the "he's not as bad as Bush" argument

[ulysses]

Just got home from school and was greeted by a preemptive "challenge" to anyone who might even be considering voting third party in 2004, the overall theme of which seems to be "they're not as bad as Bush".

I'll happily admit that. Not a single one of the Democratic contenders for the nomination would be as bad as Bush in the White House.

Then again, I suspect that Bob fucking Barr would be better, in at least some respects, than Bush.

This is not to say that any of the candidates is a Republican. Even given my questions about Clark and my distaste for Lieberman, I don't think any of them is a Republican. Still, where do you draw the line? Is "better than Bush" good enough? If it is, then why not go ahead and follow Eric Alterman's post-9/11 advice that the Dems nominate Rudy Giuliani? He'd probably be better than Bush!

I'd say not. Setting the bar that low perpetuates a lot of problems, even if it stops them from getting even worse. I have to believe that we can do better than that.

[clar]

1. All we're discussing

is the current crop. Not Barr. Not Guiliani. And the fact remains that if you can't see the difference between our 9 candidates and bushco, you've got your eyes wide shut.

[ulysses]

3. you're missing my point

I do see differences between all of the candidates and Bush. Please show me where I said otherwise.

[Padraig18]

2. Good post!

I believe that each of us thinks that our candidate (or several candidates) ARE 'much better than that', which is why we support them as passionately as we do. :):hi:

[maha]

4. We don't have to settle.

Several of the Nine would be good candidates and good Presidents. There is no reason for us to settle for a substandard candidate, and I am hopeful we will not.

[AP]

5. A Democrat has to be at least twice as good as Bush to win.

Look at Gore. He was probably 175% the candidate Bush was, yet Bush is still president.

Dems can't run a candidate who's just a little better than Bush. The candidate's going to have to be phenomenal just to get over the hurdle of the money and media disadvantage.

[ulysses]

8. the definition of "phenomenal" is where we hit turbulence.

A phenomenal campaigner? speaker? money-raiser? populist?

I had governance more in mind than electability, actually, but you make a good point.

[GOPBasher]

6. Good point, but

I've never said that "better than Bush" is good enough. I mean, Bush's father would be better than the current Resident. However, I do believe that any of one of our candidates is a good candidate -- not just better than Bush, but at least a pretty good one. And I think most of our candidates -- Clark, Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Braun, Kucinich, and Edwards -- are excellent! So, I'm not voting for a "lesser of two evils." I'm voting for a candidate I truly believe in.

Having said that, I don't think that ANY candidate is ever 100% perfect. I think there's only one person in the nation who agrees with me 100% of the time: Me.

[ulysses]

14. thing is that "better than Bush"

(from here on out "btB") is the rationale behind "ABB", or "anyone but Bush". I'm not here to rag on any particular candidate - we disagree on a couple of the candidates you name as "excellent", but whatever - but I want to talk about the mindset that would seem to accept any candidate not named George W. Bush. Candidate "perfection" is very much beside the point.

[Zero Gravitas]

7. Given how bad Bush is

and what a firckin nightmare this Administration has been, then I would say that yes, and reasonably sane, competent individula would be better than bush. Even a moderate Republican. So to vote 3rd party and essentialy vote for four more years of Bush* would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[zonmoy]

52. cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Even if you know that your state is going to go a certain direction without your help. As for anybody being better than bush would the devil himself be better than bush.

[ulysses]

53. sorry

I don't vote for Republicans. Even moderate Republicans.

[no name no slogan]

9. Actually, Barr WOULD be better than the Shrub in one way...

Barr has been doing a lot of anti-Patriot Act activism lately. There's a lot of libertarian-leaning Repubs who are as against the act as any freedom-loving Dem. But I agree wholeheartedly with your point. We shouldn't have to settle for "just a little bit better" than the Shrub.

[lastliberalintexas]

10. Thank you Uly

I am a Democrat who believes very deeply in supporting the party. What some people don't seem to realize is that I (and many others) firmly believe that this ABB theory is not truly supporting the party. It is simply being anti-Shrub (an maybe pro-DLC?). There are worse things than Shrub, as evidenced by what is happening in Texas right now. Simply getting rid of him is not enough.

If our candidate is simply a nicer/kinder/smarter face of the status quo, then we will accomplish nothing!


Besides, as I have repeatedly reminded people on this site, MY VOTE DOES NOT COUNT IN NOV ANYWAY. I live in Texas, people.

[gully]

18. ABB is about the differences between the two partys and wether

or not you recognize them. I do, therefore I shall vote BUSH OUT in 2004. It's not about voting for a Republican to replace Bush. It's about voting for someone who has to adhere to the basic principals of the Democratic party.

Let me remind you all of one very chilling fact. There are SIX supreme court justices who will likely retire in the next 4 years. Who do you want appointing them?

Hey last liberal: Molly Ivins says "vote your heart in the primary, and your head in the general election." I tend to agree with her ;)

Gotta love them liberal Texans! Molly, Ann Richards, Jim Hightower...etc

[lastliberalintexas]

29. I could write in my cat's name in Nov

and it wouldn't matter one whit. I LIVE IN TEXAS! My vote won't count anyway, except in some irrelevant bragging contest over who won the irrelevant popular vote.


You are right that this is about the difference between the 2 parties. I want there to continue to be a difference, and that is why I won't give a loyalty oath to a kinder face of the PNAC/military industrial complex agenda. I don't want my party to disintegrate even further into an "opposition" party that can't even elect officials or show a spine.

[gully]

39. Well if you leave the party, it surely will...

:shrug:

[Zero Gravitas]

51. popular vote is not irrelevant

sure only the Electoral votes "count" but I for one beleive that the only legitmate leadership comes from a democratic vote. Bush is not legitmate not only because of the stealing of the elction, but alos because he got half a million votes fewer than "the other guy". The Electoral College is just plain wrong, it throws my vote away too.

[ulysses]

31. heh

Jim Hightower...etc

Who did Hightower support in 2000?

[gully]

40. Yea, but Granny D and Michael Moore realize the catastropic results..

of the Bush administration. To bad Nader didn't realize it in 2000.

I can only hope Jim Hightower will have an awakeing as well.

[ulysses]

43. Hightower has been busting his ass

on the Rolling Thunder tours, trying to change the dynamic instead of just accepting it. *That's* your awakening right there.

[SammyWinstonJack]

55. And I guess now the possibility

exists where we won't even get to vote for which of the nine we want, is that correct? No vote in choosing the Dem. Nominee and our vote won't count in Nov. What's the point in voting at all in '04 in this state?

[ShaneGR]

11. Answer me this question about the Green Party

It seems to me that the Greens require some sort of ideological purity. What exactly are these positions that the Green Party represents? In what State or localities are these Greens working for these positions. Are there any voting records for the Green Party officials?

When you can provide me with some sort of clear platform, that I can accept or reject based on the issues, and then provide me with some sort of real apparatus for governing an actual government, I would consider thinking about anything other than a Democrat. I want to vote for people who will actually be RUNNING our government. And yes, if I have to I will accept a marginal good over a terrible evil.

[ulysses]

15. who said boo about the Greens?

For your edification, their platform is here, but I'm talking about the Democrats.

Ok, don't know why the link isn't working...

http://www.gp.org/platform/2000/index.html

[ShaneGR]

19. No you're talking the Greens, and anyone who knows you knows that

You're a longtime Green person. You're here talking about accepting something bad, as if there is a real alternative to your presumed bias against the Dems.

What is that real alternative? I asked some pretty clear points. I asked you to compare the Green Party platform vs. the Dem platform. Explain why the Green Party is better. Then explain what elected Greens have done to improve their localities.

[IrateCitizen]

22. Well, I know uly, and I know he's not a Green!

Who appointed you commissar anyway, sgr2?

BTW -- your last post pretty much rendered your contributions to this thread irrelevant.

[ulysses]

24. well, no.

I know how deeply it annoys you, but I've never been anything but a Democrat. Sorry.

And I posted the Green platform for you.

[IrateCitizen]

20. Because to some here, if you question the Dems, you're for the Greens

It appears that sgr2 falls into that category.

The thing that kills me about people with that kind of outlook is that THEY have the audacity to accuse OTHERS of demanding "ideological purity". :wtf:

It makes me want to run to the window and see if the sky has turned yellow and the sun blue, because I'm thinking I've landed in Bizarro World!

[ShaneGR]

26. Actually, I don't think I'm doing any kind of witch-hunt

I'm simply asking someone to defend there positions. You're the one freaking out, posting cute little wtf's, and offering nothing of substance.

[ulysses]

27. ok, then how about

if you actually address my positions?

[Forkboy]

32. Maybe your little group of friends can attack uly

for not being dem enough :eyes:

[ulysses]

35. oh hell

This isn't even big league yet, Forkie. :) I'm waiting for the pms informing me that I'm not, in fact, a Democrat and never have been...

[Forkboy]

41. hey...I get those too

from the thinking challenged :)

[ulysses]

47. it's been a while for me

Is the MDP slipping in its vigilance? :D

[Rowdyboy]

12. It all a matter of personal political choice....

I respect your right to support any of our candidates and I don't speak ill of any of them (except occasionally Lieberman). I've followed the Democratic party since 1970 and I don't feel I've ever supported a candidate who was less than the best. Better than Bush isn't a question I ask. They're obviously all better than Bush. I look for a superior candidate who people can relate to. I've found mine and I'm sure you'll settle on yours. You have a lot of good choices so it won't be easy.

[dolstein]

13. This is a straw man argument

Even the most moderate Democrat in the field would be a HUGE improvement over Bush.

Don't believe me? Well, here's a short list of differences:

-- judicial nominees that are actually willing to respect what's left of the Warren and Burger court precedents
-- an attorney general that actually believes in civil rights
-- an EPA director that actually believes in protecting the environment
-- a Secretary of Labor that actually believes in unions
-- a budget director that actually believes in balancing the budget
-- a Secretary of Education that actually believes in public schools.

In addition, the bargaining position of Democrats in the Congress would be vastley improved because a Democratic president could be counted on to veto any right-wing legislation.

[Selwynn]

17. edit - shouldn't single one person out.

[ulysses]

21. is it?

Let's go, then. Take just one example.

a Secretary of Education that actually believes in public schools.


Tell me how a candidate who supports voucher programs would nominate a Sec/Education "that actually believes in public schools".

Would someone who gets my support simply on the basis of being btB *necessarily* support the things you talk about here? I'd say not.

[IrateCitizen]

23. Don't confuse the discussion with facts -- stick to vague generalities

[ulysses]

28. there be devils in them details

:D

:hi:

[dsc]

33. there is one, count him one, candidate

who has talked about supporting vouchers. But the teachers unions, who send 1 in 4 our the delegates to the convention, would not permit a secretary of education who believed in vouchers to be nominated by a Democratic President. Also that one candidate, has said time and time again that he only supports vouchers usning funds which wouldn't otherwise go to education .

[ulysses]

34. two, actually, unless

Clark's limited support has been disproved. It may have been.

I still can't say that a candidate who supports even limited vouchers would necessarily nominate a Secretary of Education who believes in public schools, and even you are missing my point. The point is the mindset, not the candidate.

[GOPBasher]

25. Now you're just getting crazy.

What does the EPA have to do with protecting the environment?

What does the Secretary of Labor have to do with labor unions?

What does a budget directer have to do with balencing the budget?

What does a Secretary of Education have to do with public schools?

And come one, do we REALLY need an attorney general who cares about our civil rights?

I think you're just WAYYYY to picky there, dolstein. LOL

[Selwynn]

16. By all means, support your "best" choice... until

... the nomination is made, and your best choice isn't nominated. My objecction is to those who would rather contribute to a Bush victory than support a Democratic nominee that they didn't support in the primaries. I think that's pretty sad.

[ulysses]

30. I will support

(at least at this point) nearly every candidate should they wind up as the nominee. I do, however, have the stones to draw a line where a candidate loses my support, even in the general.

I still fail to see how this makes me remarkably different from the centrists that the party has courted for so long.

[JVS]

44. Because all leftists owe their vote to the Democratic party

or so it is believed in these parts.

[ulysses]

46. careful, now.

Talk like that will get you accused to secretly supporting Bush.

:silly:

[GOPBasher]

50. That's very true.

"I still fail to see how this makes me remarkably different from the centrists that the party has courted for so long."

I agree. We need centrists AND leftists to win in 2004. If we lose too much of either one, we'll lose the election.

[ulysses]

54. a question, then.

I agree. We need centrists AND leftists to win in 2004. If we lose too much of either one, we'll lose the election.

Why don't centrists face the same level of vitriol that the left does?

[Evil_Dewers]

36. Plug for the Greens

Ralph Nader is not as bad as Bush...

[ulysses]

37. he's not, as far as it goes.

Join the growing line of those who've missed the point here.

As a side note: if I *did* want to spend all day on DU pushing/advocating for the Greens, I could do worse than bringing up valid concerns I have with the Democrats and letting y'all do my "dirty work". You're the ones who want to talk about Nader and the GP, not me.

[Forkboy]

42. lmao

your obsession is almost a thing of beauty...or tragic comedy.

[leftofthedial]

38. the BEST we can do is to elect the Democratic nominee

there is no other option. It's either Bush or the Dem nominee.

we should work to make the Dem nominee as liberal as possible, but once the nomination is made, we have but one choice.

[ulysses]

45. where's your line?

If "we have but one choice" is your line, fine. Knock yourself out. I'll accept a great deal, and compromise a great deal, but I refuse to accept that I have but one choice. That's me.

[Pastiche423]

49. The ABB mindset

is not electing the BEST. IMHO, it is lazy thinking. In these dire times, we should be thinking how BEST we can effect change in our country.

[Laszlo_Hollyfeld]

48. I don't like the idea of relying only on 'better than Bush' as

a philosophy. I don't like it because it harkens up images of my mom spouting homespun wisdom in the body of the phrase "out of the frying pan, into the fire." Unfortunately, I have the same general response to Anyone But Bush.

I haven't decided who I'll support for the presidency yet, but I'm certain that whoever I choose to support, it'll be a well researched, well thought out, well reasoned choice which I believe will help to bring about the downfall of the crudheads currently in office.

[quaker bill]

56. You are missing the point

For me, the "better than Bush*" line comes into play after the nomination process. Until then I will support the democratic candidate I most prefer.

You do have a point in that you have to dig pretty deep to find someone that would be worse than Bush*. So this test alone is not much of a hurdle to cross.

That being aside, voting for a third party candidate is the quickest way to assure that no part of your political agenda ever becomes policy.

I know of no way that any of the Green Party's 10 key values were advanced by the votes cast for Mr. Nader in 2000. Nor were any of Ross Perot's policy agendas furthered by the votes for him in 1992. Niether were John Anderson's nor George Wallace's, nor Pat Buchanan's agendas furthered by their respective campaigns (and on and on...).

[quaker bill]

57. You are missing the point

For me, the "better than Bush*" line comes into play after the nomination process. Until then I will support the democratic candidate I most prefer.

You do have a point in that you have to dig pretty deep to find someone that would be worse than Bush*. So this test alone is not much of a hurdle to cross.

That being aside, voting for a third party candidate is the quickest way to assure that no part of your political agenda ever becomes policy.

I know of no way that any of the Green Party's 10 key values were advanced by the votes cast for Mr. Nader in 2000. Nor were any of Ross Perot's policy agendas furthered by the votes for him in 1992. Niether were John Anderson's nor George Wallace's, nor Pat Buchanan's agendas furthered by their respective campaigns (and on and on...).

[quaker bill]

58. You are missing the point

For me, the "better than Bush*" line comes into play after the nomination process. Until then I will support the democratic candidate I most prefer.

You do have a point in that you have to dig pretty deep to find someone that would be worse than Bush*. So this test alone is not much of a hurdle to cross.

That being aside, voting for a third party candidate is the quickest way to assure that no part of your political agenda ever becomes policy.

I know of no way that any of the Green Party's 10 key values were advanced by the votes cast for Mr. Nader in 2000. Nor were any of Ross Perot's policy agendas furthered by the votes for him in 1992. Niether were John Anderson's nor George Wallace's, nor Pat Buchanan's agendas furthered by their respective campaigns (and on and on...).

[quaker bill]

59. You are missing the point

For me, the "better than Bush*" line comes into play after the nomination process. Until then I will support the democratic candidate I most prefer.

You do have a point in that you have to dig pretty deep to find someone that would be worse than Bush*. So this test alone is not much of a hurdle to cross.

That being aside, voting for a third party candidate is the quickest way to assure that no part of your political agenda ever becomes policy.

I know of no way that any of the Green Party's 10 key values were advanced by the votes cast for Mr. Nader in 2000. Nor were any of Ross Perot's policy agendas furthered by the votes for him in 1992. Niether were John Anderson's nor George Wallace's, nor Pat Buchanan's agendas furthered by their respective campaigns (and on and on...).

[quaker bill]

60. You are missing the point

For me, the "better than Bush*" line comes into play after the nomination process. Until then I will support the democratic candidate I most prefer.

You do have a point in that you have to dig pretty deep to find someone that would be worse than Bush*. So this test alone is not much of a hurdle to cross.

That being aside, voting for a third party candidate is the quickest way to assure that no part of your political agenda ever becomes policy.

I know of no way that any of the Green Party's 10 key values were advanced by the votes cast for Mr. Nader in 2000. Nor were any of Ross Perot's policy agendas furthered by the votes for him in 1992. Niether were John Anderson's nor George Wallace's, nor Pat Buchanan's agendas furthered by their respective campaigns (and on and on...).