What if a Democratic Senator said they'd support Nader for President?

[dolstein]

Would people around here respond just as critically as they've responded to Zell Miller's endorsement of Bush? Just curious.

[w13rd0]

1. I sure as hell would...

...and I'm not a Nader-hater. But this goes way beyond the pale...

[_NorCal_D_]

70. Same here.

It's perhaps not as bad as endorsing Bush, but it's still the same form of back-stabbing.

[LoZoccolo]

2. Yes.

I'd have trouble deciding which is worse.

[stevedeshazer]

3. It is not the same thing

Bush is in power. Nader will never be in power.

Yes, I know many maintain that Bush = Nader, silly as that may be.

[jiacinto]

5. The Nader apologists and extremists come out in full force

again nt.

[stevedeshazer]

7. I am neither.

I hope you don't think I'm the 'full force' of Nader apologists. I merely voted for the man.

[BurtWorm]

8. Where?! Where?!

Stevie D doesn't sound like an extremist or an apologist. His point is well taken with me, anyway. Endorsing Bush is a fuck you to the party as a whole. Endorsing Nader is more like a fuck you to the leadership. There is a difference. (It won't happen anyway. What Dem Senator has the cojones to buck the leadership?)

[Iverson]

22. What's your test?

Is any failure to excoriate Greens considered apologia? What about blithely excusing Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush? Is that extremist apologia or no?

Cite exactly the extremism in the note to which you're responding if you want to be believed.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

53. Utter predictability is your strong suit n/t

[Forkboy]

85. LMAO

one post equals "full force" to Carlos :eyes:

[salin]

99. if they are left extremists (but in the party) - then what should we call

democrats who endorse Bush? Should we throw rage at those 'greens' but polite tut tuts at the dems who support bush? I really don't understand the difference in the valence of the criticism anger (where it seems more angry at the 'nader' folks... while mildly polite "I disagree" with the bushsupporting Miller types.)

[jiacinto]

4. I would

nt

[kyrasdad]

6. YES!

you betcha

[JackSwift]

9. Miller is doing what is

necessary to keep his job with his fascist constituency. What would I do if a Democrat endorses Nader? It isn't going to happen. You've got, what, 48 Democratic senators? You can have all 48 of them to my none, and I'll put up a buck. What do you say? You might think initially with 48 chances for an endorsment that you have some good odds, but I think I have a sure thing.

[Sean Reynolds]

11. No, Miller isn't doing it to 'keep his job'.

After his term is up, in I believe 2006, he's gone. He said he will retire after it ends.

[TSIAS]

12. Miller's done in '04

Wonder if he'll endorse Isaakson?

I don't know if we even have a candidate. Looks like Young, Cleland, and Nunn have decided against running.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. Actually he's doing it to GET a cushy job now that he's leaving the senate

Any odds on where he'll end up? Lobbyist for the defense industry?

[CMT]

61. Zell is not running again in 2004

so it isn't that.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. Oh I think many of us would be consistent on that point, yes

Why? Do you think we are being unfair to Zell in any way?

He is the OPPOSITION PARTY.

[pasadenaboy]

13. Yes

unless the dem was up by 10+ points, then it would be harmless. but in a contested election, it would be the same as supporting the republican.

[Booberdawg]

14. Of course. Why do you ask?

Pssst! Nader is the OPPOSITION. Endorsing Nader (Green) for President only helps further the Republican cause. The Green Party is just as much an enemy of the Democratic Party as the Republican Party as far as I'm concerned. In some ways worse.

[jiacinto]

15. I so agree with you!

nt

[stevedeshazer]

17. Is this some kind of joke?

"The Green Party is just as much an enemy of the Democratic Party as the Republican Party."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Nothing like dissing the people

who agree with you on many issues.

That supercilious attitude will REALLY persuade the wandering Greens to come back to the fold, won't it?

As far as a current Dem senator endorsing a Green, I can't think of anyone who would.

I can imagine defections to the Greens by Senators and Congresscritters only under this condition:

The Dems nominate a "me-too" candidate who acts as if his job is to avoid offending Republicans. He goes around saying, "I support the president." He loses the election anyway (or because of that).

If that happens, I think you will see people jumping off a party that will have become a sinking ship.

[stevedeshazer]

19. *ding*

[WillyT]

30. Absotively LL !!!

If we can't get our shit together this election cycle and oust this bunch of criminals from the White House, I'm going Green, or to New Zealand, or maybe both.

4 more years of this shit...NOT!!!

:grr::nuke::mad:

[jonnyblitz]

51. I picture more spineless "centrist" DEMS supporting Bush

then the Nader support scenario. It's an unrealistic scenario not worth wasting the time contemplating. More Bush suck-up centrists then far leftie senators at the present time.

[Brian Sweat]

78. Nader said that there is no difference between the Democrats

and Republicans. If he believes this, then he must believe that he has less in common with the Democrats than the Republicans do. Who are we to say he is wrong? The Greens are an opposition party and we have no more reason to make common cause with them than we do with the Republicans.

[Terwilliger]

83. FFS! Miller endorsed Bush! what more has to happen...

before Nader is proved right?

[Brian Sweat]

102. Nothing, because Zell Miller IS the Democratic party.

[Booberdawg]

20. No, not a joke

I'm serious as a goddamn heart attack. The Green Party is an OPPOSITION PARTY to the Democratic Party. What about that don't you understand? Running a Green candidate in the 2004 Presidential election will only serve to HELP GEORGE W FUCKING BUSH.

You're goddamned right the Green Party is an enemy of the Democratic Party. As long as the liberal vote is split the right is ALWAYS going to win, and I am not agreeable to a small percentage of Greens willing to martyr an unwilling majority on principle so we can end up with nothing at all instead of a half loaf. That's just plain fucking stupid and insanity.

[Iverson]

21. actions ... words ...

Have a bipartisan day.

[Booberdawg]

24. Hi Iverson. It's my turn to buy

:donut: cream or sugar?

[Iverson]

27. black

It's early.
See, you do recognize an ally after all.

[Booberdawg]

31. Yes, I do remember you

and fondly so.

As I recall, we had a lively tussle over a position I had taken, and in fact I had overstated, and it took me a couple exchanges to realize that you simply wanted me to acknowledge the fact that I had made reference to an erroneous generalization several posts prior. Once you practically had to draw me a picture and hold a light on it for me, I realized what you were asking of me. You thought I was avoiding the issue but I wasn't. I was just slow realizing what you were asking.

You were right. ;) I could see that you simply wanted an principled discussion and thus felt it only fair that I comply with your request and acknowledge the offending comment and withdraw it.

I wish all disagreements could be dealt with in such a way. We are still on opposite sides of the issue but don't have to resort to personal attacks and can share a cup of coffee this morning. :D

[Iverson]

40. different, but not opposite

It seems to me one of the great myths of American politics that the two major parties are opposites, and the range of political opinions must fit into one or the other of that binary opposite pair.

I suggest instead that political opinions exists more nearly along a continuum. If you look carefully, you may find a great many non-identical allies.

A few months ago, when I participated in candlelight vigils against the war, formal party affiliation was irrelevant. Had the subject come up, no one there would have declared their neighbor part of an opposite effort.

You may end up deciding that you don't agree with Greens on issues or tactics, but I think you know well that equating them with (retch) Republicans is an error.

:donut:

[Terwilliger]

42. well, no

it's in Boober's (and other Dems) best interests to dog Greens as some kind of neo-Republican group...

It's definitely true that people on the left side of the spectrum are not all cookie-cutter cutouts, but that's what Dems want...they want people to fit into whatever spectrum gains them the vote. Any deviation from that is opposition. It's too bad, too...that's the reason I DON'T like Republicans.

[Iverson]

43. an old joke

This may be from Pat Paulsen, but I'm not sure.
There are two kinds of people: those who say there are two kinds of people, and those who don't.

It is possible to frame anything in terms of binary opposition, but that doesn't make it accurate.

[Booberdawg]

49. No, I don't equate Greens with Republicans

not at all. In fact I do support many of the same issues as the Green Party as well as the concerns of many of my Green comrades on this site. We are, afterall, liberals.

It is as you suggest more the tactics of the Green Party that I take issue with, and in particular the net effect of furthering Republican goals by splitting the available liberal vote and thereby diluting the impact of the left. And don't EVEN get me started on Nader, but not to worry - I do not hold my fellow Green comrades responsible for THAT jackass.

Perhaps it would surprise you to know that I am not among the number who dwell on the Green factor in the Florida fiasco. I never have been. Gore and the Democrats were getting fucked so many ways from here to next Tuesday and the cards were so utterly stacked in favor of bush that it's just impossible for me to lay that election on the Green factor alone. And frankly I wish my fellow Democrats here would give it a rest.

As a noteworthy aside - I have recently decided to better inform myself and armed myself with a stack of liberal and political books. I've made some interesting (and sickening) discoveries, and in particular a few tidbits about the 2000 election. To make a long story short, I am of the mind now that even the 500+ votes that favored bush in Florida would have been "massaged" if need be to work out in that asshole's favor, and we would have never heard that number anyway.

Not only that, but I had not known until a couple weeks ago that the same kind of voter role scrubbing and shenannigans had taken place in Tennessee, and that Gore probably most likely Tennessee too. Unfuckingbelievable. Needless to say, the Green Party bears no responsibility for these factors. But for the sake of argument, even if those 500+ votes in Florida would have come through for Gore, I still feel it's long past time for Democrats to drop that turd and move on.

As you might recall, it was the CA recall election that was the turning point for me where the Green vs. Dem issue is concerned. I still feel very strongly about that.

I do agree with your point as well that political opinions exist more nearly along a continuum. That is clear to me. Although in a bit of irony, you might note that in this very thread, a poster who I must assume is a Green member (because I don't know how else to explain it) has taken a rather extreme postion and placed me in the binary opposite of the spectrum that you speak of in your opening comment.

It is a pleasure, Mr Iverson :hi:

[stevedeshazer]

88. Serious cognitive dissonance on your part, Boob

Here, you say: "The Green Party is an OPPOSITION PARTY to the Democratic Party. What about that don't you understand? Running a Green candidate in the 2004 Presidential election will only serve to HELP GEORGE W FUCKING BUSH.

You're goddamned right the Green Party is an enemy of the Democratic Party."

And here, you say: "In fact I do support many of the same issues as the Green Party as well as the concerns of many of my Green comrades on this site. We are, afterall, liberals."

Which is it?

[Booberdawg]

89. They are not inconsistent

Nor are they mutually exclusive

The last quote refers to issues and concerns, the first two to Party, I stand by all three as stated.

The difference between Party and issues/concerns is left as an exercise for the reader.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Booberdawg]

37. Well Terwilliger

I don't think your horse shit personal swipe deserves a response. But if those are the only candidates that you feel represent the Democratic Party, this website, or me, I suggest you'd feel more comfortable here. Green Party Forums and Discussion Groups

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[Booberdawg]

58. I missed it. Must have been a dandy

[Terwilliger]

67. nahh...same ole...

message never gets through anyway

[ulysses]

23. Centrist Democrat endorses Bush...hey, there's a Green! Get him!

:eyes:

[Booberdawg]

25. Hold your water!

Check out the threads on Zell Miller. We are ready to draw and quarter him and spit his sorry ass out, so don't play that tune with us. It won't sell.

[ulysses]

26. I've been on those threads.

My comment was primarily for dolstein's benefit.

[Booberdawg]

32. okay. I misread the point then.

:hi:

[Padraig18]

28. Yes.

Democrats support the Democratic nominee--- period.

[rman]

29. Bush is a war monger and a liar, Nader is extreme when compared to DLC,

but Nader's ideas are much closer to traditional Democrats ideas then Bush's ideas.
DLC walks and talks much like the neocons.

[liberalcapitalist]

33. absolutley not!

Anyone who says "yes" is a partisan parasite. Partisanism is nasty no matter which side (right or wrong) you're on. Now I feel strongly that we must defeat Bush, and a Democratic senator endorsing Nader over the Democratic nominee would NOT be helping this come to fruition, however, to compare the endorsement of a candidate who in all likelihood will be better than the Democratic nominee to endorsing an evil and corrupt regime is absolutely ridiculous!

[Booberdawg]

35. Bzzzzzt! WRONG!

Endorsing a candidate of an OPPOSITION party (Green) is tantamount to handing the election to G. W. FUCKING BUSH! A Green candidate is not "better" to the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

A partisan parasite?? What do you think this is - a High School pep rally? WTF?? This is a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - IT IS PARTISAN BY DEFINITION!

Ridiculous, indeed. :eyes:

[liberalcapitalist]

39. TANTAMOUNT does not mean EQUAL TO

Get a grip on the English language, buddy, cuz you proved my point.

MOTIVE counts: If a Democratic senator endorses Nader, it's because he is supporting Nader's positions on policy and the noble idea that we should vote for the best candidate, which will EVENTUALLY force the sorry Democratic party to nominate people like Kucinich instead of the lesser of two evils. He isn't endorsing Nader so that Bush can win-- GET A GRIP-- even though this may be the net effect.

If a Democratic senator endorses Bush, he does so because he truly endorses a theieving, wicked, greedy, oppressive regime.

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE, despite the fact that the net effect may be the same.

You can be a partisan if you want. In the meantime, I will formulate my own ideas and opinions.

[Booberdawg]

50. The net effect is the same - that counts

No Democratic Senator is going to endorse a Green candidate.

There is not a HUGE DIFFERENCE. The Green party is an OPPOSITION Party. Any party other than the Democratic Party is an opposition party to the Democratic Party. Get it? This is politics, not philosophy class or basket weaving. Politics is partisan - get used to it.

The Green Party nor it's members are not entitled to any say in what Democratic candidate runs in the Presidential election. Kucinich, while I like him, does not have the base or support to win the primary much less the general election, so get over that pipe dream because that is just absurd.

You bet I'm partisan. I want to win, not martyr the majority of the Democratic Party to appease a small minority of Green members who refuse to see that half a loaf is better than nothing. Btw, I don't believe most Greens are going to do that; there are a few who would though and their numbers are not worth the trouble to bother with.

And I'm not your buddy.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[Brian Sweat]

80. So then you disagree with the people that criticise Miller?

[liberalcapitalist]

90. of course not

I don't even come close to seeing the parallel. Miller is supporting a fascist regime, he deserves criticism.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. If Nader Ran As The Democratic Nominee I Would Vote For Him

NT

[Terwilliger]

44. funny, that wasn't the question, the point, or the focus

but I'm glad you brought it up :shrug:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. I Wanted To Make You Feel Good

-:)

[Terwilliger]

66. I don't feel good about Democrats, Brian

they are Republican-lite and this country is going to hell

nothing to feel good about, sir

[Tinoire]

62. So would I- in a heartbeat!

Yeah, yeah, I know that wasn't the question... :hi:

[Terwilliger]

63. oh, COME on

I laid out no insult in the deleted post.

[JVS]

103. This is becoming more and more common

If you give a response with any bite to it deletion is inevitable.

[Loonman]

45. I'd assume they were either drunk or on LSD

:)

[Jack Rabbit]

47. The comparison doesn't quite work for me

Of course, there would be calls for the head of any Democratic Senator who would fail to endorse the Democratic candidate. In fact, I believe the Democratic leadership (we'll call them that for want of a better word) would be swifter to punish a wayward Green Democrat than they will be to punish Senator Miller. But that is a digression.

There is a deeper problem with Senator Miller's endorsement of Mr. Bush. It is less a problem that Senator Miller has announced that he will not vote for his party's nominee, but that he has announced that he will vote to retain a man of low character born to a high place, a man who has proven time and time again that he is unworthy of the public's trust, a man who stands outside the traditions of American democratic thought. This is a matter that goes beyond the partisan politics in which Mr. Dolstein frames his question.

There is no good reason for Senator Miller or anyone else to support Bush. Bush stole the election, uses tax legislation to give the keys of the treasury to his cronies and abrogates the Bill of Rights in the name of national security. Never before has an occupant of the White House so closely modeled himself after a banana republic dictator. If that isn't enough, Bush led the country into war when all of his stated reasons were false and he knew they were false. Most banana republic dictators wouldn't do that. Never in the human history has there been such a national betrayal.

It is hard to imagine, even allowing for the perfidy involved in Bush's ascension to power, an established system of free elections producing a less worthy leader than Bush. Regardless of party affiliation or ideology, any reasonable or knowledgeable person who would urge that Americans embrace this man's leadership should be ashamed of himself.

Seantor Miller's endorsement of Bush is not merely a betrayal of the Democratic Party and its values, it is a betrayal of America, democracy and the principles of constitutional government. That couldn't be said of a vote for Nader.

[Hep]

48. Damn right I would

Why would a democratic senator endorse someone whose stated goal is to destroy the D party?

[ajacobson]

52. Different View on Greens

I've come to Democratic Party from the Green Party because of the urgency of getting Bush out. Look at Greens like canaries in the coal mine. If people start moving toward the Greens, its because the DP is not giving them what they need--a clear progressive message with decent candidates. And I'll tell you, if people have gotten frustrated to the point that they are willing to support a party that offers very little in the way of electability, some heavy maintenance needs to be done.

..just another view..

[Iverson]

54. Welcome aboard, ajacobson.

Brace yourself. Civility toward Greens means that something is coming your way.

:hi:

[Brian Sweat]

56. As far as I am concerned there would be no difference between

a Democrat who supported Nader and a Democrat who supports Bush.

[West Coast Democrat]

57. What a STUPID question!

Of course!

[Ficus]

59. Actually

I can recall some local office holding Dems supporting nader. I never held any hostility towards them. Just my opinion. Then again Gore won Iowa.

I am a liberal first, and a Democrat second. I don't blindly hold my allegiances to a Donkey or some name that has changed meaning many times. I do however hold allegiance to my values.

Equating someone endorsing a right wing conservative with someone endorsing a liberal is nonsense.

edit: I am and have always been a Democrat since I was born. Proudly. But not blindly.

:dem: :dem:

[Skidmore]

65. Howdy, to a fellow Iowan

As for the question at hand, I would consider any other liberal candidate BUT Nader. Since he took money from the R's, I do not trust him.

[CMT]

60. I would be

eom.

[Tinoire]

64. I wouldn't respond quite as negatively as I did for Zell

because we have much more in common with the Greens than we do with the Republicans.

Say what you want about the Greens but their platform is definitely progressive- something we can say neither about the Republican platform or Bush's warped one.

[Lurking Dem]

68. Why doesn't the Democratic Party

pull his credentials? I don't understand why they can't do that.

[Terwilliger]

69. trying to leave 'erroneous' conclusions aside...I still have a question...

would you, dolstein, rather that a Democratic senator endorsed Bush or endorsed Nader, if that was the choice?

[Iverson]

71. just in case your question doesn't get answered ...

... I have a fallback question if you should want it.

Would you rather that Democratic Senators work with Republicans or work with Greens?

Remember, that's only in case your question doesn't get answered. Cheers!

[pmbryant]

72. I second Terwilliger's question

What in the world purpose does asking the original question serve? No Democratic Senator has endorsed Nader. No Democratic Senator is remotely likely to endorse Nader or any other 3rd party candidate for President.

Certainly, I hope that dolstein shares our rage at Zell Miller for this unconscionalbe act of endorsing our most bitter enemy, a man who is both leading the country on the path to financial insolvency and eternal fear of terrorism and trying to destroy the one thing that stands in his way, the Democratic Party.

Certainly he is not trying to distract us from Miller's traitorous words and instead trying to sow divisiveness amongst us.

At least I would like to think so.

--Peter

[ulysses]

73. of course he's not doing th...HEY, THERE'S THAT GREEN AGAIN!

[dolstein]

75. For me, endorsing a Green is every bit as traitorus

The Green Party is an OPPOSITION party, just like the Republican Party.

Indeed, in one respect, the Green Party is even worse than the Republicans. At least the Republicans have demonstrated the ability to elect their candidates at the highest levels of government. All the Green Party has demonstrated is the ability to deny electoral victory to Democratic candidates in extremely close races. So not only is the Green Party an opposition party, but they are fundamentally a SPOILER party.

I don't believe that Democratic officials should be in the business of endorsing members of an opposition party, period.

[ulysses]

79. all things being equal, then,

can we look forward to your denunciations of Zell Miller being as...strenuous as your denunciations of the Greens? Or (no particular reason to be coy here) does he get a pass because he's a centrist Dem?

[Padraig18]

92. I denounce Zell Miller in loud and ringing tones---traitorous asshole! n/t

[ulysses]

98. hi, Padraig

You have to understand - as much as Miller pisses me off (and has for three years now), his endorsement of Bush has presented us with an unprecedented chance to see if the Green-hating centrists on DU respond to a Democrat supporting Bush in the same way that they have to Democrats supporting Greens.

Some have. Some have not. :)

[Iverson]

81. Let's examine that position.

"The Green Party is an OPPOSITION party, just like the Republican Party."

Since the Green Party is clearly not just like the Republican Party in its platform or internal structure or status, your thesis can be internally consistent only if you equate everything that is not part of the Democratic Party. Thus, the set of not-Democrats is all the same.

Such a view is dualistic. It sacrifices any opportunities to work with not-Democrats because they are all of the same oppositional set.

"Indeed, in one respect, the Green Party is even worse than the Republicans. At least the Republicans have demonstrated the ability to elect their candidates at the highest levels of government."

This makes no sense. If all not-Democrats are the same, then you should want them equally to fail to achieve elective office. Your allowing a redeeming feature in Republicans (their success!) elevates them within the set of not-Democrats. That is inconsistent. You cannot argue that all opposition is the same and in the next breath argue that it is not.

Go ahead and have whatever preferences you like, but don't argue that all not-Democrats are the same and then give Republicans special status. If you happen to like Republicans better than you like Greens, then just be honest and say so.

Have a bipartisan day.

[Terwilliger]

82. Why the **** did you start this thread then?

Pissy because people were jumping on Miller? Shouldn't you have jumped on Miller?

OH, I forgot...Greens (who are simply better liberals) are OPPOSITION, when, in fact, it is Democrats who are centrist, which means they'll do both sides. Still, I've found most of the ones who compalin loudest about Greens have more in common with the Republicans than the Greens. Now, don't get pissy...this is an observation.

[sujan]

74. i would thank the senator

[MODemocrat]

76. If he was from my state, he could kiss my vote goodbye

If Miller doesn't support his own party, then why doesn't he just switch over to the republican party and get it over with! No one would miss him here on this side. :puke:

[Doomsayer13]

77. depends on the race

[loyalsister]

84. I would be disgusted

Right now, it's especially important for Dems to show allegiance to each other, and to the rank and file supporters who donate to Democratic candidates at state and federal levels, as well as just to the party. These people are disrespected when an official suggests that their donations and time are irrelevant to the process.

[Zorra]

86. I would not.

Supporting a lying, murderous neocon like shrub, who stands for everything that is wrong with the world, is a lot different than supporting Nader, who has a modicum of respectability.

I would not be pleased if a Dem Senator endorsed Nader, but I'd be far less critical.

[UTUSN]

87. Uh, Means, Dem Senator Otta Drop Dead & DIE??? n/t

[mndemocrat_29]

93. Yes, I'd consider it the same thing

n/t

[John_H]

94. When are we going to get it?

As far as the election goes, Greens and Rethugs are indistinguishable. They want Dems to lose.

Like Zell Miller anyone who tries to help make dems lose is helping to ensure four more years of the most disasterous presidency in history.

We may just love Naders (in my view phony) positions, but let's get real. It's an election year.

[Iverson]

95. phony reductionism

"As far as the election goes, Greens and Rethugs are indistinguishable."

The simple may be easy, but it is not necessarily accurate.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[John_H]

100. Nah. Genuine, accurate, and obvious

Although I should probably defer to your intimiate knowledge of faulty claims of indistinguishability.

[Iverson]

101. phony rebuttal

"Although I should probably defer to your intimiate knowledge of faulty claims of indistinguishability."

You could always register for one of my classes. That should help reduce the incidence of straw men.

[jsw_81]

96. Absolutely

Any Democratic senator who endorses someone other than the Democratic candidate is a traitor and should be expelled from our caucus. The only exception would be if we nominated someone like Sharpton or Kucinich. Then it would be understandable if Dems started to defect.

[Iverson]

97. so much for absolutes

to the right
to the right
to the right, right, right