We,The Manipulated ...

[Samantha]

For some time now, our discussions have centered around "We, the People ... " We talked about the issues in the upcoming election and what was important to us in that election. If you think back four short weeks ago, our time and energy was consumed talking about issues that today, as we watch the New Hampshire primary take shape, are not on our political discussion table. Why is this?

The Republican strategists and the right-wing element of the Democratic party have totally taken control of the debate. This is not a good sign for Dems in general. It does explain, however, how a candidate such as Howard Dean, formerly 20 points ahead in New Hampshire -- the leading anti-war proponent -- has now signficantly dropped behind a candidate who voted yes on the resolution authorizing Bush* to launch a pre-emptive attack against Iraq. This is frightening to me.

Has the issue of the war in Iraq been completely diffused as an election maker or breaker by the Republican strategists? If so, is that why Kerry and Edwards, two of the four candidates many here at DU in the past refused to support, are successfully campaigning in New Hampshire without having to defend their votes on the Iraq war? Is this why in Iowa, where a great percentage of the voters were anti-war, the State caucused a preference for two who supported its inception? Four weeks ago, would you have thought this was possible?

I think we are being set up for a tremendous election 2004 fall. Our former frontrunner is sinking in the polls due to the nature of the change in the debate. Should he be eliminated and a pro-war candidate emerge as our candidate, that person will not be clearly differentiated from Bush* on what was one of our top hot button issues just four weeks ago. Instead, as the primaries proceed, we find ourselves discussing, as Rove proclaimed we would, the NRA attacking Kerry in the South, gay/lesbian marriage issues, and God in our political lives. These issues are surfacing everywhere we tune in for a debate. These are not issues which will remove Bush* from the White House in 2004. These are the issues of the Republican party, and they will win the debate everytime on them.

This is a political trap, and we are falling right into it.

Obviously, the media is playing its role in propping up the favorite son of the corporate media. Just four weeks ago, CNN was playing the war 24 hours 7 days a week. Today, since the issue of the war is being diffused, we focus on fat, celebrity trials, and halting the aging process.

Our leading contenders are criticising Leave No Child Behind and the Patriot Act, both of which they voted for. Should any of these emerge as the Democratic candidate, he will be viewed as just someone who says what he has to say to be elected, in other words, just another George Bush.*

Also not mentioned as a significant campaign issue in recent days: the loss of jobs. Once again, I am saying to you: this election debate is being controlled by the Republicans. If we, The People, do not turn the political talk back to the issues which we personally find to be of the utmost significance, we will lose this election because we allowed the debate to be taken from us. We will cease to be We, the People, and will have meekly submitted as We, the manipulated ....

If you are visiting this political site tonight, I ask you: what is this election about for you? Is it simply ridding the Nation of George Bush* (as the DLC is trying to brainwash you into thinking it is) or does it go a little deeper than that? Must we not only rid ourselves of Bush* but all those as well who dare to act, to talk, to think and to corrupt our American way of life?

What is this election about for you and are any of our Democratic strategists framing the debate to comport with those issues?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Trap kick

:kick:

[Samantha]

4. Thanks for kicking my thread but do you have any comments?

Let me tell you what prompted these remarks. I saw the remarks on DU about the CapGang show and remembered I taped it. Halfway into watching the show, I started asking myself, where are the issues? This is not My election discussion.

Do you want to know what they were discussing: Kerry's ice skating to attract blue collar workers' votes. Personally, ice skating is not my idea of a potent political discussion. There was no discussion about the war, no discussion about the 911 investigation, no discussion about the Wilson investigation, no discussion about jobs: in short, no discussion about anything I considered pertinent to this election. And that's when it occurred to me, this is why candidates who presented our position on the war, on the economy are fading fast, and I do mean fast. And that is why candidates we formerly viewed as those who attempted to imitate Bush* as escalating in the polls. A Bush* impersonator competing against Bush in an election will not win.

What Al Gore said is true. We cannot win elections if we do not differentiate between ourselves and George Bush.* We are not doing that today because we have totally lost control of the debate. In December, after Bush* is elected, we will gather back here at DU to resume the discussion on those issues which torment us but which we failed to bring to the surface at the time Americans were voting.

Does this not disturb you?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. Absolutely, it disturbs me. I didn't want to diminish the quality of

your post by being less eloquent than you were.

It's quite plain what's going on. But I think we are near the tipping-point. Politics as product isn't going down as well as it used to. The Democratic party better get this one right or I'm gone.



In December, after Bush* is elected, we will gather back here at DU to resume the discussion on those issues which torment us but which we failed to bring to the surface at the time Americans were voting.

This is my greatest fear.

[Samantha]

15. I feel the same way

the strategists which developed our 2002 approach are on the job again. And we will lose again. The panic is setting in for me.

But thank you for your comments. Just by agreeing with my comments, you make me feel this is not my imagination.

We won't solve the problem tonight. But at least now we are thinking about it.

You are a pretty smart person. Perhaps it will be you whom the political lightening bolt strikes tonight as you sleep. Tomorrow you will wake up with the answer -- what must we Dems do to win this election in a landslide -- and you will go to your computer and post the answer here. Right?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. If you watched the New Hampshire dinner that had all the

candidates, it was very revealing.

One candidate was running 2000 all over again.
Others were co-opting the popular messages and themes from this election.

Very transparent. I don't need manufactured content. I want the real thing.




Btw, you consistently produce some of the best posts on this board. Thanks for that. There was a time when that was primarily what this board was about. Thanks for reminding me.

[Samantha]

39. That btw just might be

the nicest thing anyone has said to me since I have been here. Thank you very much.

I saw the dinner. I thought it seemed pretty commercialized. People seem to have their lines down pat. There were one or two who seemed sincere. I won't get into names as I have repeatedly said this thread is about issues, not about personalities.

But at least we have started brainstorming and started a discussion as to ways to bring the debate back to issues close to our hearts. Perhaps tomorrow more ideas will come.

[formernaderite]

58. An NPR editorial echoed some of your sentiments

An editorial on NPR was very sound in demonstrating that we are seeing a public voting as pundits. The idea that one votes using their conscience has been replaced by voting strategically. The pundit class has virtually instructed those watching the race whom to saddle, as a strategic finisher.
The primaries are mainly voting groups, rather than individuals who may or may not have been following campaigns very closely. Primary voting groups tend to vote for a candidate who is providing their constituency with "something" tangible.
In this primary we have the interesting facet, that so three Senators are running. I wouldn't be suprised if some of the special interest groups are hedging their bets that one or two of them will "help" them out in the Senate with issues, even if they don't bring the presidency home.
Of course in the general election, the broad appeal has to be met. Most of the population is not watching cable news 24/7 and will at times vote randomly based on emotional appeals. So we'll have to wait and see how these newly annointed candidates fair against the Bush machine. As a Dean supporter, I'm a bit depressed at the hostility the press and the democratic establishment has shown towards him.

[Samantha]

65. Another thoughtful, quality response -- thank you

I can tell from reading your post this editorial does comport with my thinking. I was listening last night to a commentator discussing the great percentage of voters in New Hampshire who remain undecided or subject to flux. The difference between these voters and many who patronize DU is that we have a history of knowledge of most of the candidates (and George Bush*). We come into an election bringing certain facts about certain politicians that preclude us from even considering their candidacy. People like us, political junkies, are the ones who do our election homework. Voters who at this point are undecided and will make up their minds at the last moment are reflex voters. They vote their gut, which is, of course, their prerogative, but enough doing so turn an election into nothing more than a political crap shoot.

I suppose this is why we have such a wide divide, the voting public is fractured between those who do their homework and those who do not, those who vote their conscience and those who go with a perceived winner, those who vote the issues, those who vote the party line. At this juncture, how will we as a collective voting people ever elect a candidate who is acceptable to both sides of the political street. I don't think we will any time soon, and as a result, the Country will remain polarized for years to come.

Thank you for your input to this thread. I agree it is very depressing the hostility shown to Howard Dean by both the press and the so-called party elite. Dean is getting the same treatment from both those elements that Al Gore endured. Somehow, someway we must send a message that just as this is our Country and we want to take it back from Bush*, the Democratic party is our party and we want to take it back from the Bush* enablers. Howard Dean's message of Democrats returning to classic Democratic ideas is one I find very appealing. It does not comport however with the party elite who are just as guilty as the Repubs of catering to corporate interests against the better interests of the American working public. Something must change if the United States government is ever going to work for the betterment of the Average American Jane and Joe.

[KoKo]

18. Yes, Rummy, that's my fear, too. That we would be back here starting all

over. But, I suspect that Skinner will have had enough of this, and I know that I will have, also. I think there will be other "movements" that would be worth more of my time than "Business as Usual."

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. I'm with ya.

[drfemoe]

48. Oh Dear YES!! n/t

[Sterling]

75. And...

In the mean time we will most likely be asked to leave DU for not backing a pro war nominee.



" In December, after Bush* is elected, we will gather back here at DU to resume the
discussion on those issues which torment us but which we failed to bring to the surface at
the time Americans were voting. "

[lastknowngood]

2. spot on

you have sused the problem. That is why we need to keep the grass roots going if they direct us to a pro war/corporate anti freedom anti liberty candidate they win either way.

[lancdem]

3. The early front-runners often don't get the nomination

Dean losing support is not some conspiracy. People weren't paying close attention until recently; it was inevitable the race would get more competitive when they did.

[Samantha]

6. My question is not where is my candidate

My question is where are my issues?

Two and a half years ago, it was repeatedly said Election 2000 would not be an issue in 2004. I thought that was the most arrogant thing a person could say two years from an election. How could anyone or any entity publicly imply he or they could control the election discussion. But of course it turned out to be an accurate statement.

While the theft of the election will always be an issue with me, you could have never convinced me I would watch the 2004 debate turn away the issue of the war. That too has occurred. Why? Because the Republicans have diffused it. That's why our anti-war candidates are dropping behind in the polls, and those who surge ahead discuss other things.

Jobs? The economy? Who discussed these issues today?

This election is not going well. Not well at all. The red flag is up. We are going to lose to Bush* if something doesn't turn around fast.

[kentuck]

5. Forgive them Samantha....they know not what they do.

They are naive. It is not in their hearts to go along with such manipulations. Without vision, we are lost.

[aintitfunny]

7. Your question begs a thoughtful response

And I am not quite up to the task at this late hour. But, the election holds hope for me. Hope that our newly selected leader, come the day after election, is one who will concern himself with the concerns of the average American. Rather thant the average huge corporate interest. I hope that he can bring international respect back to the U.S. I hope that he will address the needs so important to the majority: Affordable heath care, personal and national security and JOBS for the millions now unemployed or underemployed. I hope we can bring our service men and women home and we as Americans can honor their service to their country no matter our convictions regarding the regime that sent them where they come home from. I hope, and I am beginning to believe, there is light at the end of this terrible tunnel. Hope is not just a place Clinton came from. Hope is essential to our success.

[Samantha]

11. Thank you for your response -- your hopes are my hopes

Perhaps this election has become so personalized as to candidates we have lost sight of the issues. If that is true, we have been outmaneuvered.

Where are our strategists? Calling for our candidates to go home ....

We need to regroup and develop a dialogue that propels the issues of importance to us back to the political table. We should turn the debate away from the hot-button issues Rove insists will dominate the political talk. His issues are all issues that will get-out the right-wing voters, and they will vote us down and out ... everytime.

[mitchum]

8. Good to see that you guys are finally owning up to being manipulated

Christ, when I think of all the ruckus you guys raised about references to flavored drinks, Unification Church, Spahn Ranch, etc...

[Zomby Woof]

12. it amounts to this

We who don't like Dean = Weak, manipulated, gullible tools of the GOP/Rove/Propaganda/Media Machine, our gloppy pudding brains molded in the likeness of John Ashcroft, used for nefarious ends. :tinfoilhat:

[Samantha]

17. Oh no, you don't

I am an uncommitted voter. Anyone who has been at this site for any length of time knows I am a die-hard Gore proponent. I am uncommitted in this race.

As I said above, this is not a thread about personalities or candidates. This is question about issues and who is controlling the election.

I do not feel we are driving this debate at all. Karl Rove is. Are you saying you disagree with that statement?

[Zomby Woof]

22. I do disagree

I scoff at those who think Rove is some kind of mastermind who controls EVERYTHING wrong and evil coming out of the WH. Some people on this site are so paranoid, they think Rove pays people to post here. :tinfoilhat:

Rove is a calculating and conniving bastard, but he is NOT omnipotent and all-knowing. Makes the Left look like drooling fools when we get all paranoid and worked up about the almighty Rove. His power is more local and immediate in the WH, but he isn't faxing marching orders to anyone in the press, with the possible exception of Fox News.

Rove is not the boogeyman. He is just another two-bit crook and hustler in the Bush regime.

[LiviaOlivia]

28. Brother Zoomby, amen

When you're right...you are right.

[Samantha]

30. This thread is not about a specific person on the Left or Right

but I will say this: I have been following Karl Rove a long, long time. I think he does control a lot of extremely bad things coming out of the White House because he is Bush*s top political advisor. He takes what should be apolitical issues and decides them solely upon political outfall. He has, in my opinion, no sense of right and wrong, he is driven solely by determining what will win. He is, again, in my opinion, without ethics.

My question to you is this: who is controlling today's political debate: Karl Rove or you and people like you? What are the issues important to you, and are they currently under discussion?

[curse10]

46. Thank you!

Rove is a nasty little bitch, but he sure as heck isn't god.

[laruemtt]

66. btw how old is Rove and

how's his health?.....

[mitchum]

20. LOL!

[RobinA]

9. Is It So Impossible

to believe that the war is NOT the biggest issue for many voters?

We heard this "(name of Dem candidate here) is no different from (name of Repub candidate here) refrain four years ago and here it comes again. Anybody who thinks that Kerry/Clark/Edwards is no different from Bush just isn't paying attention.

People vote the way they must, and if you are this convinced that there's no difference, or no difference that is important to you, between the Dem candiates and Bush I guess you will have to vote third party or not vote. But don't paint the rest of us as "manipulated" because our values lie in a different place.

To be specific, at this point and for the purposes of my vote, I don't care if Kerry voted for the war. My belief is that a Kerry in the White House would not have stated this war in the first place. And I will vote for him because I want him in the White House before the nitwit can get us into more trouble. I'll vote for the presidential candidate who I think will do what I want as President, not as a reward for past behavior.

[Samantha]

19. It's difficult to believe the war and/or the economy are not the most

important issue in this election to most voters. If you say that is not true for you, I will of course believe you. My question then is, what is important to you?

You mentioned Kerry. Is this a question of personality to you or simply candidate preference; do issues not trump personalities when you determine for whom you will vote?

I do agree with your statement that people who see no difference between two contenders should consider not voting. Today's emphasis in elections is simply getting out the votes. Win at all costs. In civics classes gone by, people were taught if you have no preference and stay home election day, you are abstaining. I have said at this site I probably would do exactly that if I see running a George Bush* and a Bush* enabler. It seems much fairer to me if I see no discerable difference between two candidates to allow those who do to determine the outcome of the election.

This tread is not about people but about issues. If the issues important to me are not the subject of the election, I guess I will have to assume the days when elections were issue driven are days gone by.

[RobinA]

64. Well, The War

is an important issue for ME, but many people I hear talking don't seem to think it is THEIR big issue. They are happy that Bush went out and got himself some Arab butt to avenge 9/11.

I vote for a mixture of personality and issues. I want somebody who is going to be presidential, and that's personality. Especially this year, when as far as I'm concerned I'll vote for the kitchen sink if it can beat Bush. I believe that every Dem candidate except Sharpton is a better choice than Bush. I think a big part of success as President is personality.

I also vote intelligence. Seemingly unlike the rest of the country, I WANT the President to be smarter than me. I sure couldn't run this country, so the guy's gotta have something I don't have besides a law degree.

I vote issues if I have that luxury, but I have to be reasonable. I believe drugs should be legalized. Period. I don't vote that issue or I'd never vote. I am against the death penalty. In a toss-up I will vote that issue, and locally I do more often than not, but I can't be inflexible on that when the alternative to a pro-death candidate is worse. I'm pro-choice and I will not vote for an anti-choice candidate no matter what the alternative. I won't vote for an anti-choice dog-catcher.

Plus, you have to define "issue." My main worry pre-Bush was the Supreme Court. On balance, my candidate, Kerry, was a wimp on war, but I think he'd do fine with the Court. With Bush in office, I believe the best thing for the country is for him to be out of office. That's my #1 issue now. I want the most electable candidate to win the nom. I think that's Kerry or Clark. I thought it was Kerry or Clark before Iowa and I think its Kerry or Clark now. I have to admit to not being well-versed in Edwards because I didn't think he was an issue. Come November I will vote for the candidate. I'll vote twice if I can figure out how.

[KoKo]

13. Thanks Samantha! Just look at DU. Iraq Body Count has one post in LBN,

The "Omnibus Spending Bill" gets a couple of posts with few replies in GD.

All we have are Poll after Poll making DU sound like a Football game during the season with folks going back and forth for their team and being "up and down" and then coming back for more polls. Then the polls are argued over.

We've been "Roved" and "Gored" and pushed right where the Repugs wanted us. We are discussing "Gay Marriage" when "Civil Unions" is what is important. We are fighting over Guns when people are losing jobs and taking paycuts in the jobs they are able to hold onto.

The other Candidates took Dean and Kucinich's lead and co-opted their early defiance of the Bush lies, deceit, and dangerous policies.

Now they look like Dean and Dean and Kucinich have been turned into "out of the mainstream."

It was quick when it all happened. And, no one saw it coming the way it's played out. We were too busy worring about the Polls and the Game.

It's going to be many, many years before the mess we have in our Democratic Party get's straightened out. Because ABB is the choice of
security over reform. I understand why it's happened. But, I had hoped for more resistence. I still hope there's a chance that the "safe way, the electable way" will be held off for a few more months.

Otherwise, as Robert Byrd said about the behavior of the Senators who voted IWR. "We might as well hang a sign on the Senate door saying 'GONE FISHING." We might as well say: "Business as Usual--Gone Fishing."

[Samantha]

29. What an excellent response

and I agree on all points. Unfortunately, I was hoping someone would come on this thread and tell me I was all wrong. After reading your post, you confirm my worst thoughts.

ABB is I feel the DLC's outreach to reel in those who dissent against their corporate agenda. "Perhaps your candidate representing your views and issues will not be the one we run, but as long as we beat Bush* that's the important thing." THAT'S NOT THE IMPORTANT THING TO ME. Bush is what he is today because many radical people have influenced his opinions and actions. They sit near and work close to the White House. On the off chance we dislodge him from that chair he occupies, we do not remove those same influences who will likewise lean on his successor. Anyone now running against Bush* who has shown Bush* tendencies will likewise be vulnerable to yielding to those very same influences. So what will we have done to improve our lot if we replace the face of Bush* but not the policies of Bush.* We will have accomplished nothing.

Politics is not a game to me. Three years ago when my candidate did not take the White House it was a political disaster. Today, three years into enduring Bush*, the disaster is not simply political, it is personal. Bush* has his hand in my pocket, threatening my social securitiy, trying to force me into an HMO when I am 65, giving my employer Federal approval to work me extra hours without paying me for my time, threatening the ability of my offspring to lead a life of liberty and happiness, as the Constitution declares they have, ad infinitum. These should be topics of discussion here at DU, as you say. Instead we discuss how nice looking Edwards is, is he Kennedy-like, and the desirability of possessing ice skating skills.

Regarding the Omnibus Spending Bill, I immediately came home from work the day that passed looking to join the discussion and could not find it. I thought DU would be having a passionate talk about how this possibly could have happened, especially since just last weekend Dean had said Harkin would lead the fight against it, and people speculated nothing would pass this year, inasmuch as it was an election year. The reason I couldn't find the thread I was looking for is because it did not exist. I suppose that is the same reason I cannot find the discussion on the issues important to me -- it too does not exist.

[isbister]

14. Read the IWR

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1010res.htm

and review what your candidate has been telling you, might be helpful for you.

Dean is not the left-winger the media has told you he is (I believe he says that now, too). Kerry is not the right-winger I-don't-know-who told you he is. Go to http://www.johnkerry.com and read about his positions he has a long history to back up his vision of the future of America.

[KoKo]

16. Samantha's thoughtful, cautioning post, isn't about the Horse Race, it

goes to how we are are losing sight of why many of us came to DU in the first place. We came here because of a "Stolen Election." We came here because we were angry and we could find people who saw what we did, and we supported ourselves through the Bush Appointments that our Dems caved over and the elation over the Jefford's switch and then the Daschle types caved again and gave more to the Chimp --everything he asked for! We lost badly on the Mid-terms because of the spineless group of Dems and we are in Deficit and in a Bloody Invasion/Occupation because of these same spineless group of Democrats.

These issues are why we were here. I'm not going to forget them and no one here should. Maybe some would be happier over at the Yahoo Chats where you can talk about the Polls and trash each other.

[Codeblue]

26. What happens if.....?

Despite the fact that I like most of the democratic candidates this year, it is still looking like Bush will get the election in November. I haven't really decided if he actually will or not. At times it looked like he was being overwhelmingly supported but as new things surface it looks like he might not triumph. But it seems to me that this election (maybe not to many democrats) is more about voting on party lines than voting for the right candidate. As with the "Green" party's announcement to field a candidate this year instead of supporting a democratic candidate. For this reason, it looks to me like Bush will gain another victory this year. Which brings up a question I've been chewing on since last year.

What happens if Bush gets re-elected? Besides the obvious problems of less civil liberties and more bloodshed across the world, more lost jobs at home and more hatred from nearly every country on the planet, what will happen? Everyone is talking about packing it up and trying again in 2008...but what if there is no chance in 2008? Bush has already committed so many atrocities and violated or ignored many of our civil liberties that the entire democratic process in our country could be in jeopardy. Is everyone willing to just sit around for another 4 years watching homosexuals get persecuted, our natural environments ripped up for the profit of the rich, our loved ones sent off to die in remote corners of the world and have the government know every action and thought you have every day? My greatest fear is that George Orwell's vision in "1984" will come to pass. I don't know about anyone else, but if Bush is re-elected I will not sit idly until 2008. Another four years of that man will bring about irreversible atrocities.

[Samantha]

38. You know what Codeblue,

that theory of inevitability is one the Bush* coterie spread around following the election challenge in 2000. Conducting themselves with considerable self-confidence, the message they spread was that regardless what happened, Bush* would assume the Presidency.

That is exactly the same play they are instituting here. There's a depression among many Dems because they have bought into that sense that it is inevitable Bush* will be reelected. I think the Bush* White House knows they have a 50-50 chance or less. If they can convince Dems and Independents they are wasting their time by working against Bush* or voting against Bush*, many won't waste their time.

Don't buy into this. Anything can happen in politics at any time. Instead of allowing yourself to be brainwashed Bush* will win, brainstorm with the rest of us as to how we push the eject button on them.

[KoKo]

45. I think Bush & Co. are going to implode. But, I want a Candidate who will

overturn everything he's done. A Candidate who will come in and use "Executive orders" the way Bush did when he was installed. I want a Candidate who will "hit the ground running" and never stop until everything the BFEE/PNAC'ers have done to ruin our country and dismantle
decades of Social Progress is gone. And, I want prosecutions. I want the evil these people have done to our country to be exposed through litigation and trials and then jailtime.

That's what I want. Who will do this? Or, will we have a "caretaker over Bush's" policies and whining and handwringing that "oh dear...without a Democratic House and Senate, what's a poor Dem President to do?" We've had enough of spinelessness. We must have fighters!

[Samantha]

33. You understand exactly

This was the last best place to go to survey the political landscape. Now this landscape looks like that landscape. We are not even talking about the differences; we embrace the similarities, worse yet, some of us are voting for them.

Where is the purity of the conviction of our beliefs?

[isbister]

35. Re: ............These issues are why we were here......

Here is the "General Discussion: 2004 Primary" and the post was about the horse race.

I went through all that you and Samantha did albeit not here. I am well aware of what has happened to our nation. This is not directed towards anyone in particular but I cannot comprehend how anyone that was aware of what bush and the republicans did/have done cannot see through Dr. Dean. His exploitation of the IWR and misrepresentation of Kerry's position on the IWR does not make me happy. Dean knows what the Resolution says but very few I come across do. Being on the stump with Kerry for so long, being a candidate for President that was running against Kerry, Dean knows what Kerry's position on the IWR and the war were but very few I come across do. Dean purposely chose to drive a wedge through the Democratic Party for his own political gain. Being against the war is one thing but what Dean has done, and continues to do, does no service to the goal of removing bush. Dean's "Voted for War" and "Supported the War" statements are just plain offensive to me. This is bush's war, not John Kerry's war.

So, my remarks in this 2004 Primary thread were made in response to the myth about John Kerry and to some extent Howard Dean. I am sick of the misleader in the White House, am alarmed at the possibility of seeing him being replaced by another misleader. That is why I support John Kerry and I will continue to question any candidate contending to represent me in the general election, or their supporters, when they do not speak accurately.

I hate Yahoo! anything, always have, always will.

[Samantha]

40. You seem very sincere about your feelings on Kerry

so good luck in the campaign with your contender.

I do think you are being a little too critical on Dean but we can agree to see this differently, that's okay.

One problem I did have with Kerry that I have never openly discussed on this board is this: Kerry in attempting to explain his vote on the Iraq resolution once said he spoke to Bush* in private prior to the vote. Bush* gave Kerry his word of honor he would go first to the UN and get all the support we could get before he declared war on Iraq. Kerry said Bush* broke his word of honor.

Do you want to know what I honestly thought when I heard that? Why would you believe Bush* had any honor? I would have never taken George Bush* at his word on anything, and it's difficult for me to believe anyone in the U.S. Senate is that gullible. Just what is your take on this? Is Kerry naive about people?

I am not trying to be disrespectful to your candidate -- I am simply asking how you see this. And welcome to DU.

[Samantha]

31. Thank you for your input but

I have never thought Dean was a liberal and I have been very familiar with Kerry for some time now.

It's not about people or personalities; it's about issues. My point is this election is no longer about the issues of importance to me. Is it to you?

[isbister]

37. Every issue

the republican scum have put forth to drive our country back into the 1800's.

I understood your original point(s) but do not believe you are beginning from a correct base. This statement:

The Republican strategists and the right-wing element of the Democratic party have totally taken control of the debate. This is not a good sign for Dems in general. It does explain, however, how a candidate such as Howard Dean, formerly 20 points ahead in New Hampshire -- the leading anti-war proponent -- has now signficantly dropped behind a candidate who voted yes on the resolution authorizing Bush* to launch a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.

to me seems to absolve or discount Dean's own hand in his own downfall and those candidates voted to grant bush the authorization to use force if he met the specific conditions set out in the resolution. He didn't. When a Senator votes to support a resolution such as this, a Senator must beileve that the President of the United States will not violate it or he will be held accountable by the Congress for doing so. Kerry had the choice between two liars an American one and an Iraqi one and with all of the (cooked up) evidence given to him he had little choice but to send the American liar to the United Nations to ensure the Iraqi one was not.

No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act are not 100% bad and with just about any Democrat fixing them, they can be made to help America. And with just about any Democratic AG implementing them, the "loopholes" will not be exploitied to anywhere close to the degree that they are now.

Is it simply ridding the Nation of George Bush* (as the DLC is trying to brainwash you into thinking it is) or does it go a little deeper than that? Must we not only rid ourselves of Bush* but all those as well who dare to act, to talk, to think and to corrupt our American way of life?

This implies that you see Kerry as being a part of the group. I don't see him that way at all, I see him as offering us the possibility of the best American President this nation has seen since FDR/Truman. I know the bar of Presidents since then is not all that high but there has been a lot of damage done to this country since WWI and no President is going to be able to undo that in four year or maybe even eight years.

I also disagree about the election not being about people or personalities to some degree because the next President will not be able to fix all of the damage that has been done on his own. He's going to have to be the type of person that is able to work, and work with, Congress and or allies. I sure as heck wish the republicans took a better look at what kind of person their choice was last time. I'm no big John "Keating Five" McCain fan but really.

[babzilla]

24. The Beloved Community is what this election is about for me.

http://thekingcenter.com/prog/bc/

“The Beloved Community” is a term that was first coined in the early days of the 20th century by the philosopher-theologian Josiah Royce, who founded the Fellowship of Reconciliation. However, it was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., also a member of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, who popularized the term and invested it with a deeper meaning which has captured the imagination of people of good will all over the world.

For Dr. King, The Beloved Community was not a lofty utopian goal to be confused with the rapturous image of the Peaceable Kingdom, in which lions and lambs coexist in idyllic harmony. Rather, The Beloved Community was for him a realistic, achievable goal that could be attained by a critical mass of people committed to and trained in the philosophy and methods of nonviolence.

Dr. King’s Beloved Community is a global vision, in which all people can share in the wealth of the earth. In the Beloved Community, poverty, hunger and homelessness will not be tolerated because international standards of human decency will not allow it. Racism and all forms of discrimination, bigotry and prejudice will be replaced by an all-inclusive spirit of sisterhood and brotherhood. In the Beloved Community, international disputes will be resolved by peaceful conflict-resolution and reconciliation of adversaries, instead of military power. Love and trust will triumph over fear and hatred. Peace with justice will prevail over war and military conflict.

Dr. King’s Beloved Community was not devoid of interpersonal, group or international conflict. Instead he recognized that conflict was an inevitable part of human experience. But he believed that conflicts could be resolved peacefully and adversaries could be reconciled through a mutual, determined commitment to nonviolence. No conflict, he believed, need erupt in violence. And all conflicts in The Beloved Community should end with reconciliation of adversaries cooperating together in a spirit of friendship and goodwill.

As early as 1956, Dr. King spoke of The Beloved Community as the end goal of nonviolent boycotts. As he said in a speech at a victory rally following the announcement of a favorable U.S. Supreme Court Decision desegregating the seats on Montgomery’s busses, “the end is reconciliation; the end is redemption; the end is the creation of the Beloved Community. It is this type of spirit and this type of love that can transform opposers into friends. It is this type of understanding goodwill that will transform the deep gloom of the old age into the exuberant gladness of the new age. It is this love which will bring about miracles in the hearts of men.”

[Cocoa]

25. the media hates John Kerry

they are NOT propping him up. If they're not ignoring him, they're trashing him.

And NONE of the dems candidates resembles Bush, in any way.

This is Bush we're talking about. Worst president in history, remember?

[HazMat]

62. Exactly. The media

is forced to cover Kerry now because the people of Iowa stood up and demanded them to.

[IndianaGreen]

27. I will say that there is an imperialist wing in the Democratic Party as...

there is in the Republican Party, and they are not about to let a bunch of human rights and international law knee-jerkers ruin the gravy train for them.

The election is already fixed! Whether Bush or Kerry wins is of no consequence for they are both Bonesmen, and they both represent the imperialist wing of their respective parties.

[Samantha]

34. Well you are exactly right on both points

and you made them very well. Who are your supporting?

[IndianaGreen]

36. I am supporting all of the candidates that did not vote for IWR

Dean, Clark, Kucinich. I am not supporting Sharpton any longer because he is still the same racist demagogue that he used to be. I don't see Sharpton asking Jeanne Shaheen (a Kerry backer) how many African-Americans she had when she was Governor of New Hampshire. Do you know why? Because Sharpton was put up to it by Kerry!

[Samantha]

42. Now that's pretty interesting

I should have realized Sharpton would not have researched something like this (but Kerry's staff would have). Was this your gut telling you this or did I miss something?

[IndianaGreen]

44. It was my analyst's instincts

which I have used in our country's service in and out of uniform.

[janx]

32. Both the media and the right wing want this primary race to

go on for as long as possible. The media wants the coverage, and the wingnuts want the Dem candidates to spend as much money as possible before the general election.

[Printer70]

41. You are 100% right

The DLC and their contacts in the media have manipulated us into believing that the only way to win is to nominate someone as close to Bush as possible- to "blur the differences". The truth, as evidenced by our losses in 2002, is Americans want a contrast not an echo. What happens if we nominate a pro-war corporatist? No real reason to vote on Election Day. Nader's campaign is looking better every day.

[Polemonium]

43. Excellent post

Fear is for sale from not just the republicans, but the corporate giants scare us not only that we will be ugly without their product etc., but that change is futile. The fact that the DLC is also selling fear, turning electability into the main issue of this campaign is tragic. Remember what you stand for and what you believe in, then fight for it. Failure to do this turns us into corporate pawns. The civil rights movement was not easy, but it was fought. Are you going to fight the corporate fat cats, something you believe in, or are you going to let fear continue to control your every action? Democracy is about voting/ advocating/ working for what you believe in, not for what you are afraid of.

[Samantha]

51. I could not agree with you more

Rminds me of something a caller on C-Span said yesterday. I found her remarks riveting because I had posted virtually the same sentiments on DU the night before. It thrilled me to find someone had exactly the same take on the turn of this election debate that I had, but from reading some of the comments here, I find she and I are not alone.

Dean is a threat not only to Bush* et al., but to the right-wing element of the Democratic party as well. They too have embraced the Corporatists and the greed issues; the election to them is all about power and control. By retaining power and control in Washington, DC, one maintains a very tight grip on the direction in which the Country turns. There's very little difference in the way these right-wing Dems spin us and the way the ultra-right wing radicals spin us. The elevation of a grass-roots candidate financing a campaign through not corporate sponsors but through average contributions made by middle-class and low-income people is a very real threat to the politics-as-usual crowd. And that's why the media, also owned by prominent corporate interests, suppresses the mainstream message of our rebel, insurgent candidates, but blows out of proportion silly, meaningless gaffes.

This drive to control the debate will only succeed if we allow it to. Thus my message "We, the Manipulated" are words simply to make us all remember who we really are. We are the people who want a change of direction orchestrated by one preaching a message that speaks to our political ideals.

Thank you for your contribution to this thread. I hope you keep thinking about how we can attempt to turn the discourse back to issues important to us as opposed to the frivolous which appears to be surfacing to the top to distract us.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Kick for insightful post.

The republicans and the DLC want this election debate to be about the nice "safe" issues. The DLC wants the same thing. Some Democrats would like to sweep the IWR and Patriot Act under the rug and give the guys who voted for it a pass in the name of "Unity" and "ABB". Some of us aren't buying it.

The invasion and subjugation of Iraq and the consequent thousands of deaths that have ensued from it is the issue. Not to mention the cost in money that could have been used to enhance the lives of the American people and people around the world.

[drfemoe]

49. I'm not sure who your post is addressing

I was going to tell you why I think B*** is running all over the country (Dem primary states) trying to shore up his falling poll numbers, why he is now suddenly afraid of "Democrats". But you've repeatedly asked for no names to be used, so I won't. I will tell you that my candidate is talking about the issues, right now, everyday, and hasn't stopped to go play ice hockey.

[Samantha]

50. I AM interested in what you have to say about Bush* attempting to

shore up his poll numbers. Go ahead and let us know if you think he thinks he is in trouble.

I am not trying to keep people from mentioning their candidates. I just wanted to start a thread not to fight over, for instance, Dean versus Kerry, but to remind everyone at DU that we had issues that were very important to us and this is the time when we need to ensure those issues are held up to the political light and examined by all voting angles. If your candidate, whoever that might be, is discussing the issues you personally feel are top priority, let us know who that is and what those issues are.

Many people come to DU threads to fight. I come here to politically think out loud. My goal with this thread is to ask the question, who is currently framing the debate of today's election: the voters, the candidates, the strategists, the pundits, who? In this process are the most important issues to us remaining in the political spotlight or are they being suppressed in favor of issues that the Republicans can win that are of a lesser substantial texture?

What do you think?

[drfemoe]

52. He is running scared

I don't have a current link for this story. Yahoo reported it from AFP, it was sent to me via email.
(regretfully snipped for copyright compliance)

MANCHESTER, United States (AFP) - Refusing to cede the stage to Democrats campaigning for the January 27 New Hampshire primary, Republicans are sending top party officials -- including US President George W. Bush to campaign in the state.

Bush was due in the Granite State Thursday -- two days after the first in the nation primary -- to host what the White House is calling a "conversation on the economy."

Other senior Republicans were also making the rounds in New Hampshire, ...

"People said they were tired from hearing from just one side and they were anxious to hear from the president's side," said Jennifer Millerwise, spokeswoman for the president's re-election campaign.

Earlier this week, the president visited Ohio and New Mexico, two key battleground states what is expected to be a closely contested general election in November and he is due to visit Arkansas on Monday before traveling to New Hampshire." end quote

Keep in mind that B*** is touring the country on our dime, many times charging off additional security costs to the locality. Meanwhile I read at John Marshall's site that Kerry is not sure what February 3 states he is going to be competitive in because of lack of cash. Al Sharpton has a press release on his site which reports his letter to Terry McAuliffe that he is in it all the way to Boston, though he may only compete in two or three primaries. Howard Dean is revamping ads to refocus his spending for the greatest return.

He was in NH this morning at a packed "Women for Dean Event", speaking about the issues that define the "Democratic" party. The People do care about the issues, desperately. This has been the key to Dean's campaign non-stop. (You can probably view the tape later at cspan.)

I've already posted on other threads this morning about the dirty tricks some candidates (or possibly Rs) are undertaking in NH, including calling Independents and telling them they are not allowed to vote on Tuesday. The NH attorney general is investigating. Democrats in New Mexico have been denied absentee ballots, but assured they can vote if they show up at the caucus with proof of voter registration.

If you skip the GD2004P forum most of the time, you may not know that Dean has been credited by many for giving the Democrats a "spine transplant" (implant IOW). There has been a lot of encouragement for him to now quit, turn over his campaign funds and let the "real" Democrats take over. The DLC, last week, published their article distancing themselves from Dean (actually blaming him for causing them some trouble), and cheering on the true *inspiring* candidates. (does not included Kucinich or Sharpton)

I am one of a growing legion of Independent voters, and I do not owe my loyalty to any Party. My concern is for our country, and each and every citizen. I've been a Dean supporter since the first time I heard of him because he was not Afraid of B***. I'm here at DU because ideologically, I share the *stated* goals of the Democratic party. I only wish the practice exemplified the statements. I have lived through the past three years in horror, the same as most DUers. Until I walk into the election booth in November, I am not even trusting that I still have the right to vote in this country.

Dean is the only Democrat I can support against gwb because he is the only one who stands up to B***. I think B*** is only afraid of the "Democrats" now because of the very man a lot of them claim brought a backbone to the race, Howard Dean. It has become apparent to me that you can give a worm a backbone, but that won't give him the ability to stand up and walk. I only wish more of the Democrats in the Houses had scared B*** a little bit.

It is so wonderful to run into someone like you here at DU, someone who actually wants to listen. I could go on for hours. Now that you've given me a chance to think out loud, I may have an answer to your original question. And it should have been apparent. Just as We the People are shaking in our boots thinking about another four (or more) years of B***, B***'s "special interests" are a little up in arms with the prospect that they may lose their chief enabler. It is a struggle between We the People and the Powerful Special Interests, global corporations, primarily, including the media, who want us powerless and with just enough monetary power to keep their schemes on track. (Dean, btw, has threatened the conglomerate media corps, while B*** and our elected officials have increased their power to control information.)

I am only interested in a candidate who will not continue to sell me and my fellow Americans to the highest campaign donors. It is critical. B*** knows this. He has a tendency to run up debts and favors and making other people pay for them. We really want our country back, our WHOLE country.

[Samantha]

55. I am thrilled to read your response and have a suggestion for you

Cut and paste most of this text and start it as a separate thread. Try to frame the Subject as something which will attract posters not to flame you but to walk along through your reasoning process in an effort to understand why you support the candidate you do. Invite thoughtful commentary and you might be pleasantly surprised.

Your post is very informative and I don't want your words to be buried in a thread slowly slipping into the Archives. People like you who are willing to think out aloud, share their perspectives and invite civil discourse are in great demand here.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on my thread; I hope you go on to share them with the rest of DU who might have missed this discussion.

[PatrickS]

53. Great post!

[Samantha]

56. PatrickS, you are SO bad,

and I am laughing my head off. This is a great cartoon and very precise way of cornering the debate!

Thanks for a much needed Yehaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!

[Ripley]

54. Great post. The manipulation that bothers me the most

is the whole "tough on defense" issue. I'm a Dean supporter but I actually like Clark, however I'm appalled that so many people have allowed the Repubs to drive them scared like little children into the arms of a General or the Lt. Kerry. They are allowing the debate to be framed. Just because a lot of Americans are concerned about terrorists and security, that doesn't mean it takes a veteran to be the leader. And looking at the drip-drip of truth coming about regarding how this administration inflated, exaggerated and outright lied about why we had to go into this war...makes the repubs even WEAKER at this point on national security. They have squandered our dwindling resources on the wrong goddamned war! They are costing civilians and soldiers their lives on a daily basis for what? They have no plan to end this quagmire. That is weakness folks. That should be exploited by the Dems...if anything it should highlight that military bruteness and being the only SuperPower are not exactly looked upon as positives in the world today. 90% of the rest of the world saw this invasion as WRONG. The only people who see this as Smirk's strength are 1) the sheeple who wave flags and praise Jesus the Lord, even while their sons are being slaughtered for Halliburton profits and 2) the people who think they need to "counter" the sheeple by having a strutting warrior of their own. Both groups ignore the majority of people who have more brains than they are given credit for.

[Samantha]

57. Boy, this is a well-reasoned analysis

I am really surprised at the depth of comment this thread has invoked from posters I have not previously encountered here at DU. Your first few lines say exactly what I had been thinking -- I am not looking for a face of war; I am looking for a face of peace.

I do not try to take anything away from those who have performed acts of heroism in times of war but I am looking for a political soldier who can perform acts of heroic peace, keeping the American people basking in their Constitutional right to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as opposed to chronically asking ourselves, why do they hate us, why do they want to kill us. And yes, we are so manipulated on the national security arena, it's a national embarrassment.

More discussions such as these I believe only bring out the best in Dems and create a sharp, positive contrast when placed along side the image of all that is Republican. Thank you for your response.

[bigtree]

59. Leave No Child Behind and the Patriot Act

Leave No Child Behind: Ted Kennedy voted for it.

Patriot Act: Paul Wellstone voted for it.

Ted Kennedy,just another George Bush?
Paul Wellstone, just another George Bush?

DLC?

[mzmolly]

60. The thought of returning power to the *people* was more then the rethugs

and media could bare. The media controls our minds to a greater extent then we want to admit. You are spot on here :thumbsup:

I think we need a new slogan for Dean relating to the media choosing our candidate(s). Got any good ones? :P

[HazMat]

61. If it was up to the media Dean would've been the nominee

but luckily the people of Iowa had something to say about it.

The right wing didn't beat you, democracy did.

Iowans voted to send a president to Washington, not just a message.

[bigtree]

63. "pro-war candidate"

John Kerry has not characterized his IWR vote as pro war. All of his statements before, during, and after the vote express opposition to unilateral, preemptive invasion. Indeed, John and others were able to get language inserted in the bill to that effect. Nothing in the resolution authorizes the unilateral, preemptive rush to war that the president dragged the country into.

I challenge anyone to show that the president lived up to the requirements in the resolution that mandated that he return to the U.N. and seek an international consensus.

I further challenge anyone to show that the president didn't already have the authority to commit forces that decades of presidents have used to put troops in the field without congressional approval.

Bush insisted all along that U.N. Res. 1441 was all of the authority he needed. He didn't want the resolution. He was forced to come before Congress because of the wavering support in the U.N. And what did Congress do in the resolution. They sent him back to the international body. He disregarded the restraint implied in the resolution and pushed past Congress, the American people, and the international community in his rush to invade and occupy.

This election is about putting that authority in the hands of someone more responsible. As far as I am concerned, any of our Democratic candidates will represent our country with the best of the values and committment that our party represents.

[Samantha]

68. All you say is true, BUT

Kerry also said he spoke to Bush* privately before he signed the resolution. Kerry said Bush* gave him his word of honor he would seek the approval of the U.N. prior to declaring war, and that he would seek the support of our allies. Kerry said Bush* broke his word.

We actually had many discussions at this site on this subject prior to the invasion. One poster in particular said many of us did not realize how Hillary and Kerry had boxed Bush* in on this subject. My response at that time, prior to the invasion, was that if Hillary and Kerry actually thought Bush* could be trusted they were terribly naive and bad judges of character. When Kerry actually came out later defending his vote and offering the fact Bush* broke his word of honor, it was beyond my imagination that Kerry actually believed Bush*. Observing Bush*s conduct during the election 2000 controversy, and observing his many deceitful maneuvers since occupying the White House, how could anyone, much less a Senator, think Bush* was a man of honor?

I am not making these remarks to offend you, just offering my thoughts on the subject by way of explanation. I do agree with you that any of the Democratic candidates would make a better President than Bush.*

Thank you so much for responding to this thread and sharing your opinion. I am sure many of Kerry's supporters agree with your analysis. Good luck with your candidate.

[mmonk]

67. If we elect a candidate

that doesn't ask the hard questions concerning our democracy concerning all that's happened in this country and only wants to debate a few economic issues rhetorically, then there is no real opposition party in America and the republic is dead.

[LoneStarLiberal]

69. It's About Winning, Then Doing

If you are visiting this political site tonight, I ask you: what is this election about for you? Is it simply ridding the Nation of George Bush* (as the DLC is trying to brainwash you into thinking it is) or does it go a little deeper than that? Must we not only rid ourselves of Bush* but all those as well who dare to act, to talk, to think and to corrupt our American way of life?

Before you can change anything you have to win the election. Taking your own platform for granted and taking the infallibility of your candidate for granted is a sure way to lose before you ever have a chance to change anything.

That's why I'll be voting for whichever of our wonderful candidates wins the nomination though I fully intend to fight right down to either acceptance of the nomination by my candidate, Wes Clark, or my candidate quitting the race.

I don't see how that logic plays into "DLC brainwashing." Without elected office, revolutionary ideas and good intentions are worthless for anything other than cred within our own community.

I think a fundamental point that everyone screaming bloody hell on all the Senators who voted for No Child Left Behind and the PATRIOT Act misses is that this is only a crippling liability within the liberal community. Most Americans who now oppose these things were also in favor of them at the time they were voted on in the Senate. What better spokesmen to have for the anger of being deceived to speak to those who are feeling deceived than those who were deceived?

In order to get to the kind of corporate-busting, socially-progressive country that I want to see I know I have to take steps along the path to get that result. You don't simply go from George Bush to Dennis Kucinich; our political system is predicated on compromise and moderation. The Republican Party did not get to where it is today overnight; they've been building and working on this religious/business coalition that we're saddled with today for the better part of the last 20 years. They didn't seize this ideological ground all at once; they nickeled-and-dimed us to get to this point.

We're simply not going to be able to win elected office at the highest levels in the country (Senate (in a few exceptions) and the Presidency) by running on a radically progressive platform. In order to get there, we have to nickel-and-dime our enemies across the isle, and that takes a plan, a coalition, and agreement to that plan across the coalition.

[stuzzy]

70. This post makes me think back

to the 2000 election. I remember a debate between Gore and Bush where they went back and forth. I support this, I also support this and so on and so on. So much of this that I think the moderator or someone suggested there wasn't much difference between the two of them. I remember the candidates being so civil towards one another that Bush actually at one point said it felt like a "love fest". Again, this was four years ago so forgive me if I get the details wrong, but perhaps you get my drift?

I always considered myself an independant voter, no party allegiance, taking each candidate on a case by case basis. I voted for Gore because I felt he was the lesser of two evils, not because he inspired me to vote for him. The only person who inspired me during the whole primary/campaign of 2000 was John McCain, simply because I felt he stood up for what HE thought was right, and not what some poll said the American people thought was right, In other words, he staked out a position and stuck to it, regardless of the consequences. Had he won the primary against Bush I can tell you I would have been voting republican. I didn't agree with all of what he stood for but what he represented, in my mind(Integrity and Intellectual honesty) was something that resonated strongly with me. Sometimes I don't agree with McCain in the Senate but he does break from the party when he feels something is wrong and he does stand up for what HE believes in and not just do what he's told.

There is only one candidate this time around who has made me feel the same way and has inspired me to that level of commitment to his campaign. I won't mention his name here because this thread doesn't seem to be neccesarily about the candidates, but rather what's important to me (or you) when I go to the polls. Since I came to DU and have started poring over the posts, I will say that I get the same feeling from Kucinich, but I'm sticking to my man. You Kucinich supporters though, ROCK ON! (I feel a fondness for this little guy, longshot he may be)

Bush's leadership has pushed me farther towards the democrats than I have ever been. It seems to me there is no room in this election for independant voters in this country, you're either with Bush or against him, and there is no in between. I consider Bush to blame for this as I feel he has not considered the 50% of America who did not vote for him when has made policy decisions, instead ruling in an arrogant way that makes it impossible for me to support him, no matter how many of his policies I may agree with (none btw). Perhaps I am stupid and naive for thinking that a president should represent all of America and not just the 50% that voted for him. I don't know. Am I?

What's important to me when I vote? Integrity and Intellectual honesty. Don't stake a postion in one state, then stake an opposite one in another state, just to attract votes. Don't try to "appear" moderate in one state, then "far left" in another. If you make a vote in the Senate or House, then stand by that vote, don't run from it or try to explain it away as a mistake because it seems fashionable at the time. You voted for it, or against it, so you must have felt strongly about your position, and if you didn't feel strongly about your position, then you have no business being there in the first place. If you make a mistake, own that mistake and take responsibility for it. Tell the American people the truth, not what you think they want to hear, based on what state you may be campaigning in. I am more attracted to a candidate that tells me something I don't want to hear in my heart, but what I know to be true in my mind, rather than someone who tells me something that I want to hear in my heart, but know to be false in my mind. Have a set of issues that you stand behind firmly. I stand behind some issues also, maybe not all on the democratic side (slam away if you must) but most definitely not all on the republican side. Fact is, someone who shows Integrity and Intellectual honesty can garner my support, even If I don't feel the same way he does about everything. I do have to identify with a candidate on certain issues also. I don't just vote for whoever and this is not the only thing I look for, but it is the thing I RESPECT the most.

I understand that minds change, positions change. New information comes out all the time, shedding new light on issues all the time. What seemed like a good vote last year turned out to be a bad vote after all, for whatever reason. Own up to that.

"Yeah I voted for that, seemed like a good idea at the time, but wow, look at the repercussions. Now it seems like I was mistaken and I need to rethink my position."

Or

"Yeah I made that statement a couple of years ago, but since then I've looked at some more information, talked to some more people, and I've been convinced that my position was wrong. So now I think this way."

I would love to hear that from someone in government, but how often do you? People make mistakes, it's a human trait. Politicians don't think Americans can handle the truth, I think they are wrong. It seems to me that anytime a candidate who firmly believes in something and stands by his convictions appears on the scene, he garners a lot of support, and then is soon squashed by the powers that be.

I don't post here a lot, but I read here constantly. I don't post because I learn more by reading. I'm not bashing any of the candidates here, I'll keep my opinions about them to myself and to the numerous threads already existing. I want to believe in something bigger than myself. I want to feel like I am making a difference. I want a candidate who makes me feel empowered, shaken up, passionate, courageous. If you want my vote, then I need to feel that you believe the words that are coming out of your mouth and feel VERY strongly about them. I'm sorry to ramble on here, and maybe my post is stupid, maybe I even strayed. I am sorry, but I had to put my 2 cents in on this one. I identify with a candidate on the issues first, then I rate his Integrity and Intellectual honesty on the issues second. No politician ever scores perfect on this. None. Some get close though, those are the ones I pay attention to.

[Samantha]

71. Welcome to DU stuzzy and thank you for your comments

I saw your words maybe my post is stupid ... but I had to put my 2 cents in on this one. This is why I started this thread, trying to encourage people to post what is important to them in an election. Here at DU political passions run high over loyalty to a candidate, and in the ensuing keyboard to keyboard wars, the issues become muddled. You responded exactly as I hoped some DU'ers would, simply pouring out your political priorities and thoughts, so I want to make a special effort to address your points.

Regarding the 2000 debates, sometimes it is very important to place incidents like this in their specific time context. Not to do so distorts the overall relevance. I believe your take on the debates is one many people had; my take is very different because I think back to restrictions asked of the candidates and concessions they made prior to the start of the election campaign. We entered that election at one of the most bitter, polarized times in our election history and much was made of running a civilized debate. A promise was extracted from the candidates to run a clean campaign. Al Gore stepped up to the plate and promised not to indulge in the politics of personal destruction. Much to his credit, and being a man of high integrity, he lived up to that promise. Running against a man whose political advisor specializes in smear techniques, this promise ultimately worked to Gore's disadvantage because when the Gore is a liar refrain, Gore claims to have invented the Internet, Gore claims Love Story book based on him accusations commenced, Gore did not step out and defend himself. He assumed most intelligent people could assess these type remarks exactly for what they were. Unfortunately, they got out of hand and worked to his detriment. Because Gore made a concerted effort to live up to his pledge, his performance in that first debate was not all it could have been, although many academics viewing it scored him as the victor, simply on the issues. The debate overall was constrained however, by the I-will-be-very-civil pledge.

Only by doing one's political homework during the election 2000 campaign, could a voter differentiate thoroughly between the two parties. Many voters do not do this because it is too time consuming. They rely on certain sources, for instance, in the South, their churches, their pastors, for information on credibility of candidates, but in these days of anything-goes politics, nothing can be trusted as purely accurate except for the research into the facts for oneself. That includes information you might get here at DU (though most of it is extremely accurate and backed up by links, a small part is sometimes simply passion driven and must be looked into further....)

I felt the same way as you about John McCain, even though I do not agree item-for-item with McCain on the issues, I certainly appreciated his straight-talk. Remembering the absolute ugliness of the primaries in South Carolina and New York during the 2000 primaries, how do you feel about the fact McCain will be campaigning for Bush* this evening? Do you feel putting party loyalty above one's own assessment for the pary candidate is a commendable quality or a quality reminiscent of a mob mentality? Frankly, I go with the latter, but many here would disagree with me. After all, winning at all costs is the name of the game, so many people say. I personally believe in the Wellstone tradition of voting one's conscience, and I will not allow my party to dictate my choice of vote if the candidate bearing the party standard does not represent my interests. These are personal preferences and not simple rights or wrongs in determining how one will excercise his or right to vote. I suspect from your post you and I might agree in this area.

Many people encouraged Bush* to govern from the middle when he started occupying the White House because he was not elected by a majority of the voters and thus had no mandate. Bush* decided instead to listen to the radical influences found within the Republican Right and has implemented many extremist policies, to the absolute horror of the 51 million people who had their votes negated by the Supreme Court. Additionally, some moderate Republicans in whose interests the Supreme Court acted are openly starting to rebel against these same Bush* policies and certainly one might say there is a dawning among the right that the polarization existing in this Country is detrimental to both sides of the aisle. I like you also believe honesty and integrity are of the utmost importance but we probably are in the minority on this. Also high up on my wish list for a candidate is high intelligence and a supreme command of the issues; very low on my wish list and/or non-existent on my wish list: nice looking, fresh face, charasmatic personality. I prefer the characteristics of substance over the superficial.

Yes, I believe there is an element within the government who feels that the American people cannot handle the truth; but I believe there is in this current administration a larger element that believes the American people are not entitled to the truth. The fact of the matter is that they work for us, not the other way around, and this system of checks and balances laid out by our Constitution dictates that no one branch of the government usurp or negate the responsibilities empowered to the other branches so that too much power does not become too centered in any one arm of the government. This is the opposite of what is happening today; we see the Republican element within the Congress leaving the Democrats out of discussion negotiating important pieces of legislation and we see the same Republicans attempting to stack the Supreme Court with right-wing ideology. We currently have 7 Republican judges out of a total of 9 on the Suspreme Court, yet that is not enough for those extremists. Granted some of these Republicans have turned out to be a lot more moderate than the radical right would have liked but that is beside the point. The entire court should be appointed by them in their view, acting as its puppet.

I think I could take a guess who your candidate might be judging by the requirements you list. I do not think your candidate will win because he is an anti-establishment candidate who cannot be controlled by the business-friendly party elite on the left, or the business-friendly radical right. Any politican who is unwilling to play the game as it is supposed to be played as opposed to how the average American person perceives it should be played is doomed to be condemned by the corporate media and will not receive the sponsorship of the party mechanics.

Thank you for opening up your political heart on this thread and daring to openly say what is important to you. It's very theraputic sometimes to think out loud as opposed to doing keyboard combat, and you seized the opportunity to do just that. I hope to read more of your posts in the future. Thank you for your response.

[stuzzy]

73. Thanks Samantha

I think perhaps you are right about the 2000 election. I did do research about the candidates, I knew the difference. I found it hard to get excited for either after getting excited about McCain.

I was disappointed to see McCain stump for Bush then, and now. But I believe he traded off for his campaihn finance reform bill, which Bush didn't touch and let pass, falsley thinking the courts would strike it down. Perhaps McCain thought he do more good from inside the party rather than as an outcast, and he has since. McCain voted against the overtime bill and has helped rein in attempts to let the media moguls run rampant across our country in their attempt to merge even more. Sometimes he has even been a vocal critic of Bush which is especially striking to me since it seems republicans in the House and Senate are forced to "toe the line" these days. Bush is paying for this now with growing criticism from within his own party. I feel that despite his (McCain) campaigning he still continues to be a force for good from within his own party and should not be discounted because of his support for Bush. He is after all, a republican.

Yes chances are you guessed my candidate, perhaps he won't win the primary, perhaps he will. As I write this response the NH is still underway. I will have a hard time voting if he doesn't win. For the second election in a row, I will feel the political system has failed to live up to the hype and let me down, and I will be thouroughly convinced that America will be headed into a downward spiral, dominated by special interests and self serving politicians. Of course, I'm probably just being overdramatic, but then again, last night I cried a bit when I thought that my candidate wouldn't make it. I guess we'll see what happens eh?

[Desertrose]

72. we are manipulated if we let ourselves be...but not by Rove

yeah, he has his share of influence but this whole mess we are in is so much beyond Rove.

For lack of a better term, I'll refer to them as TPTB are far beyond one person. It is years of ultra conservative money people who control everything, from media to gov't to medicine/pharmaceuticals, oil, banking you name it. They have turned this country- with our willing participation I might add- into a world I no longer recognize.

We are fed unnatural food that no longer nourishes our bodies ( hell, it can actually make you sick) ,so we have illnesses and disease and need medications of all sorts....it keeps us docile and well, shucks, if that doesn't,why then there is the wonderful 40hr workweek and now- with no more overtime. "Hey my friend, just put that new truck on your creditcard...we can work you such a deal you'll be paying on that baby for years, but see your friend over there, he's got one so you better go ahead and sign right here on the bottom line."

We are slaves...wage slaves...and we think we are doing so well...really?? Take a look at the crap (and that is the gentlest term I can find) for what goes out on the airwaves. No thinking no writing talents involved here- just get a bunch of fame starved people, put a camera in front of em and wtch em do their little drama...or even the "big stars"..lets find out every tiny detail of their lives so we don't have to live our own....more dumbing down and keeping us distracted from what is really taking place.

Things and appearances and self importance and....and....and....

We are losing who we are, little by little, all for the glory of those few at the top,while the attitide of I have mine, I don't really care if you get yours as long as it doesn't come from my pile.


This isn't all Rove's doing...don't give him the credit...it is WAY bigger and more pervasive. The media is in on it too...they are sucked in like all the rest..its about ratings nad money...yeah...bottom line, its about money, wealth....watching it all flow towards fewer and fewer and have them tell us "we are doing just fine"...Sure are, for a bunch of mind dead brainwashed workers..yup, we are just peachy.

So, I am telling you that by "blaming" Rove..it is still another copout. The ones we need to blame happens to be us....for allowing this to happen....and the only ones who can get us out of this mess really is to be awakened "we the people" .

I am for any candidate who will truly wake us up and give us the way to climb out of this sad place we have come to....but the only candidate I have seen who truly sees the larger change is Dennis Kucinich.

If you are on DU- there is no excuse. We have access to some of the best truth & info on the web...and some of the best posterd for helping find these truths...I like Dennis Kucinich's line..."eyes that see through the lies"...we all have to do that for ourselves. It is time for discerning the truth from the lies....but I do feel we can do it.....

OK rant over :)

Peace, DR

[Sterling]

74. Yes the fix is in.

I see it the same way you do and I won't play a long. I sent Dean some money last night but if Kerry or another pro war candidate gets it I will not be sending any money and I cannot promise my vote. I will not be part of the scam fake choice of war or war for our future.