expense of all others. And while the Tasmanian Devil could not run for president, he would certainly make a most formidable Democratic Senate Minority Leader. Daffy Duck could prove to be a valuable VP candidate though, he is commonly perceived as being quite good on the stump.

We do need the cat vote :)

A thought-provoking, legitimate issue has been raised, and it ought to be discussed constructively and intelligently--BEHAVE YOURSELVES!

As for winning at all costs, yes, we must, and for two very important reasons: 1) they are willing to cheat at all costs, and 2) if they win, a lot more than an election will be lost. Should we stooping to their level? Sure, as long as we never lose sight of the fact that it's THEIR level.

Now here's a candidate who could bring in some GOP swing voters with his pro-gun stance. Though I'm pretty sure he's also pro-health insurance reform, I'm not certain of his position on the death penalty.



rocknation

that just about all of us feel that a dead ________fill in the blank________ could do a better job at running the country than Chimpy.

It wasn't the people who elected Chimpy "at all costs". He was installed by a corrupt bunch of fat cat a**holes "at all costs".

It's pretty much a no-brainer that we HAVE to get him the hell out of office in '04. Wouldn't you rather take a gamble on damn near anyone else than put up with another four years of this?

that is just like jr. , he set and done a hole lot of saying what he was going to do for my sister and then he would go out and get drunk and then come home and beat hell out of her , jr. reminds me of this man , all promisses and no action

you said: "Is winning really more important than anything else? Are out to make a better America or just out to win? Do we want to improve our country or just be able to gloat at the Republicans?"

the best way to improve our country and make a better america is to get shrub outta there asap!!! NOBODY that i know of as a legit candidate could be worse.

I agree and disagree.
Yes it is important to carefully choose a democratic candidate.
Howerver, none of them, including Lieberman, who I strongly dislikely, is even close to being anywhere similar to Bush.
Look at Lieberman's voting record, as rated by various groups. Generally rather liberal.

Concerning the price the rethuglicans paid. Huh? They are getting what they wanted from Bush.

I live in Texas, I know what was expected of Bush here. The Republicans here wanted fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, spending cuts, "morality" back in the WH, small government and security.

Instead, they a a lying President controlled by a back-room cabal of amoral extremists, tax cuts for rich people only, a huge deficit, increased spending, more government intrusion into their lives, and a climate of fear.

I am pretty damn sure if Bush had campaigned on THAT platform he would not be in WH now.

How could it get worse? Perhaps, if Pol Pot was resurrected as a cannibal zombie with a legion of brain eating undead TV pundits were in charge of this country...Oh, silly me! FAUX news is in charge of this country....

and I agree. Getting bush out of the oval office is ABSOLUTELY the most important thing we can do for our country and the world. We have never had a more dangerous, morally bankrupt or incompetent administration. We are literally fighting for the survival of our nation.

That being said, we should also work to get the very best candidate elected. But there is no one being considered for the Dem nomination that is worse then the idiot. I would vote for any of them without hesitation before I would vote for the idiot. I will also vote for the person most likely to beat the idiot, that means no third party vote.

We will make the country better by winning, no matter who is chosen to run.

which I'm sure will happen, the dem candidates out there all seem like an improvement over Bush and we can only hpe tht you can tell a tiger by it's stripes.

just thought I would mention tht most of the republican power brokers got exactly what they wanted in Bush.

The good thing with Bush and his gang (please forgive me) is that they are quite simple to judge, their intentions are often very obvious. E.g. they started the Iraq war for very obvious reasons (I do not mean "democracy for the middle east"). They really exploited the aftermath of 9/11 (Patriot Act, Afghanistan and Iraq war), many people see through it now, even some newspapers.

But perhaps even more dangerous would be someone who has a "liberal" reputation, is not so obviously dumb like Bush (on the whole, a better "marketing"), but has an agenda that is comparable to Bush's. A Democrat that is very satisfied with the Patriot Act and would have started the Iraq war as well is not much better than Bush only because he is a Democrat in my personal opinion.

When I heard Hillary Clinton when she was a discussion participant one evening in Germany ("Sabine Christiansen"), she talked about the Iraq war. I thought for a second I heard Bush talking.

is messed up. She keeps changing sides of the fence. I hope the Clintons do not get back in the Whitehouse. Okay, nothing much happened to the world when they were there, but they were still a corrupt pair of A**holes anyway. She holds no credibility whatsoever. From the outside of the US, looking in, she is a disaster. So to vote for her just because she is a "democrat" (or is she??)..................

What a crock! Talk about corrupt A**holes! This gang ruining this Country wins that category hands down!

Funny, I travel a bit in this world and every where I've gone, people make it a point of telling me how much respect and admiration that had for the Clintons.

"Nothing much happened"....yeah I guess no pre-emptive wars, no ridiculous taxcuts, and a general wellbeing like I've never experienced in my lifetime could be construed as "nothing much happened".

Love your questioning her Democratic creditionals too. Remember how she tried to get reform of our healthcare system in 92? A real cheerleader for the Republicans, wasn't she?

it's not about winning at all costs for the sake of winning

it's not about ignoring the potential for making a better America


The reality is, with the Bush junta in power, there is ZERO possibility of making America even mediocre. There is EVERY possibility of a continuing slide into fascism, a repressive dictatorial regime domestically, and a neo-imperialist agenda internationally.

Job one is to get these lying thieves out of power.

Only the Democratic candidate (whoever that ends up being) has the remotest chance of winning in 2004 and ending the Bush reign of terror. Every Democratic candidate (yes, even the dreaded Joe Lieberman) is a drastic improvement over Bush.

By far, the scariest thing I see here at DU is the doomsayers who believe another four (or twelve) years of the Bush Junta is a foregone conclusion and the "progressives" who advocate a doomed, divisive anti-Bush strategy for 2004 out of misguided idealism.

Four more years of terror, fear, economic collapse, tyranny and world conquest under the Bushes is what you should be scared of my friend.

So hell ya.

NSA, new cabinet, neww appointees to sub-cabinet positions, new ambassadors, plus the possible coattails. Granted some presidential candidates are bush-lite and I agree that is not much of a change but the changes are much broader than that.

What I find scary is Bush getting elected to another term. Look what he's done in 3 short years....think what he's capable of if he has another 4.

I will vote for anyone who wins the Democratic nomination....anyone.

"Look what he's done in 3 short years".
Correct, a lot. A new paradigm: Preemptive strikes. A brutal reduction of civil rights, including the possibility to arbitrarily define someone as an "enemy combatant", whereupon this person loses every single constitutional right.

Will that all stay in place under a Democratic President? That would be scary, too.

One should elect a Democrat who corrects some of the unbelievable damages done to democracy.

8 years of Bu$$$h would be pure hell.

Any Dem-- even Lieberman-- would be better than Bu$$$h

Saying that, it is imperative to choose the best candidate-- and Holy Joe is at the bottom of the list.

The Bushoilini Cabal stampedes their terrorized ("fear and loathing") mobs by pointing to those "evil-doers" everywhere in the world who "hate us for our (diminishing) freedoms." The DLC Cabal ("Don't Look Behind That Curtain!") stampedes their terrorized ("fear and loathing") mobs by pointing to those "evil-doers" in the Bushoilini Cabal who covet our freedoms only for themselves.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Stop playing along with "good cop, bad cop."
Look at the issues and the behavior. When favors are granted to the fascist oligopolists, our democracy becomes less and less.

The current enemy of democracy is in the power structure of corrupt crony capitalist corporatism and it's stranglehold on the "political" processes in this nation -- not as much the producers as the "derivative" oligopolists.

but I'd be more interested in the remedy that you can suggest over the next 18 months or so.

... that a cancer that's grown in our 'body politic' for far longer than 20 years (which is when it metasticized) can be remedied in merely 18 months. Chemothereapy? Radiotherapy? Surgery? I know for sure it's not merely one presidential election. But people addicted or merely accustomed to immediate gratification don't want to hear that.

It'll take lots of sustained and diligent effort by the weakened auto(cratic)immune system (those who're able to educate, enlighten, tell truth to power) for a long while to overcome this. If the auto(cratic)immune system succumbs, we'll probably have to await resurrection. :shrug: I don't look for saviors and 'leaders' (fuhrers are for authoritarians, aka partisans) as much as I look for 'millions of citizen armies of one'.

To beat the machine now in place, we will need everyone who opposes the greater evil to surrender their personal agendas to form an agenda of one. Of course, that is at odds with many here who think that we are lackeys to another form of tyranney (as yet undefined). I know we can't stop the RNC Corporate machine with a diluted message and the body working at cross purposes...it will take everyone to resist the "cancer", even if the individual political goals/aspirations must become subservient to a boader, more pragmatic message that'll let the body survive. At least in the short term.

I think there is a distinction. I don't remember seeing too many "at all costs" or "by any means necessary" postings about getting rid of bush.

I have seen alot of "anybody but bush" postings.

And there is a difference.

"by any means necessary" is a phrase used by ideolouges and factists - it is a term that says "what we want to do is so important and so right that we can use any means to achieve it." SO if you have to steal elections, re-draw congressional maps, assisinate senator or two -- it all fits under "by any means necessary."

What people on this board are advocating is doing everything within our power to legally remove bush and his cohorts. I don't think too many of us are into "any means necessary" -- we are more into "doing whatever it takes to win the next election."

It's a big difference.

just for the record?

Would still be better than what we have now. OUST BUSH AT ANY EXPENSE!

edit spelling.

We are down to the short hairs here. You said, "Never forget that the GOP was dedicated to victory at all costs in 2000, and look where it got them." Yes, let's look:

September 11
The Patriot Act
The Homeland Security Act
Senate Majority
House Majority
Pax Americana
War in Iraq
War in Afghanistan

Shall I go on? Do I even need to? Have you been paying even a modicum of attention? Or are you one of those people whose personal/financial security is assured no matter who is in office (i.e. you're young or rich or both)?

Ivory tower purity is great in the coffee shop or the dorm room doing bong hits while listening to Sonic Youth and pretending you're as righteous as the words on your t-shirt. Out here on the street, it is bloody knuckles time.

I will work to see the best possible candidate wins the nomination. Right now, for my money, that is either Kerry or Dean or Kucinich. If none of them wins, if the process decides otherwise, I frankly don't give a shit at the end of the day.

Removing Bush, reversing the constitutional cancer, getting the troops out of Iraq and the UN in, repairing the economy, and doing something besides talk about keeping another 9/11 at bay is a hell of a lot more important than how I feel about myself when I look in the mirror.

The game here is not "What is best for my conscience." The game is "What is best for the nation as a whole." Right now, what is best for the nation as a whole is a new administration and a good house-cleaning.

Period.

That's a keeper!

I mean GOP voters, not the party elite. Regular-joe GOP voters are not in love with The Patriot Act. They are not in love with lost jobs. There are a hell of a lot of middle class working people who vote Republican and they were screwed by Bush just as thoroughly as any of us.

Who said anything at all about Ivory tower purity? I am a Dean supporter. I have detailed elsewhere that one of the big reasons I am a Dean supporter is that he will compromise and get things done. He really will be the uniter Bush claimed he would be. I don't take bong hits, I don't like Sonic Youth, I am WAY past college and the only t-shirt I own with anything on it says "Dean for Texas." Try dropping the pseudo-intellectual "oh look at my credentials" act and maybe I will take you more seriously, I do not give a fuck how many books you've written or what groups you've addressed this week (nice speech, by the way), that does not give you the right to make assumptions about me based on the fact that we disagree on something. I am not talking about purity or what is best for my conscience, and this is NOT a game. I am talking about making sure we do not get fooled the way the average GOP voter got fooled. Not every Dem voter is a PHD with excellent critical thinking skills. A LOT of them are average folks who just want someone to heal this country, and a good con-man might fool them into thinking he is their savior. Corruption and the desire for power are not limited to GOP candidates. The attitude of absolutely anyone being better than Bush is what gives such a man an opening, and then we'll be no better off.

If you remove the cancer but leave behind an infection, the patient STILL DIES.

then attack the infection.

STOP THE BLEEDING!

The fact is, Bushism is an entirely different disease from ordinary corruption. Bushism threatens to be terminal. It has to be cured before there's even hope of curing the corruption.

... seems to be the consensus, yet there are those who'd 'settle' for merely slowing it down slightly. This is not acceptable. It is apparent that many seem to believe the political cancer is largely limited to the White House or the Federal government. This is plainly not so. It is in the 'body politic' and these (s)elected officials, no matter how senior and highly placed, are merely symptoms and not the disease. Bush* and his putrescent puppeteers/enablers are suppurating lesions on the face of our body politic. Cosmetics, even cosmetic surgery, can't help.

I would like to make something I firmly believe very clear: "beating Bush*" is the lowest possible standard I could ever heretofore imagine for Presidential politics. By any measure, this pathological puppet is the worst occupant of that office in our nation's history. I care little about delusions to the contrary. It is that very delusion among the electorate, however -- the widespread willingness to believe the complete falsehoods regarding his character, orientation, and qualifications -- that poses the greatest threat to our nation. When, instead of addressing the insanity we pander to it, we merely further entrench that insanity.

This is a disease in our body politic. We cannot treat this disease by serving its preferences!! Pandering to the preferences of the disease is how this plague has spread.

One of the things that is often claimed by long-timers on DU is that such-and-such a Democratic (or other liberal/moderate) candidate is not "electable" against Bush*. As long as this can be reasonably claimed, we haven't even begun to cure the disease. As long as the most 'electable' candidate is one that's infected with the disease of protofascism instead of diametrically opposed to that disease, our political condition is terminal.

How can we tell? You've listed some of the "litmus tests": The Patriot Act
The Homeland Security Act
Senate Majority
House Majority
Pax Americana
War in Iraq
War in Afghanistan
I'll list others: any support for the removal of public oversight and regulation from an economic or political activity upon which the common welfare of our nation depends. This would include features of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, the airline bailouts and other overt corporate welfare without reciprocal public equity, and any demonstrated willingness to erode the sanctity and validity of the vote.

The political atrocities must cease and their damage must be repaired. It is nowhere near sufficient to merely slow the rate or scope of such atrocities. We haven't even begun.

Political Insect Repellant

Let us introduce to you, the people
the newest in protection against--
and prevention of--
deadly insect bites!!
This is not your ordinary kind
of insect repellent
because the mosquitoes,
flies, hornets, and other pests
it repels
do not come on six legs
We're dealing with two-legged parasites!!
Ordinary insect repellent contains DEET
which repels flies, mosquitoes,
and other six-legged pests
because they don't like the smell or taste
of the chemicals.
Only this is not your mother's
insect repellent
Patented in 1776,
This is Political Insect Repellent--
Keeps two-legged, fascist Republican pests
well at bay with its patented ingredients--
freedom of political speech, WHICH IS THREATENED;
freedom of religion, ALSO THREATENED BY THE INSECTS;
peaceful assemblies of millions standing up to bullies in high places;
a free press unhindered by the plague of corporate interference,
acting as a watchdog--not a lapdog, of the parasites;

We the People must spray onto our collective bodies
this preventive against this virulent infectious disease,
better known as the American Fascism Virus,
spread by an unusually misshapen, two-legged mosquito,
which scientists have named mosquitus Republicanus,
characterized by an insatiable greed and lust
for power, money, and world domination
and often seen wearing expensive suits
driving highly polluting SUV's
surrounding themselves with one another
to don their human disguises
so they can more effectively
and with impunity
suck the blood of
their unsuspecting victims
while depositing the disease-causing
American Fascism Virus
in the victims' veins
and leaving the destruction
and death of American values
in their wake.

Their parasitic appetite is highly selective:
they do not like the taste of the blood of the wealthy;
they say it's the same as cannibalism
So they seek out only the blood of the poorest of the poor;
the weakest, the most helpless, and the powerless.
Mosquitus Republicanus can only draw strength
from the weak.
The swarms have spread throughout the country,
despite our attempts
to control their numbers,
and the plague
has reached
epidemic proportions!
Mosquitus Republicanus has been shown
in laboratory tests
to be life-threatening
to democracy
to Constitutional liberties
and to the Rule of Law itself.


A few of the symptoms of this malady are:
obsession with excessive secrecy for oneself;
no respect for the privacy of others;
compulsion with silencing dissent;
demands for exemption from laws
to which others must remain subject;
demands for lockstep conformity
to an agenda at odds with democratic values;
pathological patriotism manifest by
blind obedience to an illegitimate squatter
who stole the presidency by abuse of the legal system
and five traitors in robes who aided and abetted these two criminals;
blindness to the total soullessness
of the thieves in chief;
falsely questioning the patriotism
of human beings
free of the American Fascism Virus.
There is no cure for this disease;
only a prevention
and that is to apply
Political Insect Repellent
before you engage
in conversation
with anyone
who might be exposed
to the American Fascism Virus.

... now I can enter a short post instead of a long one.

What Will said.

of this one is a vest improvement. Any administration that does not contain John Ashcroft,Elliot Abrahms, Dick Cheney, John Poindexter ( yeah yeah he resigned..he isn't far) the advice of Richard Perle, Otto Reich and a whole host of OTHER KNOWN CRIMINALS is better than this one.

This admin is ORGANIZED crime reaching its highest peak..TOTAL CONTROL.

Evena LIEBERMAN admin is better than this one. Really

And what EVER that takes, I am up for it.

It's not a game, it's not just politics.

It is about removing a blight from our country. * in office has placed the US in its lowest point ever.

"Anyone but Bush" is not some childhood, game taunt. It's a necessity for the future of our country.

This is serious, folks. Those of you who worry about "anyone but Bush" should realize that. Could Hitler's clone suddenly appear and replace Bush? No. Avoid the cheap hypotheticals.

Getting * out of office along with the cabal he's brought with him will help. Will it make "everything better?" No. This will be a decades-long task.

People have to see it's not about winning a game. It is recovering our country, and leaving a legacy to our children.

then we are history

No one could do worse then Bush....no one..
End of Story.

Yikes!

Many want political tactics and strategy with no objective. The emphasis on defeating Bush "at all costs" usually points out that we should not lose sight of our goals. It does not mean that we have to choose a specific road to get there -- through Lieberman, for example. However, if your candidate cannot defeat Lieberman, what makes one think they could defeat Bush?

Hence the duty to vote Democratic this election, regardless of the candidate.

appear to have a plan to corrupt freedom in this country. they have moved a lot of institutions in their camp. it is hard to imagine doing worse.

from the late Douglas Adams:

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said Ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

I often see the American body politic like a grown up abused child -- habituated into thinking it doesn't really deserve love and respect. It's a kind of self-loathing that's often embedded in the attitude of someone who was sexually abused. In order to gain the illusion of 'control,' such people often deny themselves of healthy rewards merely to preempt the opportunity of others to take them away. A similar schism exists. We criticize us, separating ourselves into "us" and "them" in a denial of an integral 'United' and 'We the People". Similarly, the emotionally maladapted are often their more severe critics and abusers, often preemptively acting out the very behavior they're 'blamed' for -- and running the mental programming loop of "I'm shit" and "I'm a fuck-up", serving as their own most discompassionate critics.

would be many times better than the moron in there now. I don't think I heard much of "at all costs", rather "anybody but Bush".

I like this part of your post: "A President that cannot string two words together and is a national joke. A never-ending war. A bloodied economy. Lost jobs. Lost industry. A party overrun with fascists. The erosion of civil liberties."

Well written.

Well, winning is what will make America a much better place, because all of our candidates are a trillion times better than Bush. Thanks for making my argument for me: Making America a better place is the ultimate goal. Therefore, we must beat Bush. :)

Its pathetic and infuriating, these naive ideologues, I would respect you all if you were at least consistent, but no, you are all over the map, ignoring the warts of your chosen flavor of the month, unaware of the resume even of your heroes, you think Gore and Dean are progressives (what a laugh) and you even love Clinton. I am way, way way to the left of all of them, Gore, Dean, Clinton, I like to think I am a sane version of Kucinich. But I will support any democrat, any one, rather than see this country destroyed by 4 more years of Bush. And I will not take part in tearing down and destroying any dem candidate and just weakening him or her later.

... but I'm coming around to your position, if only for the fact that (at least for me) the political lines between Bush and a Dem such as Joe Lieberman have become increasingly blurred. If Joe is the Dem candidate in 04, I'm seriously considering just staying home on election day -- something I haven't done in over thirty years.

I'll also admit I'm no expert on California politics but it seems to me that Gov Davis has done a lousy job for his state. Although the prospect of a Repub taking over the Sacramento office is pretty frightening, I can sympathize with many Californians who are simply fed up and are looking for an alternative.

Was the Democratic leadership in California too complacent? Perhaps, or they would have pressed Davis to step aside for a more competent Dem leader. It's not enough just to have Dems in office if we do not also hold them accountable once they are elected to office. We can't hold any Republican's feet over the fire unless we are willing to do the same to our own Dems.

No, Northwind, not at all costs. Not once have I seen a DUer advocate the same kind of cheap, dishonest tactics that are continuously displayed by the far right. We want an honest election. We stand for integrity, and we need to band together for the common good of our great country.

The Bush Administration has diminished us in the eyes of the global community, and we must do what we can to repair our credibility to our brothers across the world. The Bush Administration has spat in the collective faces of every man and woman who struggles to pay the bills every month by pushing an agenda that caters to the wealthiest 1% of the populace.

We were given a paltry, token tax rebate of a few hundred dollars to curry favor and buy our support, and then told to go shopping to stimulate the economy. Meanwhile, federal aid to our individual states was cut, leaving our local governments no option other than raising property & sales taxes and cutting integral social programs.

Our elected officials were bullied into accepting the freedom-sucking Patriot Act, at the threat of being labeled anti-American. We allowed ourselves to be bullied into a war, because Iraq posed an "imminent threat" to our safety. LIES!

I could go on for days about the robber barons currently in power, as I'm sure you all could. The fact is that the far right has stolen our country, discredited us in the eyes of the world, lied to line their own pockets, caused countless unnecessary deaths, left our children to pay for a nearly insurmountable debt, and laughed all the way to the bank.

Educate the uneducated. Excite the apathetic. Get the word out and tell the truth.

"Win at any cost"? No. Still...we must win, but not at the cost of our souls. That would make us no better than them.

Of course, that's just one angry man's opinion.

Ask yourself: can I live in this nation for 4 years of Bush as a lame duck? Where he can do ANYTHING HE WANTS?? The only thing reining him in now is the obsession with reelection. And with the Supreme Court, both houses of Congress, and the so-called "mainstream" media in his back pocket, this will be a hard road to hoe. But it must be done.

.

There are some things that are worth "winning at all costs." Saving a life comes immediately to mind. In my estimation, our lives (our way of life AND our very existence) are in jeopardy, mortal peril if you will.

I am reminded when I hear that we must "win" the election that we actually won the last (presidential) one -- President-elect Gore was not selected to take office -- so "winning" is not the key to taking back our country and our lives.

Thanks to folks here at DU, I am being educated in history, philosophy, politics, religions, beliefs -- humanity. At this stage and even under this crushing administration and economy, I consider myself "lucky" to have found DU. My hope is that in November 2004, the name here will change to "DA" (Democrats Aboveground). :) However, that will not happen without several things happening (IMO):

1. Resistence to fear and fear mongering
2. Mandatory Voter Verified Paper Ballots
3. Exposure of the real powers in this country and the self-serving con men they control. ("Throw 'da bums out!")
4. Harmony of purpose.

Without No. 4, numbers 1 through 3 are unattainable.

We of, basically, like beliefs have to stop destroying each other and each other's ideas. Each person does not have to win every argument. We, as liberals, are passionate people. We care. We care about so many things. I, for one, am terribly frustrated that we get conned by the Rupert Murdochs and Jack Welch's of this world with seemingly no way to stop them. We must rise above pettiness and "at all costs" find a harmony in our purpose of voting 'da bums out. We have to see the other person's point of view and respect him/her for having one. Find the ways we are of one vision and work together for change -- AT ALL COSTS -- and while we still can.

Wonderful postings in this thread - we have funny, creative, learned, caring, passionate folk on this board. Thanks for your words and for letting me post mine.

you identify the current Administration as the worst case scenario, yet complain that some are trying too hard to avoid the continuation of the worst case scenario.

to promote good posts on page 1

Sometimes you add by subtracting. The thugs that
are running this government have to be removed and
if the Democratic candidate has some policies that
I'm not too crazy about I can't allow myself to let
those things be a deal breaker.

If you want to hold out for a candidate who vows to
wage war against corporate America or investigate the
2000 election and you refuse to vote otherwise then
you're only helping Bush.

Searching for ideological purity is self-defeating. You'll
never find it.

...that the 'anyone but Bush*' mentality will only bring us another version of him in sheep's clothing.

- For instance...someone like Lieberman would continue many if not most of Bush's* destructive foreign and domestic policies. The only way to override Bush-Lite politicians would be to have a Dem congress and senate. That may not happen in 2004.

- If we don't show at least SOME principles when choosing a candidate...the 'Republican Revolution' will continue under a neoconservative 'Democrat'.

__Bush Re-Elect Drops to 42%-47% - Tied with Unnamed Dem

"A Zogby poll released today shows that when asked if George Bush deserves re-election, only 46% of Americans said yes and a narrow majority, 47%, said it is time for someone new. The poll, with a margin of error of +/- 3%, on a generic 2004 ballot between Bush and a Democratic candidate, Bush received 47% of support, and a Democratic candidate received 44%, putting the Bush and a Democratic candidate in a statistical dead heat still a year before the Democratic candidate is selected. The second poll, released yesterday by Fox News/Opinion Dynamics and published in National Journal's Hotline showed should the 2004 election be held today, those planning to reelect Bush had dropped to 42%."

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=5528

The dire predictions of "settling" to get a President elected are overwrought handwringing. It's going to take work, but the Democrat we nominate is going to be the next President of the United States.

Let's just nominate the best candidate and get on with it, evict Captain Unelected from Al Gore's house and take back our country once and for all, dammit!

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

In order for anybody to do things, they must WIN first. If McGOVERN, DUKAKIS and whoever had WON, this would be a different world. And Zeus knows this would be a different place if President GORE had not been couped out.

It MATTERS who "wins". The head of the fish seeps throughout the SOUP. When somebody says there is "no difference", they are PLAIN WRONG. All through the bureaucracy, even just an ATTITUDE, SPIRIT of the top makes a difference in policy decisions all the way up and down.

Who ever said we want to win JUST to win or to "gloat at the Repukes"? Of COURSE we want to make a better U.S. and world. In order to do that, we have to WIN first. This is a winner-takes-it-all system we've got.

On edit: Oh, and another thing: Laundry lists of correct issues are WORTHLESS. You can have a candidate with 99% correctness who is a lousy candidate and possibly lousy office-holder. It's got to be somebody IN TOUCH with their own humanity, meaning, with EVERYBODY ELSE's. Shrub has proved that ISSUES DON'T MATTER, that he was willing to TAKE it ANY which way he could, to PLUNDER and take REVENGE on old scores. You still want to keep him?

Where in the sentence "It is certain that we need to elect a better President" do you find room for leaving George Bush? I am just saying that by embracing just anyone but Bush, we can open ourselves up to another guy just like him.

I am not into a laundry list of correct issues either. I am a Dean supporter. If I told you who I am really scared could be nominated a lot of people here would explode.

I was addressing the parts about do-we-want-to-win-JUST-to-win-and-gloat. Aww, go ahead and tell us who would make us explode.

Ideologue and demagogue.

And some people do just want to win. I have seen threads on this board where people hoped that the economy would NOT improve, because it would be good for Bush! That is reprehensible.

Not by a mile.

Let's try to think of it as who'll marry our daughter. She's engaged to a psychopath who abuses her nearly every week. Is it enough to find a psychopath who only abuses her every month? only three times a year?

Is it enough to have her current financee jailed?

No.

It's the daughter who really needs treatment and counselling. A lesser psychopath just isn't good enough. While we have little hope she'll choose a guy who's our ideal, we cannot accept a lesser psychopath.

That's enuff for me.

and like a true fundamentalist, you seem only cpapble of interpreting it literally. Instead of trying to figure out the literal meaning of those words, I suggest you try understanding what people really mean when they speak those words.

The crap I see thrown around here makes it very clear it is NOT just a figure of speech. Having a "D" next to your name does not make you a good person or a good candidate.

"Having a 'D' next to your name"

Ironically, you are using a figure of speech, and interpreting it literally, in order to defend your position. My only disappointment is that you left out Hitler's name, as in "People would vote for Hitler if he had a D after his name"

Hint: there are nine specific candidates, and not one of them has been immunized from criticism by the D that follows their name.

Hint #2: Instead of tossing slogans back and forth, try to understand the sentiments, ideas, and beliefs that lead people to use those slgans.

In this case, the belief is that any of the current Dem candidates would be better than Bush, often accompanied by the belief that things could not be worse than they are now.

Patently false. How many here lived through Reagan and Bush I? I did. I remember it vividly. I remember laying in bed at night being afraid of a nuclear war because the President had jump started the Cold War. I remember being called a commie if I disagreed with anything Reagan said. I remember conservatives saying that the deficit was no big deal and we should ignore it.

Sound familiar? I am saying what i am saying in this thread because I do not want to just elect "anyone but Bush" and be right back HERE in 10 years or so.

In this case, the belief is that any of the current Dem candidates would be better than Bush, often accompanied by the belief that things could not be worse than they are now.

IMO, the 1st is true, and the latter is not.

Look at the candidates who are actually running. Each and every single one of them would be better than Bush*. Now you may disagree with this, but it's undeniable that many DUers feel that even Lieberman would be better than Bush*, and there are some very good reasons for thinking so.

Now you could argue with me about that, and give reasons for why Lieberman would not be better than Bush*. However, you should realize that when people say "Anybody but Bush*", they are saying so knowing that there are nine specific Dem candidates, and in their opinion, any of those nine are better than Bush*

Or, alternatively, you can argue with the literal interpretation of "Anybody but Bush*"

Sound familiar? I am saying what i am saying in this thread because I do not want to just elect "anyone but Bush" and be right back HERE in 10 years or so.

I wonder if you see the humour in your using a Republican President (ie Reagan) to prove that things could get worse in a thread about how any Dem would be better than the Repuke pResident we have now?

I am simply pointing out that things can be worse (or at least just as bad).

I disagree that any of the nine candidates would be better. I do not like ideologues and demagogues no matter what "side" they are on. I do not think Lieberman would be better, because I feel he would not significantly alter (or at all) the worst of Bush's policies, and I feel the same about Kucinich, because he is an authoritarian ideologue cut from the same cloth as Bush, it is just when they made him they used the other side of the cloth.

The point is not whether or not Lieberman would be better than Bush*. The point is that many people here believe he would be, and when many of those people say "Anybody but Bush*" they don't mean *anybody*. They mean "any of the nine candidates"

Please try to be less literal. Try to look a little deeper in order to understand what people are trying to say, and not just at the literal meaning of the words they use.

I see far too many posts where people say that absolutely anyone would be better.

They have the best plans. Unrestrained capitalism will destroy (has?) America.

If Bush wins again I will not blame my vote. I will blame the thousands and thousands who didn't bother to vote and the stupid necons who did vote him.

America can rot in the stench of Bush and the neocons if they are elected again. I'll just kick back and tell them it's your mess. You fix it smartass....

The worst of the candidates might be Lieberman, and I would be delighted to have him if the choice is George the Second.

I fear what this administration will do when it has nothing to lose. Right now * is destroying our country and he's fighting for re-selection. What if he wins another term and is able to throw caution to the wind? Well, my family and I plan to find another country to live in.