Those refusing to support Dem. nominee, I DARE you:

Answer me this:

Which do you think would give you a better stance on gay rights?
Any Democratic candidate that wasn't your first choice, or BUSH?

Which do you think would give you a better stance on foreign affairs?
Any Democratic candidate that wasn't your first choice, or BUSH?

Which do you think would give you a better stance on jobs and fair taxation?
Any Democratic candidate that wasn't your first choice, or BUSH?

Which do you think would give you a better stance on court appointees and the legal system?
Any Any Democratic candidate that wasn't your first choice, or BUSH?

Which do you think would have a better chance of turning the economy around?
Any Democratic candidate that wasn't your first choice, or BUSH?

Which do you think would have a better stance of privacy rights?
Any Democratic candidate that wasn't your first choice, or BUSH?

Which do you think would have a better stance on civil liberties.
Any Democratic candidate that wasn't your first choice, or BUSH?

There is a time and a place for ideological conviction, for standing on principles even when they are completely unviable, for no other reason than the principle itself. And there is also a time where moral concern become so great, or the alternative is so evil and vile that men and woman of conscience are forced and compelled to say, now is not the time for ideological entrenchment, now is the time to rescue the country from the Bush Administration using ANY MEANS POSSBIBLE.

And that is why, in the face of such horrible evil, I say to those of you refusing to do this that you can take your self-righteous, self-serving ideological CRAP and shove it. You are talking to a person who has been regularly - regularly accused of being an untenable idealist, who is so far left in my beliefs that no democratic candidate ever fully represents me, and you are talking to a person who loves what I see in Kucinich and even I know that you, you, you, YOU, Y O U are killing the country this election cycle. If a democrat doesn't get elected, I promise you PRESIDENT BUSH will have FAR FAR LESS concern for ANY issue you care about.

It is disgusting and morally reprehensible to stand on ungrounded abstract principle in the face of such a horror as we have in office now. There is a time and a place for coming together to overthrow such horrible, baseless evil -- after that, we can start picking up the pieces of democracy and go back to good and honest debates about the best candidate for the job.

This isn't just some republican this year -- this is a living horror, an evil, evil regime and it must be stopped. Refusing to support whatever candidate becomes the best chance of defeating bush is not even worthy of my breath.

Some of you have to understand that it isn't always a choice between achievable best and achievable worst. Sometimes the choice is between, impossible "best", possible better, and possible worst. In choosing for the impossible "best" you throw a way a choice at choosing the possible "better." Meanwhile, no one who supports the possible worst is choosing anything but the possible worse. In effect you basically contribute to the possible worst becoming a reality. And all other arguments are bullcrap this year. This election is different. It's not about just who wins. It's about saving this country from its ultimate and FINAL downfall.

Meaning every word,
Sel

have put it so harshly, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

..and I'm not gonna take it anymore. :)

This election is different from any other. If bu$h wins this nation could lock itself into facism to the point of no return. No time for principles.

A vote for any other than the Dem nominee is essentially a vote for bu$h.

Any questions?

No time for principles

IMHO, this is the PERFECT time for principles. We need to support a candidate, ANY candidate, who will stop this country from circling the bowl like it is today.

If we sell out our Democratic principles for an "electable" candidate, have we really won? Sure, the candidate won't be Bush, but odds are s/he will be "close enough" for most purposes, and the national nightmare will continue.

We don't need another accomodationist like Clinton. This country has sunk too far in the last few years. We need a candidate who will STAND UP for our principles, and be the opposite of what's in the White House today. If voters are given a choice between Good and Evil, they'll always choose Good. If the choice is between Evil and not-so-Evil....well, that's not much of a choice, is it?

Compromise is okay, but you should NEVER EVER give up your principles and values. Because, at the end of the day, that's all you really have.

"If voters are given a choice between Good and Evil, they'll always choose Good."

That's not true. In 1968, the country had a choice between Good and Evil, and it chose Evil.

In 1972, the country had a choice between Good and Evil, and it chose Evil.

In 1980, the country had a choice between Good and Evil, and it chose Evil.

In 1984, the country had a choice between Good and Evil, and it chose Evil.

In 1988, the country had a choice between Good and Evil, and it chose Evil.

In 2000, the country had a choice between Good and Evil, and it chose Good, but it wasn't by a big enough margin so that the Evil ones couldn't steal it.

So those are my examples. I believe I've successfully refuted your position that Good always wins when we're given that choice. :)

What this is saying is, in effect, "You're a moron and your views are completely invalid. You need to adopt my point of view."

If someone approached you in this way, do you think you'd be receptive to them? Or would you tell them to bugger off?

Harshness is not a positive contributor to an attempt to persuade. Persuasion is a process of trying to guide thought in a certain direction, encouraging people to come to certain conclusions in a manner in which they believe that they are thinking on their own, but in which you are actually guiding them along.

Harshness will not achieve this. It will only deepen animosity, and lead to people just trying to "score points for their team".

I've held my nose and voted for too many people who don't represent me as well as they represent almost anything and everything else in the world. Not gonna do it any more. Period.

It's up the THEM to make themselves worthy of my vote and thus electable, not to me to forget what it's all about.

Sorry. And a rant like yours just makes me all the more recalcitrant.

Eloriel

...no matter who gets it. OMG. I sure would like to know who they are.

(eom)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=485741&mesg_id=485741

as a DK supporter, I was pretty disappointed to see how many people actually think this.

They don't put a lot of stock in trappings, received wisdom, or hierarchies. They feel that everyone must work out their own Zen, not adopt anyone else's wholesale.

There's a Zen story about one of the patriarchs who was dying, and he sought to pass on his handwritten documentation of his Zen to his best student. The disciple didn't want to take it, but the the patriarch kept insisting. Finally the disciple took the books and threw them in the fire. The old man was aghast and yelled 'WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!?' To which the disciple yelled back 'What are you saying?!?'

When we have the best Dem in a generation available, why would we want to accept anyone less? Because others do? Why not vote for Smirk, then--surely there are more who (for whatever godforsaken reason) want him than really want, e.g., Dean.

Just saying that a Democratic president will make a better sounding board than Dubya. Voting isn't the only - or by any means the best - way to express your personal beliefs. My first choice is Dennis Kucinich, and if he's not available after the primary, my second choice is Not Bush.

america with bush is hopeless. america with one of those other Democrats in power is at least a chance to fight another day. I became politically active because of Bush. I gravitated to DK because, as you said, he's the best Dem in a generation. DK's influence is the positive force I will carry with me after the election - regardless of the outcome. I will remain politically active. I will still continue to push for my ideals as I know DK will. I won't go back to sleep. There are plenty of ways to make change after the vote is cast - and it's more likely that change will take place under a leadership that is closer to my beliefs on the spectrum. Maybe these other guys are...maybe they aren't. I know for sure that Chimpy is not. I'd rather deal with the unknown quantity because I cannot see it getting worse under anybody but bush.

I can't buy into the "it's gotta get worse before it gets better" philosophy - there's too much at stake. and it rings too similar to the "ends justify the means" arguement we've been hearing so much lately.

BTW: I've never heard of a Zen scholar attached to dualistic thought. I don't do what I do because others do it...just sometimes the "others" and I happen to agree. If you make a conscious decision to to something because it's NOT what the others are doing, then you're still attaching your decision to theirs - just negatively.

(edit)BTW: I've never heard of a Zen scholar attached to dualistic thought. I don't do what I do because others do it...just sometimes the "others" and I happen to agree. If you make a conscious decision to to something because it's NOT what the others are doing, then you're still attaching your decision to theirs - just negatively.

I'm not sure where this came from. I agree with it of course, but I'm not sure what I said that would have prompted it. Could you clarify, if only for my peace of mind? :)

to show how a contrarian is just a susceptable to the masses as the masses are themselves. I didn't mean to make it personal, or imply that your reasons are anything but noble. But your assumption that ABB is a bandwagon (which it is, to some extent), combined with your personal choice illustrated that potential pitfall - which may be responsible for all the miscommunications about this debate.

I'm guilty of it. My ego-show of surprise that other people could actually think differently. MY apologies.

..and if we're still all here in 2005... and Bush squeaks in... they'll be reminded.

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

trying to brow-beat people into buying their propaganda and convincing into believing that ABB means "only Clark".

It takes a LOT of nerve to question other people's integrity, especially that of Democrats who have been posting here for years.

Yeah...

"To the Reagan Democrats: Welcome Home!"

Reagan Democrats were those who had the courage to vote their consciences over their political affiliations, and as a result, our country roused itself from the self-pity of its post-Vietnam depression. We elected a man who, with American fighter planes, brought down escaping Achille Lauro hijackers…who, through force of will, ensured the razing of a wall which had divided a nation and a globe…who shored up a faltering space exploration program – and then showed the courage and strength which steeled us to continue forward even after a heartbreaking disaster.

Reagan Democrats, we thank you. And we welcome you home.

http://draftwesleyclark.com/republicans/reagan.htm

I am not entirely sure I believe it. It seems more to me like folks are holding their breath until they turn blue :eyes:

AT THIS POINT, I will support the Dem nominee. However, there is one candidate about whom I have VERY grave misgivings. Depending on how things develop, I may not vote for that person if s/he gets the nom.

However, since I live in Texas, my vote will not count in Nov. anyway. Neither will yours, my friend, since I see you live in Houston.


BTW- there ARE worse things than Shrub. One of those is a candidate who destroys the Dem party and any chances that Dems or progressives have of getting elected in the future. A generation of fascists is far worse than the one occupying the White House currently.

Furthermore, I am a thinking, rational adult who does not need to be assimilated into some robot culture of the DLC's promotion. This whole ABB idea may very well guarantee us a victory. But it would be a hollow one if nothing actually changes but who holds the title of President.

He's a different face to the same corrupt body Bush fronts.

Whether I vote for Clark in the general election depends a lot on how Dean is treated and where he will be positioned to help the Dem Party toss out creeps like Clark and his campaign minions. If Dean is in a position to actually reform the Dem Party, then I can bridle my antipathy for Clark, knowing that the day will come that he and his corrupt cronies that support him will be expelled.

that strikes me as just ridiculous. Clark is nothing like Bush. He's intelligent, thoughtful, and generally on the right side of the issues. Even if he is the ant-Dean for the DLC, he's a thousand times better than bushco.

"Clark is nothing like Bush. He's intelligent, thoughtful, and generally on the right side of the issues."

Clark is on the RIGHT side, true. However his current positions on issues are in direct contradiction to his past actions. The only thing liberal about Clark is his script.



"Even if he is the ant-Dean for the DLC, he's a thousand times better than bushco."

It is even worse than that... Clark was a lobbyist for Kissinger. He is working in the exact same type of corporate war profiteering business as Cheney and Halliburton.

Clark is a smart and charismatic face of the same monster that Bush is currently so ineptly fronting. Just imagine how much more damage Bush could do if he were as smart as Clark, and as charismatic as Clark... and had Clark's wiggle room? Scary isn't it?

Have we all got amnesia… these people did the same shit in 2000 with the whole murky middle compassionate conservative thing. They had a guy, who was a media creation by his own admission, go up and lie about being a moderate and compassionate conservative and the second he got in there he went hard right and started a war they could profit off of. Now these same groups pulling W’s strings are pushing Clark, another media creation who is claiming to be something he is not. But Clark is way smarter and more charismatic than W… he’ll be able to push their agenda much much more effectively.

wins the primary will be supported. Actually there is no alternative. If this country is to survive it must get united and pull together which will not be done under Bush/Repugs. I do believe with the California debaucle added to this whole mess Dems and other disenchanted to put it mildy will support the nominee.

Against premption, for working multilaterally, against bush tax cuts, in support of gay rights, pro choice.... oh yeah SOUNDS A LOT LIKE BUSH.

Clark is not my guy, but in the end, to argue that he is no different than bush is a laughable joke.

:party:

And I guess hehe.. shameless fluff posts like this will help *innocent look* WHAT?? :)

the govornorship of Arkansas under a Dem ticket in 2000, worked for a MIC lobbyist firm with ties to Kissenger and didn't register as a Dem until after it became a PR problem.

Clark's words are worthless. He has no record to back up his statements. Con men use the same tactic on their victims before they swindle them. Clark is a flim-flam man and there are those in the Dem party who would sell their souls to such a man in order to keep their petty fiefdoms.

I DO NOT TRUST CLARK.

are the same corporate war profiteers and military industrial complex whores.

That koolaid is some strong shit, ain't it?

Also, you left out the environment, which Bush is trying to demolish. Who could be worse? Also, to those who think someone else (Clark, Dean, etc.) will be just as bad: Okay, let's say you're right. But Bush has had his chance and shown what he will do. He has killed many, many people and ruined many, many lives. Let someone else have a chance, even if you think they are as bad. No third party candidate is going to win. Please vote for the Dem, whoever it is. If you are absolutely sure that your state will support the Dem, then, okay, go ahead and vote for someone else... but please, pretty please, not Bush*.

and the flame-bait of the year goes to....

Oh yeah... you can't.

i am practicing my country-given right to vote how i choose, WITHOUT BEING THREATENED OR BULLIED OR GUILT-TRIPPED, im am participing in democracy and therefore not "killing" this country.

you may be perfectly happy and comfortable selling your vote and soul. im not.

They are wrong. This is a Democracy and I will not be bullied into voting for anyone. I don't automatically owe my vote to anyone just because they are nominated by my party.

I remember how many DUers said ABBOL (anybody but Bush or Lieberman)> They were not attacked. But when I say ABBOC (Anybody but Bush or Clark) some DUers act like I don't have the right. I do, it is in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

that "right" is enunciated in neither of those documents. The only body that gives you a "right" to vote for President is your state legislature.

Way to go!

But I will not vote for Clark... he is just another face of the same monster.

DO NOT -- I repeat, DO NOT come here crying to us about how awful it is. You won't be welcome here. Some of you will remember how the Green/Nader crowd got hammered after the 2000 fiasco? That will seem like kindergarten recess by comparison! I'm not trying to bully anyone's vote. You are free to vote for anyone you choose, or abstain from voting if you so choose. But THIS PLACE RIGHT HERE is the DEMOCRATIC Underground. Not the Green Underground. Not the Dean Underground. Not the DK Underground. So if your vote, or failure to vote, keeps BushCo in power, don't come crying to us.

I am appalled at this attitude of "I'll take my little red wagon and go home." Even the brain-dead freepers understand the ultimate issue and vote on that basis!

Bake

chasing a large part of your party right out the door. Go our way or else? Think our way or you are just stupid. Sounds familiar somehow.

..you are just stupid. Perahaps there is a more delicate phraseology to be used, but that's about right in my estimation.

"Well let's see, Democrats lost, Progressives lost, Idependants lost, and George Bush won again. Good thing I stood by my idealistic convictions while the country is utterly destroyed by a madman."

:eyes:

but stupid is one thing I am not. Stupid is chasing away your allies.

They contribute to the OPPOSITE of your goals being achieved.

With friends like these...

party to vote with your party they are contributing to that party. I have seen only one or two people who say they will not vote for ABB, only DK. You are offending everyone else who chooses to vote for him now. It is the primary. Are you going to tell me that 30 years of voting Democrat makes me the enemy if I coose to vote for DK now? This is total bullshit. It is not your message against Bush* that I object to, it is the way you have chosen to tell others how to exercise their vote and calling all others the enemy.

but to get behind the alternative to Bush in the general election.

:shrug:

but this is the third thread implying that DK suporters will not vote for another candidate. "implying" This is absurd and I am cranky today so I am responding. Actually these kinds of threads make me want to know who it is that you all (the accusers) support because it makes me want to vote for anybody but your candidate because I do not like the bullying nature that they are inspiring. I know that it is the supporter saying these things, not the candidate, but Jesus this is so wrong and so hurtful to the party. Plus it really pisses me off to be essentially called a "traitor", "stupid", "hopeless" by my own side because my flavor of our side is not someone elses. I have begun to hate this place.

and I dare say, the group that coined the term, is that the only alternative is the nearest thing to Bush?

getting bushco out of office is a critical, life and death matter, than you're hopeless. I hate putting it like that, but ultimately that's what it boils down to.

how I feel because I do not feel the need to explain it. DK has brought some people to our party. That is a good thing. Calling them out like this will only chase them away again. They may very well be ready to hold their noses and vote for anybody but Bush*. Just because several of them said they will not does not mean they are all feeling that way. I am far from hopeless but I am beginning to feel this party may well become that way if we have to bash everyone with a different opinion.

Yes. Impassioned? Yes. Flame-bait? No.

Why would you support someone who doesn't support your freedom of worship?

Bush doesn't like us, and would like to see our religion banned. He'd do it if it were politically possible. I know I don't want to give him that opportunity.

Sounds more like, in the words of my dear departed grandma, common god-damn sense to me.

We could use a lot more of it around DU these days.

"...In the 2004 presidential election, we must not split our vote between Greens and Democrats. I know the Greens have party building to do, but, if Mr. Bush wins again, there will be no America for them to build their party in. So they must defer this time and earn our respect and admiration for doing so...."

---Doris "Granny D" Haddock
International Women's Day Peace March
Washington, DC
March 8, 2003

:)

important?

That's the whole thing. You guys are willing to quote someone like Granny D out of context, but you don't really pay any attention to her. She's just a tool, to you.

Dennis is the best Dem candidate in at least a generation. But are all the nominal Dems eagerly rallying around him? No, not at all. There's folk like you who'd rather elect someone who's hardly a Dem at all, in the sense that FDR, RFK, or LBJ would have understood the term. And you guys have the temerity to lecture us!?! Don't make us laugh! If you want all Dems to be on the same side, then support the real Dem candidate like we do.

To be lectured on who the 'real' Dem is; that is a matter of opinion. Did you notice anything about the 3 names you tossed out? I did--- dead 58, 35 and 33 years, respectively.

Are you trying to suggest that it's time to move on from the examples of FDR, RFK, and LBJ? That they're out of date, and it's time to upgrade the Party to be more like the Republicans, perhaps?

A party is not some sacred object that cannot be touched or altered without 'profaning' it; there is no 'heresy' in adapting to the realities of the present times, so long as the core values remain the same. The party of FDR was not the party of Jackson, or of Jefferson: it had changed and adapted.

THAT is my point.

On edit--- Darwin was right: that which does not evolve becomes extinct.

He presented a theory of how things evolve, in the context of an environment (nature). If the environment stays stable, so should the species.

In practice, once evolved, species stay quite similar for an average of ten million years and then go extinct.

Which is irrelevant to your point, I know, but I can't stand incorrect cliches.

You need to shut up and trust the collective judgement of sincere Democrats surrounded by Independents and a bunch of people who had so little judgement that they voted for Reagan and the Bushes in the past. Yes- trust the judgement of a group made up of some of the same people who got us into this mess.

Trust their judgement and vote for another person who helped get us into the mess we're in.

Let yourself be insulted and brow-beaten to death into swallowing the ABB propaganda that's deliberately crafted to ease you into accepting just anyone without examining their record as too many Clark supporters have the temerity to question the loyalty of faithful Dems who did not enable Bush, who did not enable this war and who had the judgement never to buy into the propaganda.

If this is how Clark's supporters act, I tremble to see what their Homeland Security candidate is really about.

Well said, lady! :evilgrin:

as a California who just saw my state TERMINATED by 2 DLC candidates! And hell- I even liked Davis because he did fight Enron but he was abandoned by the DNC and the DLC when he fought Enron years ago and they thought they were being very clever with having their Mecha boy Bustamante break ranks thinking people would ignore who he was, the charming epiteph he used in the past, his brother's control of the Indian Casinos, and the fact that he's Lieberman's CA campaign manager though probably would have switched to the DLC's next Golden boy- Clark- and his total luck-luster UNAPETTIZING Centrism.

Well yeah! Yee haw!

Guess what DLC Don't give people a real choice and they'll fucking either NOT CHOOSE or choose the real thing which is a real Republican.

2000. 2002. California...

Next gamble... the White House.

In that, I mean that there are many people who, through their "ideological purity", expect their chosen nominee to be that knight on a white horse who will ride into Washington and set everything right. No more militarism, no more poverty, no more injustice. This "savior" will make everything right again.

It's not much different than the way in which fundamentalist Christians view Christ. It's this belief that we are so completely weak that there is only one way to save ourselves -- to totally and completely give up, and instead depend on someone else.

As a deeply spiritual person, I see this kind of attitude as the most self-defeating tripe imaginable.

I, like you, are just about completely off the political spectrum entirely. I know that there is absolutely NO WAY that anyone who accurately reflects my views will even come close to getting the nomination, let alone defeating Bush. But I am smart enough to realize that ANY Democrat will be slightly closer to my views that Bush and the Republicans are.

Instead of refusing to vote for the Democratic nominee, what those of us who are disenchanted by the system need to do is to vote Democratic and then apply all the pressure we can muster once that person is elected. There is no savior coming to save us all. Collectively, WE are the savior that we have all been waiting for. The sooner we recognize that -- and get about doing the heavy lifting required to secure a better future -- the better off we will ALL be.

well said. I think I like you. :D

People have listened to, and believed, too many stories about American "heroes" who "saved the day" with an eloquent phrase and self-evident "principles". Now, they can't imagine how an ordinary person (or people) could help change the situation.

I've seen interviews with him to the same effect. He states quite readily that his goal is to show people that great changes do not come from "on high" -- that they come from the overwhelming energy that lies within the people themselves. The key, like you said, is to dispel the myth that one person cannot make a difference. One person can -- because, in time, that one person joins with thousands, even millions, of other "one persons" to become an unopposable force.

That's exactly what we're talking about here. Join with us in electing Dennis. Become part of the unopposable force putting into office the best Dem candidate in a generation.

bad V key

And they don't even realise it. (or at least I'd like to think they don't--how truly awful if they do)

Most major social movements in the nation's history took 80-100 years to come to fruition. A single electoral cycle does not have the luxury of that kind of time.

While I have donated money to Dennis Kucinich, I have done so with the full realization that he has no chance of getting the nomination, nor of beating Bush in the event that he did.

Changing minds, perceptions and attitudes is a long, drawn-out process. DK's ideas, while many of them are dead-on, are just too challenging to the perceptions held by millions of Americans. And people often react quite defensively when their perceptions are challenged, rather than welcoming change with open arms.

That gets me back to why I have donated money to DK. The simple act of his candidacy is more important than ANY of the other ones, IMHO. It's not because he can win. It's because his ideas are getting out there, he's sowing seeds in the wind in hopes they will take hold in the greater consciousness.

In short, he's not the "white knight" to come riding in and save us. What he is is a voice for change WITHIN THE SYSTEM -- a person who is invaluable to those of us working for meaningful change. He doesn't need to be President to realize this important role. He just needs a pulpit. The race itself is providing him that pulpit -- probably moreso than the actual nomination could.

To me, the problem is more like one of rolling a boulder out of the way. We can sit around and lift weights and tell ourselves that we have to build ourselves up a few years first, or we start cutting levers and digging up fulcrum rocks today, and build ourselves up through action.

The shortest and longest journey both require that we set out. Nothing less will do. When we act with resolution, then things begin to happen around us. It's a well-known phenomenon.

(edit)

Was heute nicht geschieht, ist morgen nicht getan,
Und keinen Tag soll man verpassen,
Das Mögliche soll der Entschluß
Beherzt sogleich beim Schopfe fassen
(Goethe, Faust)


"Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, the providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his way." (W.H.Murray, The Scottish Himalaya Expedition)

Because we're entering into hair-splitting territory here, and I'd rather not waste time debating someone with whom I largely agree. In the end, the argument always ends up being about how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin.

If we all strongly resist drinking the kool-aid, we'll win. It's got lots of sugar in, and it's a very attractive color, but it's still poisonous no matter what the guys holding the dipper say.

"Most major social movements in the nation's history took 80-100 years to come to fruition. A single electoral cycle does not have the luxury of that kind of time."

How do you define and delimit a particular "social movement"? How do you define "most"?

In real practice, trends build up gradually below the surface and then emerge in a fashion that surprises people.

In real practice, there is also the occasional discontinuity.

A total exposure of Bush lies, for example, would open many possibilities that seem unlikely today.

Second point: "Single electoral cycles..." Yes, we have been living under their tyranny for a long time. That is the system that produced Bush in the first place...

Civil Rights Movement
Labor Movement
Women's Suffrage
Abolition of Slavery

Is that still too general, or am I being specific enough for you now?

How many of them would have happened, had they not been able to sway the majority of the population to supporting their causes? While most Americans may, secretly down deep, want many of the things that DK is selling -- the fact remains that the cynical, consumerist, "me-me-me" attitude is still just a bit too deeply ingrained for DK's message to truly resonate with the masses. There's still enough conditioning keeping hold to get them to reject such a message out of defensiveness.

I'm not saying his message isn't important, nor that it isn't valid. I've stated repeatedly that his candidacy is the most important one out there, IMHO. I just don't honestly think that the vast majority will accept it right now -- especially with the way it would be portrayed by the national press. There's still some work with "altering perceptions" that needs to be done before it will all come together.

Like I said above, Mairead -- any debate between us on such a subject is more about splitting hairs than serious differences.

that will never work...they'll sit there all day and say "yeah, yeah, yeah...sure, sure, sure...now, pull the Dem lever like good sheep"

They don't want you, Irate. It's clear that the progressive wing has no power, and will not have any anytime soon.

There are currently nine choices for president...the three I would pick amongst have less than ZERO chance of gaining the nomination..

uhhh, no....I don't see why continuing to vote for the party will be helpful in any way

of whimps who are oblivious on a sinking ship. Calling something a complex doesn't inherently discredit it. Nice try.

You're wrong.

Dennis Kucinich, for example, probably reflects my own personal political views best. But there's a problem: I don't LIKE him. I'll never LIKE him. I don't WANT to think of him as President.

Howard Dean's politics are remarkably like my own in many ways, but certainly not all. But I like what he offers: a scrappy guy who isn't afraid to stand up and say what needs to be said, someone who doesn't shrnk; someone who is running an absolutely terrific campaign; someone who is empowering people and reaching folks NEVER involved in politics before as well as Independents and even disgusted Republicans; someone with a vision I can respect and a sense of what's pragmatic and DOABLE within that vision that awes me; someone who is NOT DLC, NOT Bush-Lite, NOT bought and paid for by corporate interests; someone who is revolutionizing the democratic process itself and re-invigorating democracy itself.

Yes, I do rather see him as a knight in white shining armor. I think he's the most electable of the whole lot of them, and someone who will change history, has in fact already changed history.

But I am smart enough to realize that ANY Democrat will be slightly closer to my views that Bush and the Republicans are.


Then you're not really so smart after all. Clark is severely bad news. Worse than I could have imagined. Far worse than I feared. Some of the others are DLC through-and-through -- or close enough for government work and not to be trusted IMO.

I'm tired. I want my country back. I want it back from the Republicans (fascists), I want it back from corporate interests (fascists), I want it back from PNAC (fascists), I want it back from the DLC (fascist enablers).

I want Dean.

Eloriel

us to. I think your view is incompatible with Democracy and the meaning of a vote. I have said that if Clark wins the nomination it will be good that he draws in moderate Republicans because he will lose some progressive Democrats. His supporters have claimed he will because he is "electable." Well if he loses don't blame the left who will have finally deserted the Democratic Party.

You said in another thread that you are ashamed of Dems who won't vote for certain candidates. What you fail to see is that some of us are ashamed of Dems who support Clark.

If I said it is morally reprehensible for anyone to vote in favor of insituting gas chambers in the US to kill Jews, would you respond to me that my view is incompatible with Democracy? My response would be SCREW YOU. It is morally wrong. Period. And anyone of conscience would have no choice but to resist it.

The only different my friend, is that you don't see Bush as an issue as serious as what I listed above. You don't see it as a fight against absolute evil. And that will be our downfall.

--Edit - Democracy means you are free to make a freaking stupid decision that ruins the country, and that I am also free to point out how freaking stupid it is.--

blame you and others who carry idealogical purity to destructive extremes.

"democratic" dictatorship here we come!!!!

... Green blackmail.

And if there was a ballot initiative to do that, I would be morally wrong to vote for it.

And I have NO PROBLEM CALLING ANYONE WHO WOULD VOTE FOR IT WRONG.

"Oh so you're saying vote with me or your wrong? That's not democracy!"

In the case above, the fact is I don't give a fuck what it is. Wrong is wrong. Period. You are free to vote whatever what you want, and I am free to call people who vote for gas chambers morally wrong.

The only difference here, is that you don't see the Bush adminstration as such a serious issue. I do.

We're simply expressing our horror about those who can't see that this is a life or death matter.

Criticizing anyone for what they do is the same as wanting a dictatorship. Freedom, in their self-entitled view, means the freedom to act without consequence.

I totaly agree with you.

Seems more and more that half these people would glady vote for W, if he just came out and said he was now a democrat.

THey do not care who the candidate is, who they work for or what interests they represent... just as long as they have a good script and a D by their name.

If some of you claim that your candidate is so electable he will win moderate repukes and then it does not happen. Then you are to blame for not facing the truth before the nomination. My vote is mine not yours.

Clar is a Dean supporter, afaik, not a Clark supporter

Unless you use it for whoever have the best possible chance of defeating Bush.

I've only heard one person so far say that they believe a certian candidate would be worse than Bush. And while I disagree, I have to accept that.

But if you refuse to vote for a Democratic nominee out of spite or on ideological principle alone, that's digusting. If you can honestly, truthfully say that you will not vote for a Dem Nominee becuasey ou believe they would be worse than Bush, then ok... but that's not what I see most of you saying.

Most of you are just stubborn and don't really give a fuck if your stubborness contributes to bush being elected again or not.

"Most of you are just stubborn and don't really give a fuck if your stubborness contributes to bush being elected again or not. "

Inelegant, perhaps, but SPOT ON! :thumbsup:

I think your view is incompatible with Democracy and the meaning of a vote.

Roughastori, our entire SYSTEM is largely incompatible with Democracy and "the meaning of a vote". I mean, look at how it's set up. Wealthy interests can legally bribe politicians. Candidate viability is judged on the amount of money they can raise. The supposedly "free" press does their part in vetting the "acceptable" candidates and ignoring those they deem to be "fringe". Rather than honest debate between candidates, many voters judge their choices on 5-second soundbites and attack ads. Some even cast their votes solely on appearance.

The system is broken. If it were truly representative, then we wouldn't have a bunch of rich people (from both parties) calling the shots. But we do.

If you're looking for ideological purity, electoral politics is NOT the place to look. Electoral politics is a filthy business in this country, and many of those involved (in both parties) are smarmy people who, upon shaking their hand, you'd better count your fingers to make certain they're all still there.

The Democratic nominee will be a compromised figure, that much is certain. He (sorry not to use "she", but CMB will not be the one) will be beholden to a multitude of special interests just in order to get the nomination.

BUT...

If you're looking for the candidate who can be elected, who comes closer to representing your views (even if he's STILL miles away), that candidate will be the Democratic candidate. You can vote 3rd party for President and feel good about yourself... but your candidate won't win, you won't be helping to oust Bush, and you'll really only help the more reactionary forces solidify their control over power.

That's why I'm voting for the (D) no matter who it is -- even Joe Lieberman, whom I cannot stand. I don't harbor any illusions about great change occuring during their tenure. I just know that the capacity for progress will be just a little bit more under a (D) presidency than an (R) one.

What happens after the election is that the onus for stimulating reform falls not on the politician, it falls on US. It is up to you, me, and thousands of others out there to organize, agitate and educate in the name of reform. It is OUR responsibility to keep the pressure on whoever is sitting in office.

I say all of this as someone who pulled the lever for Nader in 2000 -- even if I did it in safe NY. But I've also learned in the 3 years since that change comes from US, it doesn't come from the politicians. The responsibility for safeguarding democracy (or, in this case, reclaiming it) does not lie with any elected official. It lies with WE, THE PEOPLE.

The question is, are you ready to accept this responsibility, or are you still looking for that knight on a white horse to come riding along to save the day?

Once we drink the kool-aid, it's over. The time to rally the oppo is NOW, not after the thing is decided. Jeez, most of us don't even get a form letter back when we write our alleged reps! And you're hoping we can change policies? Only if we hold the loss of their jobs over their heads.

Right now, both Dean and Kerry have adopted some of the positions Dennis pioneered. If we produce a big groundswell for Dennis, you'll see absolutely everyone scrambling like mad to take the wind from his sails by adopting his policies and telling us with oh-so-earnest faces that they always really believed in them and they're much better placed to get them made law. You know it's true.

If anybody else does, I will vote against George Bush. Not happily, but there you have it. ABB.

These people will only support someone who will rage against
capitalism and the "military-industrial complex" and they think
that they are selling out if they settle for anything less. On
this board and at this time they tend to be Kucinich supporters
but in the extremely unlikely event that DK ever got nominated
and began to moderate his positions to broaden his appeal they
would turn on him immediately branding him a "compromiser" and
"Bush-lite" etc. and they would go off and sulk and dig out
their old Nader buttons. They don't want to accomplish
anything they just want to die at the Alamo to prove their
ideological purity. They're probably out in CA today voting
for Arnold to "hasten the revolution"

How can you take an entire group of people and dismiss them this way? Do you think being idealistic means we are stupid? Of course he is going to have to compromise but we would rather see compromise come from the starting point where his positions lie. This is a horrible post on a horrible thread. I can say that I only know a few DK supporters who feel the way you are painting the whole group. DO you know how offensive this is and you accuse us of going off to skulk? Hell, with much more of this there will be many more DK supporters who have been life long dems leaving the party because it is becomming intolerable and intolerant.

I said "On this board and at this time they tend to be Kucinich supporters". I did not say that all or most DK supporters are
of this type - most are not. There are, however, some people like
this on this board and because DK is probably the most left wing of
the current candidates they have tended to cluster around him.

quite a few of these people are probably Greens who have decided to join with us for the moment. Like them or not, they have joined us. Some may stay even if DK is not nominated. I will tell you this, they will not stay if they see this kind of shit. Hell, I am thinking of not staying after this (on DU) I will always be a Dem. SO why are we attacking them and making them seem unimportant or unwanted? This thread is exactly the kind of thread that fractures a party with the pretention of being the only way to save it. It is rude and stupid to do this.

going to walk away and not vote or vote Green. They've
made their intentions quite clear. They're helping to
reelect Bush. I find that attitude inexcusable.

crazy about it either but this kind of thread and attitude is not going to help. I find it offensive and I have always been and always will be a democrat (at least I believe I will be). If we are going to treat people this way, well, would join a group that treated you like this?

they're huffing and puffing and demanding that
everybody else do things their way even if it
means losing all 50 states. Otherwise they're
going to take their ball and go home.

to do whatever they wish but if we wish to keep them we should work to that end. It is self defeating to complain about them to start with and then bash them out of the party when the venture in then complain again. I have seen more than one go from my way or no way to ABB with gentle persuasion and really deep and respectful discussion.

<sarcasm>

you know the Dems desperately need another scapegoat if they loose in 2004. Why not blame it on those damned Greens for voting for a candidate that supports their values? After all, there's only 3% of them, so they're small enough to gang up on. And when they're gone, we won't miss them anyway, will we? If you think about it, they're not really 'American' at all!

</sarcasm>

No, it may not be that extreme yet, but I can guarantee this is a slippery slope to start down.

Believe it or not, there were many long-time Dems who could not support Al Gore for a variety of reasons; here's just a few issues that come to mind:

-- Death Penalty
-- "Welfare Reform"
-- NAFTA/WTO
-- Universal Healthcare
-- "War on Drugs"
-- Continued US Imperialism abroad (Central America, Africa, Eastern Europe, Middle East, Cuba).
-- pro-corporate welfare

These issues are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to a vast number of Democrats. But we still insist on nominating some stuffed shirt "electable" moderate to appeal to the Repub-Lite crowd. These issues aren't some sort of "litmus test", they are CORE VALUES that I think are of utmost importance.

Now, look at 2000, for example. Many people (myself included) could not see much difference between Gore and El Arbusto on these issues-- BECAUSE THERE WASN'T MUCH DIFFERENCE. It was pretty damn hard to get excited about voting for somebody like Gore, for MANY "traditional" Democrats.

Voting for Gore over Bush was like voting to have your arm cut off with a saw or cut off with a meat cleaver: not much difference, as both are bloody painful, and the end results are very similar.

I've already seen this happen before in 1988, with Jesse Jackson supporters. Many stayed, but even more were put off by this bullshit "loyalty oath" that seems to be gaining popularity again, for some moronic reason (the new McCarthyism of the Democratic Party). The more you try to force ANYBODY to toe your line, the more resistance and disaffectedness you'll get.

I plan to vote for the Democratic nominee whoever it may be; however, it's pretty hard to support a candidate, with time or money, who does not share a majority of my views and values.

what YOU said. Killer to watch your party go down this path isn't it?

I got fed up initially after 1994, when Clinton double-crossed the liberals and decided he liked the Repubs in congress better than the Dems, and a bunch of Dems decided they could win by pretending to be Republicans. That was the final straw, after a very disappointing accomodationist presidency.

After that, I still gave monetarily to Dems I supported (like US Sens. Mark Dayton and Paul Wellstone), and even built/hosted a campaign website for a local legislative candidate, TWICE, in 1998 & 2000. However, I no longer considered the Democratic Party to be "my party", like I did in the 80s and early 90s, when I was very active and even served as a delegate to two state conventions.

This party is on its way to being completely irrelevant to America unless it stands up and supports candidates that agree with its platform. We always end up crafting a magnificent platform every four years, only to nominate candidates who seem to be afraid of it. I for one am sick of it, as are many other Democratic faithful who have strayed from the party because of its obsession with "the swing vote".

I will not however, vote for Clark.

If you read the other posts of mine on this board, you'll see that I agree with your premise of voting for the Dem nominee. But your approach (browbeating and marginalizing) is one that has been proven only to spark divisiveness on these boards.

Being a long-time poster, you know this too. So it's disappointing for me to see you engage in it.

What people who "rage against capitalism and the 'military-industrial complex'" are most often expressing is a complete frustration with a system that is moving in the completely wrong direction. I know I see it as that way. As Gandhi once said in response to the comment, "Faster is better" -- Speed means nothing if you're moving in the wrong direction.

The aim is not to browbeat those who express such frustration. The aim is to convince them WHY it is in their best interest to vote for the nominee. If one approach doesn't work, try another. You may not reach them all, but I guarantee you'll reach some.

But browbeating and marginalizing will not accomplish these aims.

I'm a good deal more sympathetic to the goals of
the Kucinichites than I might seem sometimes on the board.
(I even voted for Nader in '96 because I was angered when
Clinton signed the welfare reform bill). I will ackowledge
that it was easier to be principled because I knew that Clinton
was going to win - if I thought it was going to be close it would have been irresponsible for me to help geriatric Bob Dole and
the Gingrich congress gain control of the government.

But somebody who tells me that there is no difference
between Kerry and Bush is deluding themselves. Somebody
who tells me that they can't vote for Kerry because of a
fraternity he belonged to in college is beyond delusional.

I ask you to reread the end of my post:

The aim is not to browbeat those who express such frustration. The aim is to convince them WHY it is in their best interest to vote for the nominee. If one approach doesn't work, try another. You may not reach them all, but I guarantee you'll reach some.

But browbeating and marginalizing will not accomplish these aims.

Your approach, browbeating and calling them "Alamo Dems" is completely IMPRACTICAL. It is an approach more indicative of wishing to score points for the home team, than actually persuading anyone.

Like I said, there will be those whom you cannot reach no matter what. But what good does it do to browbeat those people, other than to make yourself feel somewhat superior? Having engaged in it many times myself, I know how easy it is to get caught up in it. But in the end, all you really reinforce is animosity between the two sides. And any of the "frustrateds" who are capable of being swayed are so repulsed by your approach that their stance is entrenched.

In the end, by employing a negative tactic, you reinforce the negativity. While your aims may be grounded completely in practicality, your methods defeat those aims by being wholly IMPRACTICAL.

or cajoled or persuaded or won over. They are quite
up front about it. There are some and they're right
here on this thread who are determined to "go to the grave
as an angry old man".

That's fine. Let them go vote for Dennis or Ralph or whoever
and when that gains them nothing they will have their moral
superiority to bask in because that's all they want anyway.

But just let them go. And don't let the door hit them
in their Birkenstocks.

can we blame you when the Repukes win again in 04?

I'm sure you will be flamed for that!

I already know the answer. Forget I asked.

I have to go call voters in CA right now to stop the recall.

does not help your case for your own brand of ideological purity. If I say, "voting for candidate "A" is (in my opinion) the same as voting for Bush because of the ideological and corporate backing of candidate "A", then it is not ideological purity that is behind it. It is the view that the problems with this country go beyond personalities and have more to do with the growth or reduction of the status quo oligarchy that currently rules this country. Now, I for one have said that I will vote for anyone the Dems put up against Bush - but this is the last time, win or lose. The right to vote how one chooses is none of yours nor anyone else's business. You might actually go into the polling booth next year and vote for Bush - we'd never know. So try being more persuasive and less strident. (But your strident voice will assure lots of posts. :)

If these were your only two choices, which is better on all the issues I mentioned?

Any Democratic candidate or Bush?

That's the only answer I'd really like to get here.

I'm sick and tired of that term being misused here.

As someone who voted 3rd party in 1996 and 2000, I can definitely appreciate the rationale that goes behind casting such a vote. And it is not to be dismissed -- it is, quite often, and utter and complete frustration with the many failings of our political system. Many of these frustrations are absolutely valid.

The key needs to be to help people realize both the realities and LIMITATIONS of electoral politics. In the current system, it is just impossible to affect change (except, usually, opposite of what you want!) by voting 3rd party. At least on a national or state level (if anyone is a dedicated GP member, then by all means they should try to build their party on the local level).

At the same time, expecting massive change to come from the electoral sphere is unrealistic. People who are elected are elected because they are, most often, enthusiastic supporters of the status quo. They don't rock the boat.

The responsibility of rocking the boat is ours. Any aid we get from voices within the system (i.e. Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Lee, etc.) is a bonus.

What we all need to ask ourselves is, out of the options available, which one is more likely to be receptive to my rabblerousing AND can actually win. Even if the receptivity to your views is only a minute difference between the candidates, that difference can still be of utmost importance.

I also like Bill Maher's line:
"The major difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats are bought out by a less scary group of special interests."

I can really handle being a party that's ownz0red by the teacher's unions, labor, environmentalists, gay and lesbian activists, etc.

I can really handle being a party that's ownz0red by the teacher's unions, labor, environmentalists, gay and lesbian activists, etc.

The problem is, it is not these interests that "own" the Democratic party. It is owned by the telecommunications industry, the insurance industry, the health care industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the oil industry, the prison industry, the weapons and arms industry, and so on.

In short, it is owned by many of the same interests that control the Republicans. If you think that it is really "owned" by the interests you cited above -- interests that cannot compete AT ALL on the scale of political contribution and influence of corporate-backed influences -- you're seriously deluding yourself.

But all of that is OK, because the Democrats are just slightly less beholden to these interests than the Republicans. Every once in a while, the Democrats will support those lobbies you listed above, especially if it doesn't cross the REAL players. Sometimes, they'll even cross the big boys -- even if it's a rarity.

The key is, while getting these Democrats elected, to not delude ourselves that they are really something better than what they truly are. We need to then start agitating and rabblerousing and organizing TWICE as hard, because that's the only way we'll ever get REAL, PERMANENT change in this country.

The Democrats are not going to save us. They just present an option under which we have a slightly greater capacity for saving OURSELVES.

Sorry, but this is the same kind of crap that was thrown at me in past elections. "________ is Satan incarnate and is making over this country into Hell on Earth!!! The only person who can save us is (Dem candidate of your choice)!! You must vote for the Dem, he is the lesser of two evils!!" And you know what, I fell for it, every time.

NO MORE!! If you can't see that both parties have been comprimised beyond all hope by corporate money and influence, then I want some of what you're smoking. In all honesty, can you tell me that somebody who is for communications monopolies, soveignty stripping "free trade" agreements, "welfare reform", an enviromental plan that was essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul(pollution credits) and on and on ad nauseum is a Democrat?

Yes I realize that Bush is a monster stripping our society left and right. But what good is it to elect somebody who is controlled by the same corporate oligarchy that controls Bush. Ooo, Ooo, we're going to get a kinder, gentler reaming Oh Boy!!

You know what I find offensive Sel? People who do the same stupid shit over and over and keep expecting different results. Do you honestly think that a Dem is going to pull the average worker out of this hell bound misery we're in? Ooo, let's go back to the days of Clinton, where our standard of living was declining at 3.1%/year. When the gap between rich an poor widened to a historically record degree. When high paying manufacturing jobs we're fleeing overseas to be replaced by McJobs. When the phrase "working poor" first came into being. DON'T YOU GET IT? IT IS THE SAME BIG MONEY/CORPORATE MONEY ALLIANCE WORKING BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET!! WAKE UP!! We are living in the new and "improved" Gilded Age, when big money/corporate money robber barons rule the roost, and it doesn't matter a tinker's dam whether it is a Dem or 'Pug in office, because they're all working for the same money oligarchy. Read your history, and if you don't believe me, go read some Palast, or Hightower, or Moore, or if you can only read one book on this topic read "Wealth and Democracy" by Kevin Phillips.

Sorry, you can castigate me all you wish, but I'm now working for a real change in this country. When you finally get tired of doing the same ol' same ol' well then you can come and work for a real change too. But I suggest you lay off of the insults, those words won't taste too good when you have to eat them later.

Because had Gore been in office, the country would be in the exact same place as it is today.

But what good is it to elect somebody who is controlled by the same corporate oligarchy that controls Bush.

Well, not every politician whores themselves out to donors like Bush has, first of all. Second of all, there are a host of issues that corporations don't give a damn about that are important, and that Democrats and Republicans have distinctly different views on.

Every mainstream candidate who wants more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning HAS to whore themselves out to the corporattions. Bush has just proved unusually apt at the process. Look, in the '00 election cycle there were over forty major corporations who gave $100,000 plus to both candidates, including the winner Phillip Morris who gave $2,000,000 plus to each candidate. It is called hedging your bets. And just to further disabuse you of that notion that Dems are somehow "cleaner" when it comes to corporate money, do you know who it was who invented the whole soft money racket? That's right, that wonderful Dem, Bill Clinton. Actually, if you delve into it, soft money contributions are illegal, and should be banned, but since both sides are benefitting from it, do you actually thing they're going to call each other on it? LOL dream on.

And no, we wouldn't have been in the same place under Gore today as we are with Bush. But judging from the Dems' votes in Congress we probably would have had the Patriot Act, we still would have gone into Afghanistan, and help Gore's British Petroleum masters might have gone ahead and pushed him into Iraq, you never know(God knows, Dems don't want to look like wusses when it comes to war). The economy would still be tanking, for all that the '90s boom benefitted was the financial markets. The high tech sector boom would have gone ahead and deflated, jobs would still be fleeing overseas(thank you Clinton and NAFTA), and the surplus would have gone ahead and vanished(being a paper surplus in the first place). Granted, more than likely we wouldn't have had tax cuts for the wealthy, but with 911 we still would have had some deficit spending.

By the by, go study some business classes. There are very few issues that corporations and business don't give a damn about. In a capitalist society every move the consumer does is of concern. For every decision a consumer makes impacts at least one business either positively or negatively.

well said.

"________ is Satan incarnate and is making over this country into Hell on Earth!!! The only person who can save us is (Dem candidate of your choice)!!

Not at all true. The Democratic candidate will not save us. Don't you think that it's time to abandon this idea of ANY politico saving us, and instead get busy saving ourselves?

But I do know one thing for certain, under a Democratic administration -- despite the fact that it will be incredibly compromised to a myriad of moneyed interests and will kowtow to the wishes of those interests -- pushes for reform will be better received than under the Bush Administration, even if only faintly marginally so.

Until our system is fixed -- and it is nearly broken beyond repair -- we will have no options other than the lesser of two evils. The system will not be fixed by those politicians who are elected within it -- unless they are FORCED to do so by we, the people.

THAT is why it is still important to vote for the Democratic nominee, even if it is really only voting against Bush. It doesn't mean that you expect change to take place. It only means that the window is cracked open just a little bit. It's OUR job to get in that crack, push it open, and storm the Bastille in the name of creating a better society for all.

And I say this as someone who has voted 3rd party in 2 of the 3 Presidential elections in which I've taken part -- Perot in 1996 and Nader in 2000.

Working for public campaign financing and working for the only major party that doesn't take corporate money, the Greens.

And for all of your talk of marginal differences and lesser of two evils, you are still not advocating for any kind of real change. I've tried the "work within the system approach for thirty years". You know what? Thing have gotten worse, and corporate control has gotten tighter.

No, I'm working for real change now, no more working within the system for me. We need a complete break with the old corporate controlled politics, and the best way to do that is to support a party and policies that work against corporate control.

Just seeing your own authoritarian words.
Bullying won't change anyone's mind.

I don't think I could name ten DU posters who have declared they will not vote for the Democratic nominee unless their candidate wins. That's out of the hundreds or thousands who post here regularly.

But here's yet another demand for party fealty. I've had it with this crap. How many times and in how many different ways must we prove our loyalty?

Wouldn't our time be better spent getting out our candidates' message and helping their campaigns than tearing into each other?

I'm sick of this. If someone feels strongly enough about his or her positions that they feel they can only vote independent or third party, then so be it. Why the constant harangues of this tiny minority?

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

It's been proven time and time again on these boards that browbeating will not gain you any converts -- it will only deepen animosity. Perhaps I've just seen too many of these exchanges in my time on these boards (nearly 2-1/2 years).

..anyone. I am not. I'm fed up, pissed off and getting out of my system so I can go back to normal, thoughful posting (of which you know I am fully capable).

I've seen far too many of these kinds of threads during the time I've been here, and have no real interest in just trying to "score points" for the home team.

Also, in the end, threads like this are often more destructive than neutral -- something to take into consideration.

kind of response you can expect from new dems or very idealogical dems. Your actions on this board are very questionable to me and along with all of those you have managed to insult and bully I am incensed by your condescending responses. Who the hell do you think you are anyway? It is entirely possible to discuss these same things civilly but you seem unable to do this. You have said much about yourself here. I am going to go try to undo some of the damage you have done today. Please try to respond civilly to people. This kind of thing digusts me.

I'll remember: This is the party of people who treated my ideas with disrespect, & equated my deeply-felt objections to their candidates with "support for Bush."

Thanks once again for helping me realize how bankrupt Democrats really are.

I'm hoping that my tone will present a better argument, one that you might be a bit more receptive to.

Peace,
IC

Your remarks show that you understand my concerns very well, even on questions where we might not be holding the same initial position. I'm very receptive of course to the Zinn idea of real social change coming from the bottom up, & to your CCC idea, etc. (OTOH, I don't really feel that I'm "looking for a savior" -- an image you used somewhere higher up in this thread.)

There is a huge difference between Selwynn's argument & yours. His position is roughly that anyone who won't toe the Dem Party line is a self-righteous jackass who's killing the country. Your position, OTOH, shows that you're fully aware of the woeful inadequacies of most of the Dem field. I could have a respectful conversation with you on this subject. That doesn't necessarily mean I'd wind up being willing to vote for Clark or most of the other Dems. But I'd be open to having the discussion, interested in exploring the question fully, & would probably wind up enjoying & respecting the process.

There are far too many boorish Selwynns on DU, in recents months. Being talked down to by someone like him is in effect a learning experience. It reinforces in me the impression that the Democratic Party is full of rude hysterical fealty-demanding bullies, who are intolerant of principled dissent. There's an Aesop's Fable about "The Traveler, the Sun, & the Wind" that Selwynn ought to re-read.

was the civility I have come to respect and expect on DU. I am much relieved to know that it can still be done, especially in the middle of this contentious thread. That is what makes for a big tent party not the bully tactics represented here.

I'll know in advance who'll get the least votes.

but with the exception of Lieberman, I would be happy with any of the democratic candidates. Any single one of them would be better than Bush. I can find something appealing in all of them (better than Bush) and while they differ in their views, THEY ARE STILL BETTER THAN BUSH and more capable of getting us out of this mess THAT BUSHCO. CREATED. I see the onset of "division" in the rethuglican party and would hate to see the same thing happen here. We should unite to get those PNAC, racists, crony capitalist, neocon, lying bastards out of office!

...or a 'double dog dare'?

- Jesus...someone save us from this shit.

...or at least some spin?

- Jesus...someone save us from question dodging.

my take is :primaries are the time to vote your conscience.Come election time vote Dem.If you don't, well, what are you doing here?

Guess what!!!

If some of the candidates wanted my vote, they shouldn't have voted for the Iraq war!!! Many, many Senators and Congressmen saw though Bush's charade, why didn't, for example, Lieberman or Gephardt? Sorry, Kow-towing to Bush is as bad as being a Republican. I'm NOT ABB and that kind of mentality will only destroy the Democractic party. Just saying that "anyone" is better, when we need to be finding a candidate that stands for what we believe, in the face of adversity. Many of the candidates, I feel, will not stand up for what's right, only what will get them re-elected. Sorry, but I can't vote stictley ABB. So, as I have said, we had better pick wisely in the nomination....

"... and even I know that you, you, you, YOU, Y O U are killing the country this election cycle."

Gee, even though I don't know yet who the nominees are, I'm supposed to give the Democratic nominee a blank check because you have continued the grand tradition of shrill condescencion.

Save me from such unworthy pap.

This election is different. I don't believe its the same as when the Republican was Regan, or Bush Sr. I believe this is a whole different kind of tyrannical insantity that must be displaced from office using any and all means necessary. I'm not voting "democrat." I'm voting whoever has the best chance of beating bush.

"I believe this is a whole different kind of tyrannical insantity that must be displaced from office using any and all means necessary."

You sound just like the very thing you are fighting. Just food for thought about the normal courtesy of treating other human beings.

You are partially right, that arguing combatively is not productive.

But you are partially wrong to use that as a sheild of defense from valid points.

These facts remain:

1. The Bush Adminstration is destroying the country.

2. There are no Democrats currently running for President that would not constitute a vast and desparately needed improvement.

3. To refuse to support one of the them who gets the nomination on principle is a grave mistake, IF you agree with 1 and 2.


There's my argument, free from my anger.
Sel

I strongly suggest that you make converts in a better, more persuasive way. Your approach is tailor-made to put people on the defensive and harden their stance.

Maybe it's not me, me, me, but you, you, you who will be responsible for the results of that tactic.

Ack! :P

PS-- But on behalf of those of us with dialup, THANK YOU! :thumbsup:

I do not vote for employees of Henry Kissinger, war criminals, or republicans... especially when they are the same fucking guy.

All your questions won't matter if the government his handed over to the same profiteers currently pulling Bush's strings. 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

Even though his policies would be completely different and far more left leaning?

Please.

I do think Clark is on the same team as Bush. The name of the team is not the "Republican Party," it is the American power elite.

Clark is one of those designated to play the Good Emperor, following Bush's very scary and convincing rendition of Bad Emperor. The underlying system does not change, although some policies may be altered in a way that makes life better for the Democratic-leaning majority - during the duration of Clark's term.

One secret of this system's success is its ability to offer different phases of governance. Roughtly speaking, the Democrat fattens up the proverbial sheeple, the Republican slaughters and shears and cashes in. Soon after, stability requires a return of the nice Democrat.

They are good Emperor - bad Emperor.

I believe the election of a foul compromise like Clark, a fully implicated man of the old system, entails as a logical consequence the future election of the next, even worse version of Bush - who at least will have a different name.

I agree Clinton "was better than" Bush I and II. However, his actions on taking power - most significantly, his FAILURE to nail the Bush dynasty for their demonstrable crimes - are the reason we have Bush II today.

Sorry if it hurts. The Bush I crew plundered, raped and pillaged. Clinton let them get away with it. Whether this was his job or not (as a minor cover-upper of the Iran-Contra affair, see Mena), or whether he did it out of some misguided "moderate" idealism, the effect is the same. Clinton did not clean house. Otherwise, he pursued a very watered-down, Republican version of Democratic politics, one that did not change the basic facts of politics in this country.

I guarantee you that Clinton's buddy Clark will not clean house.

What is sold as "moderation" is actually a long-term guarantee for the next round of Bush-style politics.

Do you want to see lasting change, or to perpetuate the consensus cycle of barbarian Republican - ersatz Democrat?

Very well said, thank you.

"Even though his policies would be completely different and far more left leaning?"

What policies... all we have to go on regarding what Clark's policies are is what his current script is. And we know for a fact that his current script is vastly different from his past script.

Clark tells his audience what they want to hear, and he is very good at it. However Clark is beholden to the same groups pulling W's strings... the same neo-con cabal that wants unending war to maintain unending war profiteering.

Clark was a lobbyist for Henry Kissinger!


Clark would be worse than Bush, because where Bush is a bumbling incompetent dipshit and we all know he’s lying... Clark is smart and sharp and charismatic. Where Bush would fail, Clark can continue to push the agenda of those behind him. Clark will continue to advance the status quo for these people, while he EFFECTIVLY lies about it and pours honey in the ears of the people.

Clark is like Bush... only with charisma, skill, and competence.

Imagine how much more damage W could do if he was a good liar?

The bad news: One-percenters want * to win in order to send their country further down the road to hell for the next 4 years. Then, they hope, we will all suddenly agree with them that their authoritarian, fortune-500 nationalizing agenda is actually a good idea. You see, they cand convince sensible people that they're right, so they hope for a huge knee-jerk backlash toward their positions.

A shamelessly horrifying attempt to bring about change? Sure. But hey, authoritarians have vays of makink you see the light.

But here's the good news: 99 percent of their fellow americans find this approach as abhorrent as you and I. When we liberal Democrats win without them--all indications point towards victory--they will have absolutely no juice within the party. While we'll still have to listen to them whine and complain around here, we won't have to even pay lip service to their shakedown, and can go about the business cleaning up Chimpy's mess.

Anybody But Bush or Leiberman.

:eyes:

Thankfully, I suspect that most of us moral degenerates will gladly make up our own minds. Otherwise, the whippings, at regular intervals, of those who spend a lot of time with their own and others' counsel where politics is concerned could easily backfire...

Than the following scenario:

Me: hey you know raping your neighbor is wrong.

You: Thankfully,I suspect that most of us moral degenerates will glady make up our own minds.


Yeah, ok and I'll continue to comfortably lable a choice for rape to be 100% wrong whether you like it or not. Sometimes the "its my life I'll do whatever the hell I want" argument just doesn't hold water. The question is: is this one of those times. Is there a moral imperative to vote against Bush, more than concerns about who you are voting for?

That's the question: some say yes, some say no. But it is because I say yes that I agrue as I do. I argue this way as though my life depended on it, because I'm not certain that isn't the case...

you fucking traitor!!! how could you vote Green???? Didn't you care?? Didn't you think of everyone who would be affected?

WHAT RIGHT DO YOU HAVE NOW TO CLAIM THE DEMOCRAT BANNER?!?!?!?!?!

.


.



.



.



(I'd like to request a "stunned" emoticon.)

That's some pretty amazing, not to say offensive, bullshit.

If it is a moral issue, then it is as much a moral issue as anything else.

The only question is whether or not it is a moral issue.

If it is, then the analogy stands.

"they just ask for a bigger shovel".

Lying about whether or not you left the toilet seat up is a moral issue. Is that equivalent to rape? Can you seriously say that?

Beyond that remains the question of whether or not the way in which one votes is a moral issue. We'll leave that for later.

good fucking lord :eyes:

Sometimes the "its my life I'll do whatever the hell I want" argument just doesn't hold water. The question is: is this one of those times. Is there a moral imperative to vote against Bush, more than concerns about who you are voting for?

Just because you don't like a shocking example has no bearing on its validity in and of itself.

are you a rapist?

they dont own my vote.

Suppose there are, let's say 25 core issues important to democrats. Now suppose you offer me these two choices:

1) George Bush

2) A dem candidate who sides with Bush on 23 of the 25 issues.

I wouldn't vote for the dem. Why? Because his election would define the dem party as only slightly different from Bush. The other 23 issues will have been repudiated. Who then will be left to champion those causes. It must be the democrats.

I think that given the choice between a guy who has 0/25 things right and a guy who has 1/25 things right, I'd want the 1/25 guy.... :(

You must understand then that in exchange for your 1/25th improvement, you've allowed the democratic party to give up on 24/25ths of what it used to be.

what's wrong with the Democratic Party. For decades they've been using fear and positioning as the lesser of two evils...sort of a poison that tastes better on the way down than the alternative. My body is rejecting this poison, whether it tastes better than the alternative or not.

We progressives are trying to tell you that if you ignore us again you will be punished again. And your response is to question our morals. This strategy can only work for so long.

If you live in a state that goes overwhelmingly red or overwhelmingly blue, your vote won't change things. You might as well vote for whichever candidate most represents your values. However, if you live in a contested state, it's a completely different matter.

Anyone who would vote for someone besides the Democratic candidate is either working steady, comfortably retired, or wealthy. No one else would take any chance of putting Bush back in office for another 4 years.

Don

Anyone whose politics admits choices other than a Democrat must have a huge inheritance or else be a counterfeiter. Anyone who strays from your notions of partisanship must be mentally defective and have a bad diet. Anyone who dares think outside of the boundaries of your preferences must be on mind-altering substances, probably illegal, and have a nasty inclination toward sheep.

It just isn't conceivable to be rational and not completely obedient to the NNNOLHI cult, unless you're one of the reprobates noted in the foregoing.

Right?

thanx for reminding me why, even tho I was raised Dem and voted Dem, I changed my registration to Independent and have no real affinity for the Dem party any longer. :eyes:

I have really tried to maintain a civil and positive attitude around here but this is getting a little too ridiculous for words. I was ABB before coming to DU but I'm really starting to reconsider thanx to all the badgering on this board.

We have taken giant steps backwards in this country when it comes to civil rights and personal liberties. The right wing agenda is responsible for this but they had plenty of help from the centrist Dems. I will work this campaign for significant change and vote for significant change when I vote for Dennis in this primary. For the first time in my voting life, I have someone who I can support without a single reservation whatsoever. Not one person here or anywhere can take that away from me. That's my right. Period.

I will vote for whoever gets the nod but if it isn't DK, this will be the last time I will vote with the Dems for the same old business as usual lackluster stuffed shirts they keep spitting out. I refuse to keep letting people in this party pat me on the head and say, "Chin up, we'll get 'em next time.", while they pursue crap like NAFTA/WTO and welfare reform. I only came back for the one candidate that means a significant change for the better for everyone in this country, whose only agenda is service to this country and its citizens.

Thanx for making me see just how valued I am to this party. You can all kiss anymore support from me good-bye. Great job alientating folks who came to ally with you. Haven't seen this good a job of it since Bush addressed the UN over Iraq.

Foreign affairs, privacy, and civil liberties. Some of the Dem candidates (Leiberman especially) would be just as bad as Bush in these areas.

That said, I'll still vote for whoever gets the nomination.

And then, for the love of god, let this thread die.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=492479